Is having a government scientific?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-05-2014, 06:02 PM (This post was last modified: 24-05-2014 06:12 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(24-05-2014 03:57 PM)Chas Wrote:  You seem to think that I could be easily identified and isolated by these organizations.
In cities of millions, countries of tens or hundreds of millions, where technology allows the creation or theft of identities, those measures can be avoided.

And what if I scammed not just you, but hundreds of people out tens of thousands of dollars? I end up with millions of dollars and a new identity.
I don't need those organizations' cooperation, and there is nothing they can do about it.
Please explain me two things.
- What about the personal contact? I and everyone you scam will know how you look like, where you might be found and will be very eager to share this information with DROs. That's what the technology does, it reveals more than it hides. Everyone's got a camera in their cell phone.
- How is this any less effective than what we have today?
- Isn't it clear that nobody here aims for perfection? No printing money and wars might be a good start. If someone steals mere millions of dollars, well, no governments mean no asylum, no police to bribe. That is, any agency to bribe has a dozen or more competing agencies and nobody can bribe them simultaneously and those who get bribed, lose customers.

(24-05-2014 03:57 PM)Chas Wrote:  But, really, my objection is that what you describe is no less coercive than a democratically-elected government's laws and enforcement.
And it is no less susceptible to corruption, misuse, fraud, and subversion.
It may even be more susceptible to some of those dangers as there is no oversight, no checks and balances, no responsibility to the welfare of society.
None of this is coercive, because nowhere in this there is an initiation of violence against you. People may freely cease to sell you their goods, that is their right, they own the goods and they can give it or not give it as they want. You have no right to other people's property. You better be nice to them. If you initiate violence, people will defend themselves and others, that is, they will not initiate violence, they will only respond if you start it.
What's the difference? Today,
- If you drive too fast peacefully, policemen will initiate violence against you.
- If you do not actively pay taxes, policemen will fuck you up. They will actively break down your doors, confiscate your stuff, kidnap you and imprison you.
- If you non-violently possess a wrong piece of vegetation, they'll bust you, just like about half of American prisoners.
Got it? In a free society, people can't give you unchosen positive obligations. Cool, huh? Positive unchosen moral obligations do not exist and are logically and morally indefensible. They only exist today not as moral rules, but as arbitrary rules enforced by state violence.

Did you ever wonder why communism had more corruption than capitalism? Because capitalism doesn't fight corruption, capitalism embraces it! Everyone is greedy, so let's be greedy and undercut the competition by giving our customers lower price! Let's manipulate the customers into buying our stuff by offering them better quality! Let's subvert everyone by asking them what services do they need! Let's make a big monopoly corporation by providing better services than anyone else! And if you give a shitty service that nobody wants, surprise surprise, you've got to find a new job! This is a game on evolution, profit of the most helpful.
Yeah, that is so cruel. Let's have a class of superior politicians who never have to do that, let's turn them into millionaires each.

As for today, you know what the best strategy ever is? Invest into lobbying. Lobbying gives 22,000 % profit. None of what I said is a priority today, because the market is divided on two universes, those who are big enough to reach the money stolen and printed by the government, and those who aren't.

No responsibility to the welfare of society? What the heck do you mean? Do you know what a state is? It is a big bloody parasite, taking at least 50 % of the income, initiating violence and starting wars. And producing absolutely fuckin' nothing. Zilch. Nothing is more socially responsible than ending the state, not even ending the religion. Religion without the state is like goblins without Sauron. Holed up somewhere in the middle of nowhere.
What more, having 50 % more income thanks to no taxes makes people a lot more charitable. Money stop being so damn rare that we hold onto them nails and teeth. Imagine that economic growth! So much wealth to spread around. Besides, state never did welfare originally, that's Bismarck's evil invention. There used to be very effective "friendly societies" and regular charities, before the state pushed them out.
And what the hell do you want to do about people who don't help the poor? Shoot them?





