Page 39 of 67 FirstFirst ... 29373839404149 ... LastLast
Results 381 to 390 of 668

Thread: It sucks being healthy!!! page 39

  1. #381
    wiltondeportes's Avatar
    wiltondeportes Guest
    Primal Fuel
    Quote Originally Posted by Derpamix View Post
    What a joke. The fact that human nature is hierarchic in a hierarchic society does not mean that a hierarchic division of people among different tasks is necessary for social life. It's not the capitalist institutions which satisfy human needs. It is the working people of capitalist society who shape themselves to fit the institutions of capitalist society.

    Your idea that civilization always defaults to a state, or a government, is metaphysical, non-empirical, ahistoric definition based on no facts and useless assumptions. Your entire post was full of slippery slope fallacies. Explain your stance on why this takes place, and leave your useless assumptions behind. Not interested in answering loaded questions.
    Ok... slow down, buddy. I wish you could see the irony in advocating Nietzsche and libertarianism or anarchism at the same time.

    My comment that libertarianism being anti-social does not mean a "libertarian society" (in quotes because one never has and never will exist, except as defined loosely and in tribes) wouldn't be social. I meant that being anti-government often equates to being anti-society, which equates to being anti-social. If you're anti-government and still social, you probably either don't work hard enough for your 'ideals', or you are friends with a bunch of other dumb or questionable people too.

    Capitalist institutions and working people within the society satisfy human needs as well as human goals. In fact, capitalist institutions are fundamentally made of humans. Artistotle's very definition of citizenship is to become a (small) part of the institution itself.

    When did I say civilization defaults to a state? According to my definition, civilization *is* a state. Anything else, aka tribal living, is not civilization; therefore it is uncivilized. The features of modern civilization can *only* exist with a state though. Perhaps that is what you were referring to. Are you saying that's non-empirical? I believe I'm 100% backed by empirical evidence. As we moved from the stone age, to the bronze age, to the iron age, to the industrialized age, to the computer age, the need for the state has increased. Why? Because all of these advancements have made it easier for individuals to exponentially increase their power over others. Government helps protect the 99% from the 1%.

    That last little emotional burst was nice because I'm ready and psyched for any kind of heat, but I'm not sure you can bring it.

  2. #382
    wiltondeportes's Avatar
    wiltondeportes Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Derpamix View Post


    pls go with this overdone statist bootlicking argument.
    I can't watch right now. Please paraphrase.

  3. #383
    wiltondeportes's Avatar
    wiltondeportes Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Derpamix View Post
    if the people had the ability to organize themselves, some would choose communes and others would choose capitalist areas. As long as no government were involved, no one would be coerced into doing something that they don't want to. No useless taxes, no "social contracts" which I never signed, no brainwashing. People need to be liberated from enslavement. Their minds must be engaged.

    Isolated examples don't mean everyone. People are already beginning to wake up. There is no phantom guiding me, there is just a need for freedom and affirmation for potential. Only the state and war mongering private corporations want war. Obama for example is a war criminal in every example of the term.

    Do you ever wonder why the state slanders and yet fears anarchy and freedom so much? Hint: it's not because people are inherently violent savage creatures. They're the only violent savages around.
    LOL!! Do people not have the ability to organize themselves today? Go live with the Aborigines in a commune, or stay with modern civilization.

    I think you're just paranoid of the state, and you don't see the give and take it has affected on your life.

  4. #384
    Derpamix's Avatar
    Derpamix is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    5,332
    Quote Originally Posted by wiltondeportes View Post
    I can't watch right now. Please paraphrase.
    A common defense of the State holds that man is a “social animal,” that he must live in society, and that individualists and libertarians believe in the existence of “atomistic individuals” uninfluenced by and unrelated to their fellow men. But no libertarians have ever held individuals to be isolated atoms; on the contrary, all libertarians have recognized the necessity and the enormous advantages of living in society, and of participating in the social division of labor. The great non sequitur committed by defenders of the State, including classical Aristotelian and Thomist philosophers, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State.[29]

    On the contrary, as we have indicated, the State is an antisocial instrument, crippling voluntary interchange, individual creativity, and the division of labor. “Society” is a convenient label for the voluntary interrelations of individuals, in peaceful exchange and on the market. Here we may point to Albert Jay Nock’s penetrating distinction between “social power” – the fruits of voluntary interchange in the economy and in civilization – and “State power,” the coercive interference and exploitation of those fruits. In that light, Nock showed that human history is basically a race between State power and social power, between the beneficent fruits of peaceful and voluntary production and creativity on the one hand, and the crippling and parasitic blight of State power upon the voluntary and productive social process.[30]

    All of the services commonly thought to require the State – from the coining of money to police protection to the development of law in defense of the rights of person and property – can be and have been supplied far more efficiently and certainly more morally by private persons. The State is in no sense required by the nature of man; quite the contrary.
    Time is passing so quickly. Right now, I feel like complaining to Einstein. Whether time is slow or fast depends on perception. Relativity theory is so romantic. And so sad.

  5. #385
    wiltondeportes's Avatar
    wiltondeportes Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Kochin View Post
    I'd say that 80% of everyone I've ever met (across 3 countries, 40+ cities/towns/villages and Gods know how many cultures) panics in a situation of non-authority and seeks the authority of another before acting. It's why fashion trends emerge, why certain celebrities are loved or hated, how fads are formed, why people stay in abusive relationships, how pseudoscience is believed...etc
    Even in areas where there is no official authority, people look up to others. The most 'popular' choice becomes the popular authority. This authority can then get away with a metric-shit-tonne more abuse than your run-of-the-mill person can. Think of the 30bad crew. One normal person on the forums says they can't quit cooked food? Attacked by the community. Banned by the 'authorities'. People accept the decision. Their 'leaders' start eating cooked food? Cooked food good. Or of some of the dumb fashion trends people follow. Everyday person wears a bright pink jacket? Pink's not popular. Pink bad. Gross. Unfashionable. Don't be seen with it. Celebrity/local popular person/fashion designer wears a bright pink jacket? Bright pink jackets sell out. Everyone seen in one at some point. Everywhere makes their own version to sell. That same person who was 'gross' before, who is still just wearing the jacket because they want to? They're hot now.

    Hell, I've worked out that, if you stand nearer the edge of the curb when waiting to cross, 8/10 people waiting next-to/behind you will NOT cross until you do so. When it's safe to cross before a car and I wait on the curb, the person behind me waits. When I step out and quickly move past a car that was getting pretty damn close, that person decides it's safe to cross and walks out after me. I've almost got people run over by doing that and sprinting in the last minute. Thrilling to watch such imbecility.

    Most people choose to be ruled in matters where ruling is not enforced.
    I agree with everything except the last sentence. This is the utopia that has never happened: "in matters where ruling is not enforced". Perhaps in small matters, there is no rule. But with anything of importance, there is *always* rule, whether there is a state or not. This is because everything in the plant and animal kingdom is capitalist in nature.

    You may just be referring to trivial things like crossing the street, but I wanted to point that out because it was relevant to the discussion.

  6. #386
    Derpamix's Avatar
    Derpamix is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    5,332
    Quote Originally Posted by wiltondeportes View Post
    Ok... slow down, buddy. I wish you could see the irony in advocating Nietzsche and libertarianism or anarchism at the same time.

    My comment that libertarianism being anti-social does not mean a "libertarian society" (in quotes because one never has and never will exist, except as defined loosely and in tribes) wouldn't be social. I meant that being anti-government often equates to being anti-society, which equates to being anti-social. If you're anti-government and still social, you probably either don't work hard enough for your 'ideals', or you are friends with a bunch of other dumb or questionable people too.

    Capitalist institutions and working people within the society satisfy human needs as well as human goals. In fact, capitalist institutions are fundamentally made of humans. Artistotle's very definition of citizenship is to become a (small) part of the institution itself.

    When did I say civilization defaults to a state? According to my definition, civilization *is* a state. Anything else, aka tribal living, is not civilization; therefore it is uncivilized. The features of modern civilization can *only* exist with a state though. Perhaps that is what you were referring to. Are you saying that's non-empirical? I believe I'm 100% backed by empirical evidence. As we moved from the stone age, to the bronze age, to the iron age, to the industrialized age, to the computer age, the need for the state has increased. Why? Because all of these advancements have made it easier for individuals to exponentially increase their power over others. Government helps protect the 99% from the 1%.

    That last little emotional burst was nice because I'm ready and psyched for any kind of heat, but I'm not sure you can bring it.
    civilization is not what people do in a authoritarian society. a few make decisions and the rest follow orders; some think and others do; some buy other people's labor and the rest sell their own labor, a few invest and the rest are consumers; some are sadists and others masochists; some have a desire to kill and others to die. I answered this already.

    "A common defense of the State holds that man is a “social animal,” that he must live in society, and that individualists and libertarians believe in the existence of “atomistic individuals” uninfluenced by and unrelated to their fellow men. But no libertarians have ever held individuals to be isolated atoms; on the contrary, all libertarians have recognized the necessity and the enormous advantages of living in society, and of participating in the social division of labor. The great non sequitur committed by defenders of the State, including classical Aristotelian and Thomist philosophers, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State.[29]

    On the contrary, as we have indicated, the State is an antisocial instrument, crippling voluntary interchange, individual creativity, and the division of labor. “Society” is a convenient label for the voluntary interrelations of individuals, in peaceful exchange and on the market. Here we may point to Albert Jay Nock’s penetrating distinction between “social power” – the fruits of voluntary interchange in the economy and in civilization – and “State power,” the coercive interference and exploitation of those fruits. In that light, Nock showed that human history is basically a race between State power and social power, between the beneficent fruits of peaceful and voluntary production and creativity on the one hand, and the crippling and parasitic blight of State power upon the voluntary and productive social process.[30]

    All of the services commonly thought to require the State – from the coining of money to police protection to the development of law in defense of the rights of person and property – can be and have been supplied far more efficiently and certainly more morally by private persons. The State is in no sense required by the nature of man; quite the contrary."

    Government empowers the 1%, are you fucking kidding me? What fairytale land do you live in?

    How can it only exist with a state? Because you make assumptions? On what evidence?
    Time is passing so quickly. Right now, I feel like complaining to Einstein. Whether time is slow or fast depends on perception. Relativity theory is so romantic. And so sad.

  7. #387
    RichMahogany's Avatar
    RichMahogany is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    6,414
    Why can't we have anarchy plus Right Guard Sport Stick Deodorant? (Because anything less would be uncivilized)?

  8. #388
    wiltondeportes's Avatar
    wiltondeportes Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Derpamix View Post
    A common defense of the State holds that man is a “social animal,” that he must live in society, and that individualists and libertarians believe in the existence of “atomistic individuals” uninfluenced by and unrelated to their fellow men. But no libertarians have ever held individuals to be isolated atoms; on the contrary, all libertarians have recognized the necessity and the enormous advantages of living in society, and of participating in the social division of labor. The great non sequitur committed by defenders of the State, including classical Aristotelian and Thomist philosophers, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of the State.[29]

    On the contrary, as we have indicated, the State is an antisocial instrument, crippling voluntary interchange, individual creativity, and the division of labor. “Society” is a convenient label for the voluntary interrelations of individuals, in peaceful exchange and on the market. Here we may point to Albert Jay Nock’s penetrating distinction between “social power” – the fruits of voluntary interchange in the economy and in civilization – and “State power,” the coercive interference and exploitation of those fruits. In that light, Nock showed that human history is basically a race between State power and social power, between the beneficent fruits of peaceful and voluntary production and creativity on the one hand, and the crippling and parasitic blight of State power upon the voluntary and productive social process.[30]

    All of the services commonly thought to require the State – from the coining of money to police protection to the development of law in defense of the rights of person and property – can be and have been supplied far more efficiently and certainly more morally by private persons. The State is in no sense required by the nature of man; quite the contrary.
    My defense never was that man is a social animal, so this counter-argument is speaking to thin air.

    The state cripples the division of labor? Like I said, without state, we revert to tribal living. There's no comparison between a tribal division of labor and a civilized division of labor. A tribe never has and never will accomplish anything great; therefore only civilized divisions of labor have.

    Why were those services (coining, police, etc) provided outside of the state? Because the state held together civilization. Take away the state, then you take away civilization, then you take away the profit for such services, then you take away the services.

  9. #389
    Derpamix's Avatar
    Derpamix is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    5,332
    Quote Originally Posted by wiltondeportes View Post
    My defense never was that man is a social animal, so this counter-argument is speaking to thin air.

    The state cripples the division of labor? Like I said, without state, we revert to tribal living. There's no comparison between a tribal division of labor and a civilized division of labor. A tribe never has and never will accomplish anything great; therefore only civilized divisions of labor have.

    Why were those services (coining, police, etc) provided outside of the state? Because the state held together civilization. Take away the state, then you take away civilization, then you take away the profit for such services, then you take away the services.
    Another slippery slope fallacy? Keep it coming.
    Time is passing so quickly. Right now, I feel like complaining to Einstein. Whether time is slow or fast depends on perception. Relativity theory is so romantic. And so sad.

  10. #390
    wiltondeportes's Avatar
    wiltondeportes Guest
    PrimalCon New York
    Quote Originally Posted by Derpamix View Post
    Government empowers the 1%, are you fucking kidding me? What fairytale land do you live in?
    Citizens elect people, citizens vote on issues, elected people elect other people. It's not perfect, but it is public, and there are as many checks and balances to power as have ever been created. There is currently no better option.

    Without government, people live in tribes because no high amount of organization could exist without publicly agreed upon rules. But to continue *your* fairytale, there would be even less checks on the power of the 1%, and they would reign with even more power. The government restricts this, centralizes power, and ideally distributes it to its citizens. It doesn't do it perfectly, but anarchism doesn't do it at all.

Page 39 of 67 FirstFirst ... 29373839404149 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •