To clarify the fight would only go on until one guy gives up, is knocked out or dies.

Does anyone else think it's a shame that "no rules" fighting is no longer a thing(think bare fist boxing, pankration and the no rule martial arts tournaments of ye olde japan)?

So would you support some sort of no rules fighting competition. something where martial artists and fighers could go and actualy fight each other? just two people in a ring allowed to do anything to KO the other guy.

i fully support this.

technocracy has no qualms with homosexuality.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] Atlas Shrugged is the answer to that question, the story of Hank Rearden particularly. The immoral and amoral use guilt as a weapon to control the moral, and it works on the philosophically confused (such as Rearden). There is also the threat of a gun to control those who are immune to guilt.Laihendi

You seem to be describing how the immoral and the non-person defend their own existence.

My question is: why does the superior moral conscious individual let "them" do that? Wouldn't it be in the moral conscious individual's best interest to remove threatning parties?

So in what category do you put the altruist? Immoral conscious individual? Non-person? Moral conscious individual?

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] Since the standard of morality is life qua man, then the advantage of morality would be life qua man. The immoral create a world of slavery, whether it be in the form of democracy, dictatorship, or whatever else. That creates an intellectual vacuum where great minds cannot thrive and so the things that give us pleasure in life cannot come into existence.Laihendi

So why does the moral conscious individual suffer the existence of the the immoral conscious individual and the non-person?

You seem to be describing how the immoral and the non-person defend their own existence.

My question is: why does the superior moral conscious individual let "them" do that? Wouldn't it be in the moral conscious individual's best interest to remove threatning parties?

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] The conscious individual has the potential to be moral and the potential to be immoral. Morality is not relevant to a non-person, so they are amoral.Laihendi

what advantages does the moral conscious individual have over the immoral conscious individual?

So why does the moral conscious individual suffer the existence of the the immoral conscious individual and the non-person?

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

Lai you never answered my question.

Is the conscious individual moral and the Non-person immoral?

Laihendi

what advantages does the moral conscious individual have over the immoral conscious individual?

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

I know you have a hard-on for inflexible totalitarian government. I merely alluded to one such government.

worlock77

Technocracy is anything but inflexible.

democracy is inflexible, tyrany is inflexable and constitutions are inflexable, NOT technocracy.

I'm going to bow out now, as I don't particularly care to derail this thread with another discourse on your particular pipe dream.

says the one who brought up politics in the first place.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="redstorm72"]

Yeah, except we have these things called "rights". It's kind of what our society is based on. Also, how is permanent removal a "solution"? What exactly does it solve? How to blow even more money on incarceration or how to destroy any legitimacy of the constitution? Anyway, these people did their time, so I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to teach. Firing them would only stigmatize them further and make it more likely they would go back to criminal activity.

redstorm72

"rights" don't exist, they are just words. At best an individual can have a privilege given by a higher party.

In a technocratic system no money would be spent on the removal of violent individuals as we would be free of the price system.

The constitution is an idiotic and stagnant document holding back the American people.

..... Ok

*backs out of thread slowly*

this is a forum... foreign views should be expected and welcomed.

If you aren't willing or can't defend your ideals from challengers how legitimate are your ideals?

Their music gives me stomach and head pains...don't know why, their music isn't that bad.