Checks and balances? Laugh out load If constitution didn't stop Clinton, Bush and Obama from killing or imprisoning about a million people each, then I shit on it from above, because it's too dirty to wipe my ass with.

[Image: Lysander-Spooner-Quotes-1.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-05-2014, 09:35 PM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(24-05-2014 06:02 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 03:57 PM)Chas Wrote:  You seem to think that I could be easily identified and isolated by these organizations.
In cities of millions, countries of tens or hundreds of millions, where technology allows the creation or theft of identities, those measures can be avoided.

And what if I scammed not just you, but hundreds of people out tens of thousands of dollars? I end up with millions of dollars and a new identity.
I don't need those organizations' cooperation, and there is nothing they can do about it.
Please explain me two things.
- What about the personal contact? I and everyone you scam will know how you look like, where you might be found and will be very eager to share this information with DROs. That's what the technology does, it reveals more than it hides. Everyone's got a camera in their cell phone.
- How is this any less effective than what we have today?
- Isn't it clear that nobody here aims for perfection? No printing money and wars might be a good start. If someone steals mere millions of dollars, well, no governments mean no asylum, no police to bribe. That is, any agency to bribe has a dozen or more competing agencies and nobody can bribe them simultaneously and those who get bribed, lose customers.

(24-05-2014 03:57 PM)Chas Wrote:  But, really, my objection is that what you describe is no less coercive than a democratically-elected government's laws and enforcement.
And it is no less susceptible to corruption, misuse, fraud, and subversion.
It may even be more susceptible to some of those dangers as there is no oversight, no checks and balances, no responsibility to the welfare of society.
None of this is coercive, because nowhere in this there is an initiation of violence against you. People may freely cease to sell you their goods, that is their right, they own the goods and they can give it or not give it as they want. You have no right to other people's property. You better be nice to them. If you initiate violence, people will defend themselves and others, that is, they will not initiate violence, they will only respond if you start it.
What's the difference? Today,
- If you drive too fast peacefully, policemen will initiate violence against you.
- If you do not actively pay taxes, policemen will fuck you up. They will actively break down your doors, confiscate your stuff, kidnap you and imprison you.
- If you non-violently possess a wrong piece of vegetation, they'll bust you, just like about half of American prisoners.
Got it? In a free society, people can't give you unchosen positive obligations. Cool, huh? Positive unchosen moral obligations do not exist and are logically and morally indefensible. They only exist today not as moral rules, but as arbitrary rules enforced by state violence.

Did you ever wonder why communism had more corruption than capitalism? Because capitalism doesn't fight corruption, capitalism embraces it! Everyone is greedy, so let's be greedy and undercut the competition by giving our customers lower price! Let's manipulate the customers into buying our stuff by offering them better quality! Let's subvert everyone by asking them what services do they need! Let's make a big monopoly corporation by providing better services than anyone else! And if you give a shitty service that nobody wants, surprise surprise, you've got to find a new job! This is a game on evolution, profit of the most helpful.
Yeah, that is so cruel. Let's have a class of superior politicians who never have to do that, let's turn them into millionaires each.

As for today, you know what the best strategy ever is? Invest into lobbying. Lobbying gives 22,000 % profit. None of what I said is a priority today, because the market is divided on two universes, those who are big enough to reach the money stolen and printed by the government, and those who aren't.

No responsibility to the welfare of society? What the heck do you mean? Do you know what a state is? It is a big bloody parasite, taking at least 50 % of the income, initiating violence and starting wars. And producing absolutely fuckin' nothing. Zilch. Nothing is more socially responsible than ending the state, not even ending the religion. Religion without the state is like goblins without Sauron. Holed up somewhere in the middle of nowhere.
What more, having 50 % more income thanks to no taxes makes people a lot more charitable. Money stop being so damn rare that we hold onto them nails and teeth. Imagine that economic growth! So much wealth to spread around. Besides, state never did welfare originally, that's Bismarck's evil invention. There used to be very effective "friendly societies" and regular charities, before the state pushed them out.
And what the hell do you want to do about people who don't help the poor? Shoot them?





