Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

It sucks being healthy!!!

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
    You are so brainwashed. For every statement I make, you come up with another statement to cover your previous tracks. It's like a Christian explaining away every hole in their philosophy.
    Brainwashed? LOL By who?? I think you're projecting because that makes NO SENSE whatsoever.

    Ok, explain the difference between "choosing which government to be under" in a voluntary society and in modern civilization.
    In a voluntary society you can choose to not participate in any sort of community or tribe or organization or group; in today's society, you have no choice. You are a part of the one and only choice whether you want to be or not. Today, you can choose which plantation you want to live in for the most part, but you are still enslaved.
    | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

    “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams

    Comment


    • Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
      "Consensus, decentralization, and federalism" are tenants of direct democracy, so you're not describing anarchy.

      Groups are a massive problem in anarchy. Want to know why? They've set up some form of government within their own group, so by working together with these rules, they have a massive competitive advantage against any other lone citizen. This makes the lone citizens group up. You can witness this phenomenon in any city with bad gang problems. It takes a grand unification of these gangs into an umbrella government for semi-peace to exist. Gang (aka tribal) violence is never ending and quite brutal.
      People choose to join those gangs though. Just like people choose not to join them. You can't choose to not be in the state's gang in one way or another. You can't compete with your own currency, you can't not go to their schools, you can't keep your earnings, you can't live anywhere or build anything without their permission. You don't own the land you purchase, you rent it from them. You don't even own your vehicle unless you have the certificate of origin which is almost impossible to get!
      Last edited by j3nn; 09-13-2013, 10:43 AM.
      | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

      “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams

      Comment


      • Originally posted by diene View Post
        First of all, the non-aggression principle does not prevent competition. I don't see how applying the non-aggression principle will prevent competition from occurring in public. What does that even mean? There will still be markets, and there will still be competition. In fact, in the absence of government regulation, there will be more competition, not less.
        Originally posted by diene View Post
        This is because, our current system is really one of corporate socialism, where government regulations help large corporations by making it too expensive for smaller businesses to enter the market and compete effectively (regulatory compliance is expensive). Additionally, when big corporations or financial institutions screw up and fail, government bails them out because they're "too big to fail." This also makes it difficult for smaller businesses to compete because their bigger competitors aren't being eliminated by their own incompetence; rather, they continue to exist because of government bailouts.
        No, our system is a democratic republic. Hasn't this been established?

        Originally posted by diene View Post
        Bill Gates can't even dominate the software market. How do you expect him to lord over the entire world?
        Without anti-trust laws, he is free to buy up every competitor and own all software. He would probably be a literal god at that point. *Pray to God Gates, lord of the software*. However, this is still an irrelevant point.

        Economics 101: Economics is the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities. Without infrastructure and a government which helps protect all parties, nothing large can be produced, nothing large can be distributed, and nothing large is then consumed. Only basic barter can exist.

        Originally posted by diene View Post
        You keep making these conclusory statements without supporting them with any real argument. How does anarchism remove competition and power structures from the public eye? You mean the Internet would no longer exist, and people will no longer be able to obtain information on anything so that everything will be shrouded in secrecy? Why would you assume that?
        Government existed prior to internet, believe it or not. You are correct that everything would be shrouded in secrecy though. Why would a person with power give away some of their power? Secrecy is power.

        Originally posted by diene View Post
        What makes you think that all businesspeople are selfish and destructive? Are they any more selfish and destructive than the people who run the government?
        Selfishness is a continuum, not a yes or no answer. Furthermore, it's an extremely advantageous trait in competition. It only takes a few selfish businesses to force almost every other business to become the same. This is the lowest common denominator that humans naturally fall to unless rules are put in place by governing bodies. These types of things are called destructive competition because the competition forces a weaker product.

