User talk:Kittycat

This page is automatically archived by Archiver

Welcome (sticky)

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, Kittycat! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 11:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Sign yer posts

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 03:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Ancap

But taxation isn't actually theft, it's rent to live on a government's property according to the terms of the (social) contract. Now ancaps claim that they never signed such a social contract. But then they're admitting to trespassing on someone else's property and violating their own non-aggression rules. So either they can sign the contract and pay rent to their rightful landlord, or they can violate their own rules. If ancaps don't like paying "taxes" to a particular government, they can freely choose to voluntarily find a new landlord. Ancaps don't have the right to trespass on other people's property. Ancaps' own arguments can be used against them to justify the status quo!

The social contract is such garbage, though. If I'm born into Nazi Germany, have I signed the contract and agreed with Nazi Germany's laws -- or, more realistically, are most people (regardless of specific country) just stuck in the system they're born into because of poverty, indoctrination, and inability to move?

According to ancap rules, yes! I'm not saying I agree with a "social contract", only that it is consistent with "anarcho"-capitalism. In ancap society, a landlord can make contracts with tenants that look exactly the same as current social contracts. The tenants can sign a contract where they agree to pay rent, they agree to let the landlord intervene in disputes between tenants, they agree to make their status hereditary (like automatic citizenship for children), they agree to let the landlord change the terms of the contract, basically just like we have now.--Kittycat (talk) 05:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

As a comparison I always liked: let's say you wake up in a car, speeding 100 MPH down the freeway. The driver says that they didn't coerce you into getting into the car, and that you're free to leave at any time. Yet if you do, you face (probable) severe injury and a much worse life. Most people can't expect to move between countries and have it work out well -- especially those made worst off by the social contract, the poor and disenfranchised.

I'm just pointing out that private "voluntary" contracts can end up looking exactly the same as the involuntary social contracts we have now. I'm not saying I agree with that situation. --Kittycat (talk) 05:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

And you can't justify it by saying that people are "trespassing", when that assumes (1) a social contract to already exist and (2) that the government rightfully owns the land it claims to own. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 04:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

If (1) is false, then what right do ancaps have to be on whatever land they're on? Are ancaps saying they homesteaded that land themselves? (2) can be debated, but even if the current governments own land illegitimately, you can still get situations like the above in an anarcho-capitalist society. --Kittycat (talk) 04:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Autopatrolled (sticky)

Because of your edits to and time on the wiki, Autopatrolled has been added to your user rights. This lets you bypass most of the abuse filters, bypass the CAPTCHA, and edit more frequently. If you have questions, bleat ask away.

We hope you enjoy your newfound POWER — and these external tools:

• Google Scholar Button ^{(Chrome, Firefox)} searches your highlighted text in Google Scholar. Easily check academic citations!
• web.archive.org and archive.today, among other tools, can save permanent copies of webpages. Never lose a crank website or racist Tweet ever again!--JorisEnter (talk) 11:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi.

It is possible that I missed the point of an article you recently created, and if I did I apologize. But in case I didn't, you might want to read RationalWiki:What is a RationalWiki article?.

But welcome to the wiki anyway! Cheers. :-)--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 16:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Your recent articles

Weight loss pills and Cyanocobalamin are stubs. I suggest that you flesh out your articles in your sandbox before post them.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC) 05:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

That's the extent of my knowledge on those particular topics. If anyone else can add more information they are free to do so at any time.--Kittycat (talk) 05:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Well you can always add suggestions to the to do list.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC) 05:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Stop creating ultra-stubs

Like OwlMan, I was concerned to see how you created your new articles Weight loss pills and Cyanocobalamin. There is in fact an unwritten minimum recommended length-and-brevity for articles that an editor just tosses out without apparently doing any concerted effort to work further on them (see mob rule on the deletion of Cyanocobalamin). New articles are great, but these aren't articles. These are deletion-worthy über-stubs. Please don't make more of them. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@KittyKat: in general, it is not worth writing an article that uses only your personal knowledge, because most people on RW already agree. Thus, the article needs MORE than mere personal knowledge, but needs to add to the knowledge of others. What is needed are reputable sources to back up whatever the article claims -- which requires researching the topic. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 16:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)