Checks and balances? Laugh out load If constitution didn't stop Clinton, Bush and Obama from killing or imprisoning about a million people each, then I shit on it from above, because it's too dirty to wipe my ass with.

[Image: Lysander-Spooner-Quotes-1.jpg]

This is why I really don't enjoy conversations with libertarian True Believers™.

The exaggeration, the cant, the slogans, the aggression, and the bullshit cherry picking of facts.

The "initiation of violence" horseshit is specially tiresome. There are rules that are put in place by those duly elected to do so. Are they perfect? No, neither the people or the laws are perfect. Do these people initiate violence? No, when rules are broken, it is that which initiates events.

And yet you claim that your self-appointed groups who won't even provide food are not initiating violence?

And "And what the hell do you want to do about people who don't help the poor? Shoot them?" Just fuck off, you dimwit.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
25-05-2014, 02:31 AM (This post was last modified: 25-05-2014 02:35 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(24-05-2014 09:35 PM)Chas Wrote:  This is why I really don't enjoy conversations with libertarian True Believers™.

The exaggeration, the cant, the slogans, the aggression, and the bullshit cherry picking of facts.
We hold these truths to be self-evident ™ Smile
Nah, it's the same way that atheists feel about freedom from religion, especially when they come from a religious indoctrination. Overcoming the indoctrination makes us a little... passionate, we have to be, to break away.

(24-05-2014 09:35 PM)Chas Wrote:  The "initiation of violence" horseshit is specially tiresome. There are rules that are put in place by those duly elected to do so. Are they perfect? No, neither the people or the laws are perfect. Do these people initiate violence? No, when rules are broken, it is that which initiates events.
Duly elected to do so? Laugh out load Chas, you devil, you want me laugh to death. It's a case of circular logic. Some people just self-appointed themselves as masters, killed the competition and pulled the rules out of their ass. Further elections went according to these rules, while of course those elected kept changing these rules to suit them. That is, what "duly elected" is, whatever the masters decide it is.
You might want to notice that there is quite a difference between pulling legal rules out of lawmakers' asses and between empirically researching natural laws.

And please spare me of the straw man of perfection. "Maybe i'ts not perfect" is a veiled -fuck you- statement. As I said, nobody here aims for perfection.

Then, you blame the victim. Rulers are just people. They have no right to decide in any way that growing a harmless plant on your garden is evil and you deserve to be violently attacked and abducted for that. Carrying a dried vegetation in your pocket is NOT violence. You own your body and you can do whatever you want with it. Breaking your self-ownership is not justice, this is bullying. Bullies always blame the victim and victims, in order to survive, have to blame themselves and believe the bully is moral.

(24-05-2014 09:35 PM)Chas Wrote:  And yet you claim that your self-appointed groups who won't even provide food are not initiating violence?

And "And what the hell do you want to do about people who don't help the poor? Shoot them?" Just fuck off, you dimwit.
I see, you haven't watched the 'George ought to help' video. What happens if I never, ever pay taxes, no matter what others say? I get kidnapped and if I resist, I get shot. Right now you are about as low scum as Muslims who want to behead me for disbelief, as far as I'm concerned, only Muslims have lower tithes.

I repeat the question. If I disagree with you about taxes and I act upon my conscience, would you want me shot? In other words, am I allowed not to pay taxes? Am I allowed not to believe in the state Islam?

There is nothing wrong with being a self-appointed businessman. It's called self-determination, do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't hurt other people. A self-appointed bully, an arbitrary rule-maker and initiator of violence is immoral. For example, senator Reid decided uni-laterally from Washington that a particular piece of land in Nevada belongs to him and proceeded to lay armed siege to Cliven Bundy's ranch. Fuck that bastard.

If providing food was truly a good, moral thing, then it would be immoral not to provide food, 24 hours a day. And who is to say what exact amount of donation or sale is moral or immoral? How do we determine that amount of minimum morality, by pulling a rule out of our ass, like the magnitude of taxes?
The truth is, the stuff in stores is someone's property and they can do or not do whatever they want with it, it's morally neutral. If salesmen don't like criminals, they won't sell them anything. If they do, other customers and business partners (especially DROs) won't like the salesman.
I would say that is a much milder (and passive!) treatment than imprisonment, death sentence, waterboarding, prison shower rape, getting shanked with a toothbrush shiv, or beaten by the police.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2014, 06:03 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(25-05-2014 02:31 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(24-05-2014 09:35 PM)Chas Wrote:  This is why I really don't enjoy conversations with libertarian True Believers™.

The exaggeration, the cant, the slogans, the aggression, and the bullshit cherry picking of facts.
We hold these truths to be self-evident ™ Smile
Nah, it's the same way that atheists feel about freedom from religion, especially when they come from a religious indoctrination. Overcoming the indoctrination makes us a little... passionate, we have to be, to break away.

It's actually not like that. What it is like is a non-religious person being radicalized by a cult.

Quote:
(24-05-2014 09:35 PM)Chas Wrote:  The "initiation of violence" horseshit is specially tiresome. There are rules that are put in place by those duly elected to do so. Are they perfect? No, neither the people or the laws are perfect. Do these people initiate violence? No, when rules are broken, it is that which initiates events.
Duly elected to do so? Laugh out load Chas, you devil, you want me laugh to death. It's a case of circular logic. Some people just self-appointed themselves as masters, killed the competition and pulled the rules out of their ass.

Who did this?

Quote:Further elections went according to these rules, while of course those elected kept changing these rules to suit them. That is, what "duly elected" is, whatever the masters decide it is.
You might want to notice that there is quite a difference between pulling legal rules out of lawmakers' asses and between empirically researching natural laws.

What natural laws?

Quote:And please spare me of the straw man of perfection. "Maybe i'ts not perfect" is a veiled -fuck you- statement. As I said, nobody here aims for perfection.

No, it's pragmatism, a statement of reality.

Quote:Then, you blame the victim. Rulers are just people. They have no right to decide in any way that growing a harmless plant on your garden is evil and you deserve to be violently attacked and abducted for that. Carrying a dried vegetation in your pocket is NOT violence. You own your body and you can do whatever you want with it. Breaking your self-ownership is not justice, this is bullying. Bullies always blame the victim and victims, in order to survive, have to blame themselves and believe the bully is moral.

"Rulers" That is cant. So is "bullies".
There are democracies where there are virtually no drug laws, and ones where the laws are absurd. Harsh laws are not an inevitable outcome as you so desperately try to imply.

Quote:
(24-05-2014 09:35 PM)Chas Wrote:  And yet you claim that your self-appointed groups who won't even provide food are not initiating violence?

And "And what the hell do you want to do about people who don't help the poor? Shoot them?" Just fuck off, you dimwit.
I see, you haven't watched the 'George ought to help' video. What happens if I never, ever pay taxes, no matter what others say? I get kidnapped and if I resist, I get shot. Right now you are about as low scum as Muslims who want to behead me for disbelief, as far as I'm concerned, only Muslims have lower tithes.

Try answering the question instead of going off into manifesto-land.

Quote:I repeat the question. If I disagree with you about taxes and I act upon my conscience, would you want me shot? In other words, am I allowed not to pay taxes? Am I allowed not to believe in the state Islam?

More cant. Fuck Islam, and fuck your stupid deflections. Stick to democracies.

Quote:There is nothing wrong with being a self-appointed businessman. It's called self-determination, do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't hurt other people. A self-appointed bully, an arbitrary rule-maker and initiator of violence is immoral. For example, senator Reid decided uni-laterally from Washington that a particular piece of land in Nevada belongs to him and proceeded to lay armed siege to Cliven Bundy's ranch. Fuck that bastard.