        Originally posted by diene View Post
        Why can't an anarchist society of more than 200 people exist? What are you basing this conclusion on? And why does there have to be violence between different societies? Your statements are ridiculous. They're all conclusory statements that aren't supported by anything.
        I'm going to revise my statements of anarchist societies existing. Even a tribe was not anarchy. It was direct democracy.

        However, why do tribes not exist beyond 200? I do not know exactly *why* the number is around 200, but there are probably many studies that seek to answer that question. I know our brains can only remember roughly 150 faces, so that could play a role. Looking at history, tribes normally split up somewhere between 150 to 200 people.

        Originally posted by diene View Post
        I'm not advocating a return to tribal life.
        No, you're advocating a return to chaos prior to tribal life. Chaos that was never evolutively part of our timeline. We went from proto-tribes to tribes, like packs of dogs who began to speak to each other. Chaos is partly a modern phenomenon because more people are dumb enough to think it could work and because governments are much bigger so chaos is much greater and longer when they crash. Chaos surely existed in primeval times, but it was rare and undesirable.

        Originally posted by diene View Post
        And I never said that humanity should stop learning, creating, exploring, and striving to achieve its greatest potential. Nor does anarchism imply that. Where are you getting this from? You're just making things up.
        Wtf did humans learn, create, explore, and achieve for 190,000 years prior to beginning civilization?
        Wtf did humans learn, create, explore, and achieve for 198,000 years prior to the common era?
        Wtf did humans learn, create, explore, and achieve for 199,500 years prior to the renaissance?
        Wtf did humans learn, create, explore, and achieve for 199,800 years prior to industry?
        Wtf did humans learn, create, explore, and achieve for 199,970 years prior to computers?

        Each step was a growth in human potential, and each growth required more public governmental oversight to meet new challenges.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by j3nn View Post
          People choose to join those gangs though. Just like people choose not to join them. You can't choose to not be in the state's gang in one way or another. You can't compete with your own currency, you can't not go to their schools, you can't keep your earnings, you can't live anywhere or build anything without their permission.
          Yes you can! Choose to not join them, and see what happens. You can either join another country, or you can fight them yourself.

          Sounds tough, huh? Maybe you should start a gang to support this new lifestyle. But what, that wouldn't be an anarchist system if you have any rules within your gang, and what gang works without rules?

          From your standpoint, yes, the government is a gang. That's life.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by j3nn View Post
            In a voluntary society you can choose to not participate in any sort of community or tribe or organization or group; in today's society, you have no choice. You are a part of the one and only choice whether you want to be or not. Today, you can choose which plantation you want to live in for the most part, but you are still enslaved.
            Homeless people aren't enslaved. Why don't you just become homeless? Then, you will never have to worry about any sort of community or tribe taking away your god-given liberties.

            Comment


            • I would like to add an addendum to my "what is wrong with America" thread. Every American should get in at least 10 fistfights, and then they will know that forceful competition is inevitable.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
                Yes you can! Choose to not join them, and see what happens. You can either join another country, or you can fight them yourself.
                That's an act of aggression. If everyone defended themselves, much like 50% of households in Switzerland, these situations would be nearly nonexistent.

                From your standpoint, yes, the government is a gang. That's life.
                That's outmoded life. The way of the future is in voluntary exchange. Slavery is so 17th century BS.
                | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

                “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams

                Comment


                • Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
                  Homeless people aren't enslaved. Why don't you just become homeless? Then, you will never have to worry about any sort of community or tribe taking away your god-given liberties.
                  Homeless people are arrested all the time, what makes them exempt from violating the law? Police brutally beat homeless people all. the. time. Enough that it's not rare, anyway. I'd argue that many homeless people have even less freedoms than those with a home.
                  | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

                  “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by j3nn View Post
                    Homeless people are arrested all the time, what makes them exempt from violating the law? Police brutally beat homeless people all. the. time. Enough that it's not rare, anyway. I'd argue that many homeless people have even less freedoms than those with a home.
                    How is an arrest or beating different from tribal violence though? Even on the street, where you work for no one and survive off the land almost like a hunter-gatherer, they find there are still rules.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
                      How is an arrest or beating different from tribal violence though? Even on the street, where you work for no one and survive off the land almost like a hunter-gatherer, they find there are still rules.
                      Unless it is self-defense, violence is an act of aggression, why do you believe that humans cannot evolve past resorting to physical violence to solve all of their problems? Even the military is getting over that; wars of the future (if governments still existed) will be fought with robots and A.I. You are living in the past, my friend.

                      The one and only universal rule: The non-aggression principle. That's the only rule needed. No rulers needed to enforce it. People can learn to practice and enforce it themselves without turning to a gang that has a monopoly on violence to do it for them.
                      | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

                      “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by j3nn View Post
                        That's an act of aggression. If everyone defended themselves, much like 50% of households in Switzerland, these situations would be nearly nonexistent.
                        Would you consider Gandhi to be aggressive?

                        Originally posted by j3nn View Post
                        That's outmoded life. The way of the future is in voluntary exchange. Slavery is so 17th century BS.
                        It's currently not outmoded. Government sustains all infrastructure which holds modern civilization together.

                        The *future* is actually an interesting question, but it's not as simple as slapping wishful, naive thinking onto it. Technology will surely continue to improve. If we reached a singularity, stuff will change, and I haven't thought enough about it to decide what it might look like.

                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by j3nn View Post
                          Unless it is self-defense, violence is an act of aggression, why do you believe that humans cannot evolve past resorting to physical violence to solve all of their problems? Even the military is getting over that; wars of the future (if governments still existed) will be fought with robots and A.I. You are living in the past, my friend.

                          The one and only universal rule: The non-aggression principle. That's the only rule needed. No rulers needed to enforce it. People can learn to practice and enforce it themselves without turning to a gang that has a monopoly on violence to do it for them.
                          Are arrests not self-defense provided by the state?

                          And I don't believe humans always resort to physical violence. I do believe they are completely tied to competition, of which physical violence is only a form. Political and economic aggression are just as brutal as physical aggression, only they are more indirect. There's no way any silly "non-aggression principle" is going to keep all people from competing. Aggression is a competitive advantage and will always exist because of the human arm race.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
                            Would you consider Gandhi to be aggressive?
                            If he ever violated the NAP in any way, then yes. I have no gods or demigods. No one is sacred and exempted from the NAP, in my view.

                            It's currently not outmoded. Government sustains all infrastructure which holds modern civilization together.
                            BS. All smoke and mirrors. Capitalism holds civilization together far more than the state does. If the state disappeared tomorrow, no one, except government employees, would even notice.

                            The *future* is actually an interesting question, but it's not as simple as slapping wishful, naive thinking onto it. Technology will surely continue to improve. If we reached a singularity, stuff will change, and I haven't thought enough about it to decide what it might look like.

                            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity
                            My husband works towards bringing singularity to fruition. It's a controversial subject. I do know that if the state conquers that frontier first, it will not be good for humankind.
                            | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

                            “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by j3nn View Post
                              Unless it is self-defense, violence is an act of aggression, why do you believe that humans cannot evolve past resorting to physical violence to solve all of their problems?
                              If only we could make people better and kinder and gentler than humans have ever been before...
                              The Champagne of Beards

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
                                Are arrests not self-defense provided by the state?
                                There are many, many instances of unprovoked violence from police and other government agents towards non-violent and innocent victims. How many drug raids must happen where police break into people's homes, kill their dogs, shoot aimlessly at anything moving, only to be at the wrong address and not be held accountable? That's only one example.

                                There's no way any silly "non-aggression principle" is going to keep all people from competing. Aggression is a competitive advantage and will always exist because of the human arm race.
                                NAP is not a guarantee that all people will be civilized. There is no such thing as Utopia under any ideology. You must learn to protect yourself and your property, but we must change the hearts and minds of people through education, not through archaic physical methods.
                                | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

                                “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X