NationStates Jolt Archive

If you all want to listen then I can begin to tell you. If you want something, why can't you steal it? If you want something emotionally, why can't you steal it? I don't want to know why but where, and when. If you get me? Its something to do with the mouth only being there to Eeeet I think.

I went to the dentist today and now I can no longer feel my mouth.

Damn him.

I went to the dentist today and now I can no longer feel my mouth.

Damn him.
I know that you like it easy-easy style but lets kick it please?

If you all want to listen then I can begin to tell you. If you want something, why can't you steal it? If you want something emotionally, why can't you steal it? I don't want to know why but where, and when. If you get me? Its something to do with the mouth only being there to Eeeet I think.

Practically, you can't steal because people tend to defend their property quite tenaciously.

For a wider-scale economic reason, if everybody were allowed to steal, nobody would be able to own anything or effectively buy or sell. Everybody would turn to thieving, and all the people who had previously occupied themselves growing food, making clothes, building houses and so on would stop doing it and just hit the streets for some robbery. Pretty soon nobody would produce anything, just steal it, and then there would be nothing to steal. Society would collapse.

Practically, you can't steal because people tend to defend their property quite tenaciously.

For a wider-scale economic reason, if everybody were allowed to steal, nobody would be able to own anything or effectively buy or sell. Everybody would turn to thieving, and all the people who had previously occupied themselves growing food, making clothes, building houses and so on would stop doing it and just hit the streets for some robbery. Pretty soon nobody would produce anything, just steal it, and then there would be nothing to steal. Society would collapse.
That is a fallacy. "You can't steal because people tend to defend their property quite tenaciously" Stealing is not practical, but it is also not impractical, and people would tend to fall down. And not live for as long as a stick maybe?

word to memorize
words hypnotize
words make my mouth exercise
words all fail the magic prize
nothing I can say when i'm in your thighs

That is a fallacy. "You can't steal because people tend to defend their property quite tenaciously" Stealing is not practical, but it is also not impractical, and people would tend to fall down. And not live for as long as a stick maybe?

Fair enough, but even if stealing is easy, the reason society prevents it is the one I specified in the unquoted part of my post.

Fair enough, but even if stealing is easy, the reason society prevents it is the one I specified in the unquoted part of my post.
He quoted your entire post.

I rarely steal. But sometimes I hijack.

For instance, I'm going to have my nephews over all next week because my sister is going to Minnesota for some sort of business crap. I hope to have them completely corrupted by the time she comes back. :)

If mouths are only for eating, does that mean my penis is only for pissing, or ejaculating?

He quoted your entire post.

My bad. I meant the bit he didn't address. The second paragraph.

My bad. I meant the bit he didn't address. The second paragraph.
Even if society breaks down and thievery is rampant, there will always be the suckers who will have honest work.

Even if society breaks down and thievery is rampant, there will always be the suckers who will have honest work.

I don't think there will be. In a lawless society, it's easier to steal a sack of grain than it is to produce one. It would make sense from a personal point of view to go out and rob someone.

I don't think there will be. In a lawless society, it's easier to steal a sack of grain than it is to produce one. It would make sense from a personal point of view to go out and rob someone.
Yeah, but you always need the sucker to keep producing the grain. Otherwise we'd run out and canibalism would become rife.

Ah, I miss Papua New Guinea soo much.

I don't think there will be. In a lawless society, it's easier to steal a sack of grain than it is to produce one. It would make sense from a personal point of view to go out and rob someone.
That scenario is only applicable in some ideal, geographically uniform prairie world where everyone is constantly interacting with each other. If society breaks down there surely will be some people who escape to an undisturbed, secluded area and find productive work in farming or something. Later on thieves would chance upon this honest settlement and sack it.

Yeah, but you always need the sucker to keep producing the grain. Otherwise we'd run out and canibalism would become rife.

Ah, I miss Papua New Guinea soo much.

That was my point. Cannibalism would run rife, because everbody would find it easier to steal than to produce.

As for the idea of a secluded farming homestead which thieves would only eventually sack, why would these secluded people bother to build it if they knew it was likely to be chanced upon by thieves? Why wouldn't they just go out and thieve themselves?

That was my point. Cannibalism would run rife, because everbody would find it easier to steal than to produce.

As for the idea of a secluded farming homestead which thieves would only eventually sack, why would these secluded people bother to build it if they knew it was likely to be chanced upon by thieves? Why wouldn't they just go out and thieve themselves?
You are assuming that the honest farmers, or anyone for that matter, has perfect knowledge of market forces and environmental conditions. The fact is, in a chaotic situation no one knows what exactly is going to happen. Perhaps the farmers believe that their homestead is sufficiently secluded that no one will ever find them. Perhaps they think they can defend themselves if they do get attacked. They don't just "know" that their settlement would be found and attacked by thieves. No one can see in the future, and their optimism can cause them to persevere in their work. No matter how unstable the situation, there will always be those who take a risk and settle down as honest laborers, and there will be those who turn to thievery (which carries risk too of course).

We call bits of cow beef, bits of pig pork. What would we call a slice of human meat?

You are assuming that the honest farmers, or anyone for that matter, has perfect knowledge of market forces and environmental conditions. The fact is, in a chaotic situation no one knows what exactly is going to happen. Perhaps the farmers believe that their homestead is sufficiently secluded that no one will ever find them. Perhaps they think they can defend themselves if they do get attacked. They don't just "know" that their settlement would be found and attacked by thieves. No one can see in the future, and their optimism can cause them to persevere in their work. In such an unstable situation, there will always be those who take a risk and settle down as honest laborers, and there will be those who turn to thievery (which carries risk too of course).

It doesn't take a genius to realise that if there are bands of thieves roaming the countryside, it's probably not a good idea to set up a business.

Sure, a few cases of this might happen, but I reckon that there would not be sufficient farms remaining to feed all those hungry thieves. Just think - every time a farm is sacked, that farm becomes useless. The farmer is probably killed or his means of production destroyed or damaged. Even if it isn't he's probably not going to just start farming again. He'd realise from experience that if he farms, he's gonna get pillaged.

It's only going to take so long for thief bands to ransack their way through pretty much all the farms that exist within a reachable radius of them.

Once all the farms have been pillaged and razed, the thieves would resort to eating berries, eachother, or just starving to death.

It doesn't take a genius to realise that if there are bands of thieves roaming the countryside, it's probably not a good idea to set up a business.
If a band of farmers have a bunch of shotguns and thousands of rounds of ammo lying around, why is it improbable that they might take the chance with their work and hopefully fight off any danger out there? Thieves will always be the minority of the population.

Sure, a few cases of this might happen, but I reckon that there would not be sufficient farms remaining to feed all those hungry thieves. Just think - every time a farm is sacked, that farm becomes useless. The farmer is probably killed or his means of production destroyed or damaged. Even if it isn't he's probably not going to just start farming again. He'd realise from experience that if he farms, he's gonna get pillaged.
This situation is not as simplistic as you make it out to be. It isn't "farmer sets up farm, thieves come and kill them." Sometimes the farmers win an encounter with robbers, therefore encouraging the farmers to keep going with their hard work. And just because a farm is damaged a few times over the years doesn't mean the farmers will just give up because there will always be some resilient people who are confident that they will survive.

It's only going to take so long for thief bands to ransack their way through pretty much all the farms that exist within a reachable radius of them.
How? I think if modern large scale society were to break down most people would probably congregate into small settled populations for their security and relative stability. Only a few would set out as robbers. Settled populations, with their primitive governments and localized societies, would likely fight off most thieves.

Once all the farms have been pillaged and razed, the thieves would resort to eating berries, eachother, or just starving to death.
Once the population density plummets many thieves would just pick up farming because there would be good land everywhere but no one to cultivate it.

How? I think if modern large scale society were to break down most people would probably congregate into small settled populations for their security and relative stability. Only a few would set out as robbers. Settled populations, with their primitive governments and localized societies, would likely fight off most thieves.


If that did happen, it wouldn't represent social breakdown. If thieves were going to be beaten back by these smaller governments, then thieving wouldn't be lucrative, and they'd settle down and stop stealing. The thieves would be beaten by the law abiding citizens of these smaller settlements, the settlements would grow into cities, and eventually civilization would come right back to where we are now.

That scenario is only applicable in some ideal, geographically uniform prairie world where everyone is constantly interacting with each other. If society breaks down there surely will be some people who escape to an undisturbed, secluded area and find productive work in farming or something. Later on thieves would chance upon this honest settlement and sack it.

...Assuming this settlement doesn't have a wall of spears around it and many people with magical weapons that spit fire and smoke with which to make mincemeat out of said thieves' faces.

Is there any difference between this hypothetical settlement and a country anyway?

If that did happen, it wouldn't represent social breakdown. If thieves were going to be beaten back by these smaller governments, then thieving wouldn't be lucrative, and they'd settle down and stop stealing.
Theft has always been lucrative, that is why many people engage in it even today's highly organized communities. If modern society breaks down and civilization becomes scattered and decentralized, thieving will become even more lucrative. But your scenario where everyone is a cannibal-thief is impossible, because even in a chaotic situation there will always be the people who work, and there will be those who steal. No law of nature or even common sense compels absolutely everyone to work hard and work honestly.

The thieves would be beaten by the law abiding citizens of these smaller settlements, the settlements would grow into cities, and eventually civilization would come right back to where we are now.
Of course when settlements use force to steal from each other we legitimize it as "war" and such theft is glorified.

...Assuming this settlement doesn't have a wall of spears around it and many people with magical weapons that spit fire and smoke with which to make mincemeat out of said thieves' faces.

Is there any difference between this hypothetical settlement and a country anyway?
There is no difference. That is why Dogburg's hypothetical situation where everyone is a cannibalistic thief is impossible. Instead, we will always see lawless people and orderly people.

...Assuming this settlement doesn't have a wall of spears around it and many people with magical weapons that spit fire and smoke with which to make mincemeat out of said thieves' faces.

Is there any difference between this hypothetical settlement and a country anyway?



There is no difference. That is why Dogburg's hypothetical situation where everyone is a cannibalistic thief is impossible. Instead, we will always see lawless people and orderly people.

*coff*
Jolt's forums require a little more effort for multiple quotes to work properly than the old NS forums, as you may have noticed by now.

We call bits of cow beef, bits of pig pork. What would we call a slice of human meat?

Whatever you like. There's no logical system to it. For example, we call chicken meat "chicken". But I think with cows & pigs, the animal name comes from germanic roots, but the meat comes from french. However, since "human" is from latin, not germanic roots, you can't use the same method here, unless you get a new name for "humans". I think old english for human is "man" though, so you'd need another new word for "man"!

We call bits of cow beef, bits of pig pork. What would we call a slice of human meat?
Delicious.

We call bits of cow beef, bits of pig pork. What would we call a slice of human meat?

I call mine George.

Delicious.
You sick little man! But seriously I would never eat this garbage, but i would eeeet something similar to it. So there.

Repeat after me: I shall not gravedig.

Repeat after me: I shall not gravedig.
It took me a while to think of an answer.

It took me a while to think of an answer.
Didn't this time, did it?

Didn't this time, did it?
No.

WTF the fuck? Who unleashed the forum spade tonight?