You utterly missed my point. It is not a businessman, it is a cartel - a group acting in concert for their own interests against others. They are the "self-appointed bully, an arbitrary rule-maker and initiator of violence".

Quote:For example, senator Reid decided uni-laterally from Washington that a particular piece of land in Nevada belongs to him and proceeded to lay armed siege to Cliven Bundy's ranch. Fuck that bastard.

You are ignorant of U.S. law and U.S. history. You characterization of those events is the comic book version.

Quote:If providing food was truly a good, moral thing, then it would be immoral not to provide food, 24 hours a day. And who is to say what exact amount of donation or sale is moral or immoral? How do we determine that amount of minimum morality, by pulling a rule out of our ass, like the magnitude of taxes?
The truth is, the stuff in stores is someone's property and they can do or not do whatever they want with it, it's morally neutral. If salesmen don't like criminals, they won't sell them anything. If they do, other customers and business partners (especially DROs) won't like the salesman.

And if they don't like the salesman, they will initiate violence against him.

Quote:I would say that is a much milder (and passive!) treatment than imprisonment, death sentence, waterboarding, prison shower rape, getting shanked with a toothbrush shiv, or beaten by the police.

Ah, we get to the True Believer™. You once again try to make the specific the general. You dishonestly imply that those are the inevitable, unavoidable outcome of democracy.

Libertarianism is political woo. It is a childish misapprehension of human nature, a dream-like wish for Shangri-La.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
25-05-2014, 08:00 AM (This post was last modified: 25-05-2014 09:43 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(25-05-2014 06:03 AM)Chas Wrote:  It's actually not like that. What it is like is a non-religious person being radicalized by a cult.
Just for the record, you probably don't mean that literally, there's no cult, cults isolate people. Libertarians are so scattered around the world, that they have to connect through the internet, just like atheists.

So firstly, I don't know if you ever experienced this, but it might be like when religious people meet a "new atheist". The "new atheism" is unapologetic, in your face, honest and passionate. When Christians saw that, they started saying that atheism is a religion or cult or faith....
Frankly, atheism is a very specific application of philosophy (logic) to religion, just like libertarianism is a very specific application of philosophy (logic) to daily life and relationships.

Secondly, most of us have terrible experiences with people who claim absolutes. We are beaten into submission by people who claim absolutes and we are not allowed to disagree or have our own opinion. Then ever after we get extremely uncomfortable when we meet someone who claims any absolutes. We feel threatened and we label it like a cult or something.
But we need absolutes! It's the only thing that really works for more than a few people at once. Even you claim absolutes, in a very specific area called physics. But you get uncomfortable with absolutes on a greater scale. And philosophy is claiming absolutes on the greatest scale it can get. Doesn't mean it's wrong, doesn't mean it's not useful, it's just... guaranteed to trigger all your bad memories and past traumas. With me, it certainly did. Culture is worse than useless in science and it is worse than useless also in relationships.

(25-05-2014 06:03 AM)Chas Wrote:  Who did this?
George Washington, I think. Raised hell because of a 3 % British tax on tea. Then went to Tennessee and violently imposed a 25 % tax on whiskey. That's kind of douchey.

(25-05-2014 06:03 AM)Chas Wrote:  What natural laws?
Like physics. You don't vote for natural laws in physics. Yet you seem to think that voting for any other laws is a good idea. Is the daily life supernatural or what? According to you, it is.

(25-05-2014 06:03 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, it's pragmatism, a statement of reality.
No, it's hidden condescending accusing that I am not pragmatical and that I don't make statement of reality. As I said, it's "fuck you".

(25-05-2014 06:03 AM)Chas Wrote:  "Rulers" That is cant. So is "bullies".
There are democracies where there are virtually no drug laws, and ones where the laws are absurd. Harsh laws are not an inevitable outcome as you so desperately try to imply.
That's not the point. Try to break even the smallest law and consistently refuse any consequences that the state tries to impose on you. Get a parking bill for a few dollars. Don't pay anything. The state will keep raising the price to the value when it pays off to send the authorities to your house to confiscate your property. Defend your property and house privacy with a gun. They will shoot back. Either you get shot right away, or when they storm your house and you resist arrest. There is a direct causal link between your stance and your death.

Laws don't have to be harsh, they get harsh only if you resist them. That's like rapists don't have to be harsh, only if you resist them.

Because the state very rarely uses violence, people may eventually forget that it is ultimately ready to use deadly force to secure obedience.




(25-05-2014 06:03 AM)Chas Wrote:  More cant. Fuck Islam, and fuck your stupid deflections. Stick to democracies.
I do! THIS is democracy. You resist long enough, persistently enough, you defend yourself, you get shot or imprisoned in a rape room. Most people never make it that far, because they know what's coming to them and they've got families.

(25-05-2014 06:03 AM)Chas Wrote:  You utterly missed my point. It is not a businessman, it is a cartel - a group acting in concert for their own interests against others. They are the "self-appointed bully, an arbitrary rule-maker and initiator of violence".
Cartels never use violence, because their customers can use violence back against them. However, government relies primarily on violence, that is, force, threats and lies.

(25-05-2014 06:03 AM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote: For example, senator Reid decided uni-laterally from Washington that a particular piece of land in Nevada belongs to him and proceeded to lay armed siege to Cliven Bundy's ranch. Fuck that bastard.
You are ignorant of U.S. law and U.S. history. You characterization of those events is the comic book version.
History? The Bundy ranch was in 2013!
I have a Bc. degree of public law and it never made sense until I realized it actually is a comic book. Law is a ridiculous pseudo-philosophy the same way that creationism is a ridiculous pseudo-science. Fiat lex!

(25-05-2014 06:03 AM)Chas Wrote:  And if they don't like the salesman, they will initiate violence against him.
As anyone can today. And anyone can shoot back. And if the criminal wanted secrecy and good reputation, that would blow his cover and set all people on his track.

(25-05-2014 06:03 AM)Chas Wrote:  Ah, we get to the True Believer™. You once again try to make the specific the general. You dishonestly imply that those are the inevitable, unavoidable outcome of democracy.

Libertarianism is political woo. It is a childish misapprehension of human nature, a dream-like wish for Shangri-La.
The childish and yet terrifying thing I demand is consistency. Consistency, consistency, consistency. And more consistency. In other words, something that is not bullshit.
If human nature is violent and corrupt, what is the state made of? Humans!!! You believe that a piece of paper called constitution can change human nature, you're no better that Christians - only their Bible contains more paper, so Christians are more realistic.

What is dishonest about my implication? Violence is inevitable, unavoidable outcome of the state, democratic or otherwise. You know why? Because the state is violent, more than that, it has a monopoly on violence. Why is the state violent? Because it reaps what it did not sow, it takes what it did not earn. Show me just one state where there's no punishment for not paying taxes. The state takes property violently yet it punishes taking property violently. When I see inconsistency, I get pissed off, just like you do when you see pseudoscience.

I'd say the state makes the specific general. The state specifically says we must pay such and such amount of taxes and it applies to everyone.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-05-2014, 08:13 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
Stay with me here. I'm mostly thinking out loud.
I wonder during the time of despots did anyone conceive of a government that wasn't a despotism. obviously yes but how many waved it off as a silly idea. There must have been a time when democracy wasn't even dreamed of. There must have been a time when the idea of governing millions couldn't be conceived of.
Is it possible that there are much better systems that we are simply not educated enough to think of? Can we invent a technology or discover an idea that might allow for more freedom and less government? Is it possible that we might find a way to eliminate government all together? Some might say it's impossible and I would say they are short sighted.
I dunno but arguing to keep things the same seems like a good way to stifle progress.
What I do know is that I personally don't like to give up freedoms for security.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Drunkin Druid's post
25-05-2014, 05:04 PM (This post was last modified: 25-05-2014 05:12 PM by Chas.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(25-05-2014 08:00 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(25-05-2014 06:03 AM)Chas Wrote:  It's actually not like that. What it is like is a non-religious person being radicalized by a cult.
Just for the record, you probably don't mean that literally, there's no cult, cults isolate people. Libertarians are so scattered around the world, that they have to connect through the internet, just like atheists.

So firstly, I don't know if you ever experienced this, but it might be like when religious people meet a "new atheist". The "new atheism" is unapologetic, in your face, honest and passionate. When Christians saw that, they started saying that atheism is a religion or cult or faith....
Frankly, atheism is a very specific application of philosophy (logic) to religion, just like libertarianism is a very specific application of philosophy (logic) to daily life and relationships.

Secondly, most of us have terrible experiences with people who claim absolutes. We are beaten into submission by people who claim absolutes and we are not allowed to disagree or have our own opinion. Then ever after we get extremely uncomfortable when we meet someone who claims any absolutes. We feel threatened and we label it like a cult or something.
But we need absolutes! It's the only thing that really works for more than a few people at once. Even you claim absolutes, in a very specific area called physics. But you get uncomfortable with absolutes on a greater scale. And philosophy is claiming absolutes on the greatest scale it can get. Doesn't mean it's wrong, doesn't mean it's not useful, it's just... guaranteed to trigger all your bad memories and past traumas. With me, it certainly did. Culture is worse than useless in science and it is worse than useless also in relationships.

(25-05-2014 06:03 AM)Chas Wrote:  Who did this?
George Washington, I think. Raised hell because of a 3 % British tax on tea. Then went to Tennessee and violently imposed a 25 % tax on whiskey. That's kind of douchey.

(25-05-2014 06:03 AM)Chas Wrote:  What natural laws?
Like physics. You don't vote for natural laws in physics. Yet you seem to think that voting for any other laws is a good idea. Is the daily life supernatural or what? According to you, it is.

(25-05-2014 06:03 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, it's pragmatism, a statement of reality.
No, it's hidden condescending accusing that I am not pragmatical and that I don't make statement of reality. As I said, it's "fuck you".

(25-05-2014 06:03 AM)Chas Wrote:  "Rulers" That is cant. So is "bullies".
There are democracies where there are virtually no drug laws, and ones where the laws are absurd. Harsh laws are not an inevitable outcome as you so desperately try to imply.
That's not the point. Try to break even the smallest law and consistently refuse any consequences that the state tries to impose on you. Get a parking bill for a few dollars. Don't pay anything. The state will keep raising the price to the value when it pays off to send the authorities to your house to confiscate your property. Defend your property and house privacy with a gun. They will shoot back. Either you get shot right away, or when they storm your house and you resist arrest. There is a direct causal link between your stance and your death.

Laws don't have to be harsh, they get harsh only if you resist them. That's like rapists don't have to be harsh, only if you resist them.

Because the state very rarely uses violence, people may eventually forget that it is ultimately ready to use deadly force to secure obedience.




(25-05-2014 06:03 AM)Chas Wrote:  More cant. Fuck Islam, and fuck your stupid deflections. Stick to democracies.
I do! THIS is democracy. You resist long enough, persistently enough, you defend yourself, you get shot or imprisoned in a rape room. Most people never make it that far, because they know what's coming to them and they've got families.

(25-05-2014 06:03 AM)Chas Wrote:  You utterly missed my point. It is not a businessman, it is a cartel - a group acting in concert for their own interests against others. They are the "self-appointed bully, an arbitrary rule-maker and initiator of violence".
Cartels never use violence, because their customers can use violence back against them. However, government relies primarily on violence, that is, force, threats and lies.

(25-05-2014 06:03 AM)Chas Wrote:  You are ignorant of U.S. law and U.S. history. You characterization of those events is the comic book version.
History? The Bundy ranch was in 2013!
I have a Bc. degree of public law and it never made sense until I realized it actually is a comic book. Law is a ridiculous pseudo-philosophy the same way that creationism is a ridiculous pseudo-science. Fiat lex!

(25-05-2014 06:03 AM)Chas Wrote:  And if they don't like the salesman, they will initiate violence against him.
As anyone can today. And anyone can shoot back. And if the criminal wanted secrecy and good reputation, that would blow his cover and set all people on his track.

(25-05-2014 06:03 AM)Chas Wrote:  Ah, we get to the True Believer™. You once again try to make the specific the general. You dishonestly imply that those are the inevitable, unavoidable outcome of democracy.

Libertarianism is political woo. It is a childish misapprehension of human nature, a dream-like wish for Shangri-La.
The childish and yet terrifying thing I demand is consistency. Consistency, consistency, consistency. And more consistency. In other words, something that is not bullshit.
If human nature is violent and corrupt, what is the state made of? Humans!!! You believe that a piece of paper called constitution can change human nature, you're no better that Christians - only their Bible contains more paper, so Christians are more realistic.

What is dishonest about my implication? Violence is inevitable, unavoidable outcome of the state, democratic or otherwise. You know why? Because the state is violent, more than that, it has a monopoly on violence. Why is the state violent? Because it reaps what it did not sow, it takes what it did not earn. Show me just one state where there's no punishment for not paying taxes. The state takes property violently yet it punishes taking property violently. When I see inconsistency, I get pissed off, just like you do when you see pseudoscience.

I'd say the state makes the specific general. The state specifically says we must pay such and such amount of taxes and it applies to everyone.

I'm done - you are saying nothing that every other libertarian True Believer™ who comes here hasn't said,
and you are saying it in the same ranting, whining, childish voice,
and doing the same cherry-picking and twisting of facts,
and making the same kinds of errors of fact.

You 'know' things that simply aren't true.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
26-05-2014, 04:26 AM (This post was last modified: 26-05-2014 05:57 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(25-05-2014 05:04 PM)Chas Wrote:  I'm done - you are saying nothing that every other libertarian True Believer™ who comes here hasn't said,
and you are saying it in the same ranting, whining, childish voice,
and doing the same cherry-picking and twisting of facts,
and making the same kinds of errors of fact.

You 'know' things that simply aren't true.
You're done, but in a different manner. I answered all your (f)actual questions and provided all the information. You're supposed to back down now, or perhaps in a better world, read some Molyneux, Mises and Rothbard and re-consider your position.
Well, considering I'm an European and I have never read Ayn Rand, there must be some independent logical way to arrive at the same conclusion. It's called Austrian school of economy and it's a science.
Thanks! My ranting was inspired by the deepest sarcasm of atheist videos on Youtube.
Just tell me what exactly do I Truly Believe in, I would call myself a non-believer in starting violence and institutions which do that, such as government.

Churches initiate violence against everyone, making them believe they're sinful and they need a salvation. Governments do the same, making people believe they're evil, wild monsters and that without government we'd start killing each other and not help anybody and so we need government to protect us from violent human nature by the use of violent humans in costumes.
A bunch of people with make-believe rules and both have some good roles and good passages in their books.
Government is a secular Church. Church is a spiritual government.
Let that sink in!

[Image: 1904050_757096927654174_2048565516464441213_n.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2014, 02:28 PM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
Luminon,

We can't give you negative statistics and facts about a stateless society because there hasnt been one in recorded history, its hard to argue empirically (which is what you want) against something that has never been tried in the real world and not just in the mind of idealogues like Molyneaux. How about all Anarchists and FDR junkies pull some money and buy some island in the Atlantic and try a stateless society there? Then we'll have something to compare and contrast. Until then statistics and facts are meaningless if you have no empirical falsifying or negative evidence to Monlyneaux societal theory.

“The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because vampires are allergic to bullshit.” ― Richard Pryor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes djkamilo's post
26-05-2014, 03:31 PM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(26-05-2014 02:28 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  . How about all Anarchists and FDR junkies pull some money and buy some island in the Atlantic and try a stateless society there?

That's an experiment I'd like to see.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: