Is having a government scientific?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-05-2014, 03:47 PM (This post was last modified: 19-05-2014 03:55 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(19-05-2014 11:35 AM)Elcarch Wrote:  I take it you've never pondered that maybe that which is terrifying isn't freedom itself, but what cruel and malicious arseholes will do with that freedom?
The most cruel and malicious arseholes are those sending drones to Middle East and controlling nuclear weaponry. I think we should start protecting ourselves from these. They kill by millions and rob by hundreds of million through IRS and its well-armed men in costume. The rest of them aren't that urgent. No armies and nukes in hands of psychopaths and then we'll see about the rest, what do you think? Wink

(19-05-2014 11:35 AM)Elcarch Wrote:  What, haven't you noticed that quite a few people wouldn't hesitate to rob, murder and rape you (in that order) if there was ever the slightest chance of them getting away with it?
Oh, they're welcome to do so! Especially in that order, I won't mind the rape if I'm murdered first. Let them see what happens in a free society. I'll give them a sniff of pepper spray if I'm in a good mood and a gun shot wounds if I'm in a bad mood. So will all the bystanders, in a free society.
But in a non-free society, I am not allowed to protect myself from bullies, if these bullies wear the right costume. I can't even defend my home from them. They've got the whole taxpayer population to pay and supply their ranks, there's no defense against that.
Often there are cases of self-defense when the defender has to go and justify his defense. In my country shooting a burglar is murder, because the burglar went in just to burgle, you see, not to murder, so I'm not allowed to shoot him.

I am glad I attended a lecture on guns, organized by my local Libertarian party. I went there slightly anti-gun and went out positively in favor of guns. Surprisingly, they allow good people to keep their cities safe.
http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/07/the-...ed-states/

Hey, I have never held a real gun in my hand. I have just the pepper spray and I didn't use it yet. I hope I never will. But I find it cheaper to buy a small revolver than to pay taxes all my life to the police, who may or may not protect or persecute me. I think the latter is more likely, according to that website.
http://www.policestateusa.com

(19-05-2014 11:35 AM)Elcarch Wrote:  And if you're so afraid of the government imprisoning you without trial and torturing you, maybe you ought to move to Sweden? That stuff simply doesn't happen around here.
Why should I move? They're the ones who suck Big Grin

But seriously, I'm not afraid of being imprisoned without trial. I am afraid of being imprisoned with trial and properly passed law that some governmental idiot pulled out of his ass to protect business interests and obsolete trade models. Last year my cock-sucking government outright destroyed a thriving grow-shop industry that paid taxes. They sent the police to confiscate flowerpots, fertilizers, lamps and soil worth millions, exactly the same stuff you can buy in any gardening shop. The reason? Supposedly, the shops provided an "unbroken chain of supplies usable for drug production". The growshop keepers asked the police before, if their business is legit or not. The police said, they don't know. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that my government shortly before gave a permission to sell medical marijuana to several chosen companies at insane prices for taxpayer insurance money.

(19-05-2014 11:35 AM)Elcarch Wrote:  Oh, by the way; we're also a social liberal monarchy with total tax rates hovering around 60%! I wonder how that is even possible seeing as we should all be living in some kind of sovjet dystopia by now by your reasoning.
From what I see on that website, it pretty much looks that way in USA. Soviets were stupid because they did not allow any free trade, so there was little to steal. USA allows some free trade and then takes the profit and misuses it for killing people. That's how you run a tax farm, let the tax cattle run free range, they give more profit that way.

Sweden had a corporative state that de facto replaced the market. People just moved into the state/corporate structures with all their initiative, they lived inside the system, not outside. It was quite a feat of social consensus. But nevertheless, Sweden is not productive anymore and a decade or two ago it started cutting down the social benefits to start the free trade productivity again. Free trade is the only thing that produces value. Sweden lived so long on the free trade wealth produced since around the end of 19th century. People said, if socialism could work anywhere, it would be in Sweden. Well, it didn't.

Personally, I am for zero % taxes and zero privileges for corporations, fair is fair. Corporation is make-believe provided by the state that allows to avoid full personal responsibility. I'll want to see how "corporations" will like that in a free society, without state to back them up Dodgy

If you claim there are nuances to principles, there are no nuances to getting arrested or shot for disobeying the power.
The Venus Project
FreeDomain Radio - The greatest philosophy show on the web!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 03:32 PM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(16-05-2014 09:58 AM)Luminon Wrote:  This statement is so wrong on many levels that my stomach churns.
If I want your money and you don't want to give them to me, I pull out a gun at you, to "respond to the issue of non-compliance", to use your euphemistically sugar-coated threat. How would you like that? Is this reciprocally, universally applicable? Not? It's also immoral, by the way. The monopoly of force is used to rob and kill people.

This is the part that I don't understand about the concept of wanting an absence of centralized government; if someone wants to rob me, and I am unable to defend myself, am I just going to be screwed, and that's the end of it?

No one has actually bothered to explain this to me, so I sincerely hope that you'll do me that favour.

Am I supposed to band together with other people for mutual safety?

What if we then get into a scuffle with a bigger and meaner group? Will we be fucked then?

Will we join together with even more groups into some kind of super-group, and keep commerce between ourselves, using our own currency and defending ourselves territory-wise against other such groups?

Because that last step is the actual definition of a state.

And I'm not mocking, here; I seriously want to understand how it's supposed to work in practice.

How will a system, in practical terms, without a centralized government ensure that the weak and the vulnerable are clothed, fed, and protected from those who would prey on them?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Elcarch's post
21-05-2014, 03:34 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(20-05-2014 03:32 PM)Elcarch Wrote:  Will we join together with even more groups into some kind of super-group, and keep commerce between ourselves, using our own currency and defending ourselves territory-wise against other such groups?

Because that last step is the actual definition of a state.

And I'm not mocking, here; I seriously want to understand how it's supposed to work in practice.
I am applauding your honesty and curiosity Thumbsup
Well then, read the two free e-books, Everyday Anarchy and Practical Anarchy.
https://freedomainradio.com/free/#ea
https://freedomainradio.com/free/#pa
If you don't have time, skim the tables of contents and read chapters that interest you.

(20-05-2014 03:32 PM)Elcarch Wrote:  This is the part that I don't understand about the concept of wanting an absence of centralized government; if someone wants to rob me, and I am unable to defend myself, am I just going to be screwed, and that's the end of it?

No one has actually bothered to explain this to me, so I sincerely hope that you'll do me that favour.
Robbers are a problem. They ambush and rob us. But they know they risk a lot. What if the woman (or me) has a pepper spray? What if the victim owns a gun, will the robber risk his life for a few bucks? Most likely not. That kind of money can be gained in a day or two of working at a job, if half of money in existence weren't sucked into the public sector.

But let's say there's another kind of robber, a robber in blue costume. When he puts on this costume, he becomes a superman. He has a license to kill, he is allowed to shoot his competition, in fact he has to. He will have the propaganda of mass media at his side as a hero restoring public order. And if anything happens, he has literally thousands of comrades in blue costumes to back him up. He is allowed to abduct people if they don't comply, break into houses and put people into rape rooms.

Against that kind of a robber, just a weapon of personal defense will not work! The robber in blue costume is the greatest threat we will likely encounter. You are 8x more likely to be killed by a robber in a blue costume, than a terrorist. I believe greatest threats should be dealt with first and this one can be dealt with simply by peaceful disbanding of the state and paying our own public guards on streets as we see fit.

(20-05-2014 03:32 PM)Elcarch Wrote:  Am I supposed to band together with other people for mutual safety?

What if we then get into a scuffle with a bigger and meaner group? Will we be fucked then?
Against who? Safety from what? Where do you think you are, in Somalia or Nigeria where people fight for rare metal mines as mercenaries for... who? Foreign governments, actually.
Nope, we're in safe, developed countries. We can actually pull this off, that we can walk around the land quite safe, earn some money, spend them, have a life, rinse, repeat.

If one or two people in a street have a gun, we're all safer. If literally every house in America had a gun for protection, it would still be much cheaper and safer than having the blue robber gang "protecting" us from not paying our taxes. I would actually love to have a gun-savvy neighbor who can use the damn thing and will be around places like schools or playgrounds and I know he can aim without hurting anyone innocent.

(20-05-2014 03:32 PM)Elcarch Wrote:  How will a system, in practical terms, without a centralized government ensure that the weak and the vulnerable are clothed, fed, and protected from those who would prey on them?
Here's what economy is about.
The weak and vulnerable just need to buy a gun, not pay cops who are the greatest threat themselves. And above all, they need good, kind upbringing from parents!
Clothes are produced by weaving machines and bought in a shop. Government doesn't produce clothes. Government must strip two people naked to get one clothed - transaction costs, you see.
Food is produced by farmers, not the government. Politicians like the metaphorical dung, not literal.
Again, the protection, I would rather face a robber once or twice in a lifetime and give him my wallet's contents (if he is well-armed) than to have blue robbers confiscate half of my entire income as tax for all my lifetime. Hell, if someone is desperate enough to risk his life robbing me, I'll find out if he needs more of my money and some psychiatric help because that man clearly can't go through a job interview.
Similarly, I'd care for people around if I had more money than just half of what the economy produces. We would go and sign up for charity that takes care of local old and homeless people, charity we trust that will keep them OK and not let them get drunk from these money on cheap wine. I'd love to have streets free of beggars. Business owners on these streets would love that even more.

If you claim there are nuances to principles, there are no nuances to getting arrested or shot for disobeying the power.
The Venus Project
FreeDomain Radio - The greatest philosophy show on the web!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-05-2014, 05:22 AM (This post was last modified: 21-05-2014 06:51 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
I don't know what's more depressing.

That frankksj isn't the only delusional reality denying Libretard here.

Or that Luminon's personal delusions aren't limited to just 'spirit science'.

It's like if Deepak Chopra had a love child with Alex Jones, and that kid grew up and had a love child with Rand Paul; and we are now talking with their twins. Gasp

[Image: qce9oP7.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
21-05-2014, 07:50 AM (This post was last modified: 21-05-2014 09:44 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(21-05-2014 05:22 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I don't know what's more depressing.

That frankksj isn't the only delusional reality denying Libretard here.

Or that Luminon's personal delusions aren't limited to just 'spirit science'.

It's like if Deepak Chopra had a love child with Alex Jones, and that kid grew up and had a love child with Rand Paul; and we are now talking with their twins. Gasp
Still no arguments in here. Naming people, pigeon holes, comparisons, metaphors, these are not arguments. No arguments mean no logic, no thought. It is very easy to ride your brain circuits without passing a logic gate, the problem is, when you do that, I win by default.

One thing that unsettles me is this tactic, you say a name or a group that I am supposed to be like, and then you say nothing. But this vague negative connotation remains - "he DID join these people and he did that because he's a mindless zombie believer! He surely has no rational reason to be like that, or EvolutionKills here would fuckin' honestly state that reason!"

I'm not a follower of anything. I endorse groups I see as reasonable and virtuous, even if they don't endorse me back. You should see me talking atheism to Christians or economy to socialists. I take their meaningful lessons and I spread them, I can take lessons from many people, but none of these people so far could do the same. It would be nice to be accepted once in a while, but I've learned to live without that. I can criticize Libertarians, Deepak Chopra and Rand Paul probably too. I don't endorse them completely, only what's reasonable about them (probably nothing about Chopra) and I don't necessarily endorse them in a language that they would recognize as theirs. That would be parroting for acceptance into group and I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in spreading reason, empiricism and virtue and that means lots of cross-translation of good arguments.

If you claim there are nuances to principles, there are no nuances to getting arrested or shot for disobeying the power.
The Venus Project
FreeDomain Radio - The greatest philosophy show on the web!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Luminon's post
21-05-2014, 08:18 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(21-05-2014 07:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(21-05-2014 05:22 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I don't know what's more depressing.

That frankksj isn't the only delusional reality denying Libretard here.

Or that Luminon's personal delusions aren't limited to just 'spirit science'.

It's like if Deepak Chopra had a love child with Alex Jones, and that kid grew up and had a love child with Rand Paul; and we are now talking with their twins. Gasp
Still no arguments in here.

Really? Thank fucking Christ we have you here to protect us all from humor!

[Image: captain-obvious.jpg]


(21-05-2014 07:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Naming people, pigeon holes, comparisons, metaphors, these are not arguments.

Yeah. Your point?


(21-05-2014 07:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  No arguments mean no logic, no thought.

False Equivocation. Logic =/= Thought.


(21-05-2014 07:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  It is very easy to ride your brain circuits without passing a logic gate, the problem is, when you do that, I win by default.

Sure you do, keep telling yourself that and one day you can be a winner too!


(21-05-2014 07:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  One thing that unsettles me is this tactic, you say a name or a group that I am supposed to be like, and then you say nothing.

You didn't get the joke, you've made that abundantly clear by now; move on already.


(21-05-2014 07:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  But this vague negative connotation remains - "he DID join these people and he did that because he's a mindless zombie believer! He surely has no rational reason to be like that, or EvolutionKills here would fuckin' honestly state that reason!"

Actually, I'm not even sure what you are even trying to say here. Then again your grasp of coherent sentence structure is something I've noticed you've been having significant issues with in this thread; so I guess it's par for the course?


(21-05-2014 07:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I'm not a follower of anything.

LOL, except for your personal subjective experience of the 'supernatural'. Laughat


(21-05-2014 07:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I endorse groups I see as reasonable and virtuous, even if they don't endorse me back. You should see me talking atheism to Christians or economy to socialists.

That's alright, I've seen you try to talk science with scientists; it left with with little hope for anything else.


(21-05-2014 07:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I take their meaningful lessons and I spread them, I can take lessons from many people, but none of these people so far could the same.

Some 'lessons' just aren't worth spreading, at least as anything more than a cautionary tale.


(21-05-2014 07:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  It would be nice to be accepted once in a while, but I've learned to live without that.

Right, so why did you just type this? Nevermind, here I am expecting reasons, silly me...


(21-05-2014 07:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I can criticize Libertarians, Deepak Chopra and Rand Paul probably too.

I'm sure you can, but the irony of the cannibalism would be lost on you I think.


(21-05-2014 07:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I don't endorse them completely, only what's reasonable about them (probably nothing about Chopra) and I don't necessarily endorse them in a language that they would recognize as theirs.

[Image: pot-and-kettle.jpg]


(21-05-2014 07:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  That would be parroting for acceptance into group and I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in spreading reason, empiricism and virtue and that means lots of cross-translation of good arguments.

Good arguments? I think that's what everyone else is still waiting for...

[Image: qce9oP7.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-05-2014, 09:58 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(21-05-2014 03:34 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I am applauding your honesty and curiosity Thumbsup
Well then, read the two free e-books, Everyday Anarchy and Practical Anarchy.
https://freedomainradio.com/free/#ea
https://freedomainradio.com/free/#pa
If you don't have time, skim the tables of contents and read chapters that interest you.

I'll have a look at those and get back to you on that one!

(21-05-2014 03:34 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Robbers are a problem. They ambush and rob us. But they know they risk a lot. What if the woman (or me) has a pepper spray? What if the victim owns a gun, will the robber risk his life for a few bucks? Most likely not. That kind of money can be gained in a day or two of working at a job, if half of money in existence weren't sucked into the public sector.

But can we really rely on that all robbers are smart enough to think that way? I mean, we realize that trying to rob someone who owns a gun would be stupid, so we would stay away from it. But what about people who are less educated or simply desperate?

Wouldn't those people be a legitimate threat?

(21-05-2014 03:34 AM)Luminon Wrote:  But let's say there's another kind of robber, a robber in blue costume. When he puts on this costume, he becomes a superman. He has a license to kill, he is allowed to shoot his competition, in fact he has to. He will have the propaganda of mass media at his side as a hero restoring public order. And if anything happens, he has literally thousands of comrades in blue costumes to back him up. He is allowed to abduct people if they don't comply, break into houses and put people into rape rooms.

Against that kind of a robber, just a weapon of personal defense will not work! The robber in blue costume is the greatest threat we will likely encounter. You are 8x more likely to be killed by a robber in a blue costume, than a terrorist. I believe greatest threats should be dealt with first and this one can be dealt with simply by peaceful disbanding of the state and paying our own public guards on streets as we see fit.

I see; so, the aim is to remove the centralized system, not to abolish the concept of guards keeping everyone safe from junkies and murderers?

(21-05-2014 03:34 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Against who? Safety from what? Where do you think you are, in Somalia or Nigeria where people fight for rare metal mines as mercenaries for... who? Foreign governments, actually.
Nope, we're in safe, developed countries. We can actually pull this off, that we can walk around the land quite safe, earn some money, spend them, have a life, rinse, repeat.

If one or two people in a street have a gun, we're all safer. If literally every house in America had a gun for protection, it would still be much cheaper and safer than having the blue robber gang "protecting" us from not paying our taxes. I would actually love to have a gun-savvy neighbor who can use the damn thing and will be around places like schools or playgrounds and I know he can aim without hurting anyone innocent.

The problem I see is ensuring that that is actually the case. Can it be guaranteed that the guards will be of strong moral fiber, and with great skill in the right fields, if there is no authority to monitor them?

Again, not trying to be difficult, I genuinely want to know how this would work in practical terms.

(21-05-2014 03:34 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Here's what economy is about.
The weak and vulnerable just need to buy a gun, not pay cops who are the greatest threat themselves. And above all, they need good, kind upbringing from parents!
Clothes are produced by weaving machines and bought in a shop. Government doesn't produce clothes. Government must strip two people naked to get one clothed - transaction costs, you see.
Food is produced by farmers, not the government. Politicians like the metaphorical dung, not literal.
Again, the protection, I would rather face a robber once or twice in a lifetime and give him my wallet's contents (if he is well-armed) than to have blue robbers confiscate half of my entire income as tax for all my lifetime. Hell, if someone is desperate enough to risk his life robbing me, I'll find out if he needs more of my money and some psychiatric help because that man clearly can't go through a job interview.
Similarly, I'd care for people around if I had more money than just half of what the economy produces. We would go and sign up for charity that takes care of local old and homeless people, charity we trust that will keep them OK and not let them get drunk from these money on cheap wine. I'd love to have streets free of beggars. Business owners on these streets would love that even more.

Ah, eradicating crime through education, good upbringing and sympathy. That is actually a very interesting idea.

However, is it realistic to believe that we could achieve that at this point in time? Can we make it so that good education and upbringing is provided to everyone to such a degree that they minimize the problems caused by their absence?

I applaud the fact that you've done more to explain these points than anyone I've asked before.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-05-2014, 11:28 AM (This post was last modified: 21-05-2014 11:32 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(21-05-2014 09:58 AM)Elcarch Wrote:  But can we really rely on that all robbers are smart enough to think that way? I mean, we realize that trying to rob someone who owns a gun would be stupid, so we would stay away from it. But what about people who are less educated or simply desperate?

Wouldn't those people be a legitimate threat?
Yes, they do. I could say "that's not the point here" and be done. But you deserve more info.

If I point a gun at you and tell you, "give me your money", it's a robbery, it's bad and I really shouldn't do it.
If I get a group of people to ambush you, point a gun at you and bring me your money, it's still a robbery and I shouldn't do it.
If I take a box to which I and other people put papers with names of people who will go and order other people to tell you to give up your money and or you will be thrown into jail if you don't or shot if you resist, and part of these money will go to me as a monthly welfare or subsidy, what is that? Has the magic voting box turned the act of robbery into the act of democracy? Well, if this is what democracy is...

I am really bad for wanting to rob you personally, but it is perfectly all right to do that by proxy, if that proxy is called government.

Government does not solve robbery, it can only be funded by robbery. It does not solve problems, it perpetuates problems to get more electorate and funding. Poor people vote for bigger government.

So if you really care about desperate, uneducated or stupid people, then you will go and do things that actually help. You will learn about social work, psychology, education, you will gather names of people in risk, you will show data to people in risks areas and you will go around asking sponsors and fundraising to do whatever you learned that helps desperate uneducated people. The more people you help, the more money will people entrust you to keep their cities safe. Then you will return to your sponsors, show them your results and ask for more money. If everything else fails, you will require your... clients to wear t-shirts with the sponsor logos, whatever it takes to get funding without robbery. You will actually think how to negotiate so people will feel good for giving money on a good cause.
You certainly won't want to keep desperate people desperate and parade them for pity every elections to raise more funding, as is it today done with single mothers and oppressed women.

If there is a problem, we solve it through activism, business and science. We don't throw money in politicians' way to make them solve it, because they don't.

(21-05-2014 09:58 AM)Elcarch Wrote:  I see; so, the aim is to remove the centralized system, not to abolish the concept of guards keeping everyone safe from junkies and murderers?
Yes, you got that right. Bowing Compulsory system, I might add. We can not force people to pay some guards. It would be nice if they did, but they are supposed to know what they need and buy that. People aren't stupid if left to learn and make their own decisions.

(21-05-2014 09:58 AM)Elcarch Wrote:  The problem I see is ensuring that that is actually the case. Can it be guaranteed that the guards will be of strong moral fiber, and with great skill in the right fields, if there is no authority to monitor them?

Again, not trying to be difficult, I genuinely want to know how this would work in practical terms.
Yes, you are right to worry about that. So what happens now if there's a dirty cop? Can we fire him? Nope.
Can we at least pay him less of our money? Nope. Tax is tax.
Can we tell him personally how angry we are at him? Nope, that would not end well.
Oh, so how much quality control do we have under the government system? None.
That goes not just for cops, but for teachers, who have our children under control for 15 years or so.

Yes, we can have quality control, but we must have a choice of the people who we hire to do jobs. No choice means no quality. And the only choice we have in society is voting with our wallet. If someone does a bad job, then sorry, I won't pay for this. I know it is cruel and my leftie heart bleeds and wants perfect solutions where nobody is left out, but it is less cruel than getting beaten and arrested by crooked (any) cops who know they can't get fired. Just read the damn http://www.policestateusa.com, I suspect these news are real, I've seen some of them on other news sites.

You might be also interested in this article. Looks like there is a new way of living in the ruins of Detroit.
How Private Policing Trumps Government Law Enforcement
http://tdvmedia.com/getblog.php?id=217&ac=83GY0Z1T

(21-05-2014 09:58 AM)Elcarch Wrote:  Ah, eradicating crime through education, good upbringing and sympathy. That is actually a very interesting idea.

However, is it realistic to believe that we could achieve that at this point in time? Can we make it so that good education and upbringing is provided to everyone to such a degree that they minimize the problems caused by their absence?
I wouldn't see it like an investment to go or not go into. I see it as a principle. It is wrong to initiate aggression against everyone, especially children. It is wrong to beat them and yell at them and force them to go to places where they are extremely bored and forced to repeat useless stuff, and drugged if they don't obey. 20 % boys in the U.S. today are diagnosed with ADHD and heavily drugged! That is a Soviet-style genocide of spirit. They are given amphetamines for being kids, for being alive, for asking questions and for not wanting to sit in the 18th century Hapsburg style classes with desks.

Kids want to learn as much as teenage boys want to have sex and teenage girls want to talk on phone. Learning is a pleasure, it is satisfying our curiosity. This is what education means. School today isn't for education, it's for obedience. Kids have no useful skills anyway, it's employers who teach them what's needed. Employers of course want practice.
Only a hobby produces this kind of focus and excellence that we need in order to be good at anything. Only curiosity gives the fluidity we need at the modern market where 4 best paid jobs in 2010 did not even exist in 2004. Prison-like schools kill curiosity and displace hobbies. Market is nothing if not desire-driven. Desire is our compass what to do with our life. At schools we are force-fed undesired information, which is also useless. To kill desire is like killing curiosity and other virtues, it's a lobotomy.

There is no choice to be had here. Regardless of the immediate result, we need to empathize with our children, which means to empathize with ourselves when we were children and stop doing what harmed us. We need to protect our children, give as little to the state as we can get away with and spread the message. There is a blood-chilling scientific evidence against spanking and yelling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbiq2-uk...45EEB95C80

All the good systems, that includes anarcho-capitalism and TVP count with generational change of raising children that are not brain-damaged by parents and schools and so they don't see evil people behind every corner and elect real terrorists who promise to protect them from imaginary terrorists. If humanity treated children kindly only for 5 years, it would mean 5 years of generations of children who were allowed to form as people during their formative years, not as robots or zombies or toilets of the culture. This generation would change the world. I will never be as good as them, I am patching myself up together slowly and painfully, but I'll always be damaged and afraid in many common situations.

Molyneux has a hope that if we raise children non-violently, they will not see the state as a big parent that must be there or they'll feel lost. They'll see the state as a big bullying mafia organization that lies and robs people and kills them by millions and imprisons them mostly for no reason. Paying taxes is like an original sin, everyone believes in it, but the first time you hear about it, it's really very weird. I have to do...what? Because of what?

[Image: 10403081_10154130243795117_4624179092693338141_n.jpg]

(21-05-2014 09:58 AM)Elcarch Wrote:  I applaud the fact that you've done more to explain these points than anyone I've asked before.
Thanks, maybe it's because I'm a leftist by heart... I actually deeply want a foolproof solution of The Venus Project where everyone is taken care of and nobody has to work. But it requires to re-design a global industry in a laboratory, which would probably cost something like a quarter of costs of war in Iraq till 2010, or between 100 - 1,000 Large Hadron Colliders. That's what it takes to have scientific evidence beforehand that this will not be just another Communism. It's Economy 2.0 or Industry MK II, Infrastructure vol. 2. TVP is literally the greatest project in history of mankind, to make Earth operate like "a single household where we don't buy things from our own fridge." I can't go into theory on that right now, it's literally a different paradigm to monetary economy. Money have their function, but in TVP these functions are implemented differently.

Free market system is not foolproof, but it is hell a lot better than having a central power parasiting on us. I love how it solves all the artificial problems caused by the central power and it is very cheap and quick to set up.

If you claim there are nuances to principles, there are no nuances to getting arrested or shot for disobeying the power.
The Venus Project
FreeDomain Radio - The greatest philosophy show on the web!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-05-2014, 11:48 AM
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(21-05-2014 03:34 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Robbers are a problem. They ambush and rob us. But they know they risk a lot. What if the woman (or me) has a pepper spray? What if the victim owns a gun, will the robber risk his life for a few bucks? Most likely not. That kind of money can be gained in a day or two of working at a job, if half of money in existence weren't sucked into the public sector.

But let's say there's another kind of robber, a robber in blue costume. When he puts on this costume, he becomes a superman. He has a license to kill, he is allowed to shoot his competition, in fact he has to. He will have the propaganda of mass media at his side as a hero restoring public order. And if anything happens, he has literally thousands of comrades in blue costumes to back him up. He is allowed to abduct people if they don't comply, break into houses and put people into rape rooms.

Against that kind of a robber, just a weapon of personal defense will not work! The robber in blue costume is the greatest threat we will likely encounter. You are 8x more likely to be killed by a robber in a blue costume, than a terrorist. I believe greatest threats should be dealt with first and this one can be dealt with simply by peaceful disbanding of the state and paying our own public guards on streets as we see fit.

The tone of that rant is no different than the crazy rape rhetoric of the far fringe feminists. Drinking Beverage

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
21-05-2014, 02:20 PM (This post was last modified: 21-05-2014 02:23 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Is having a government scientific?
(21-05-2014 11:48 AM)Chas Wrote:  The tone of that rant is no different than the crazy rape rhetoric of the far fringe feminists. Drinking Beverage
No argument, so far so good. Well, if there's nothing factually and logically wrong you can actually find in this rant, then why don't you congratulate me on being right and spread the message? Tongue You can use different tone, if you want. What kind of tone do you suggest would be better?

Anyway, tell me about these far fringe feminists. I rant out of joy, enthusiasm and delightful anger, which feels good. If these things fuel their rants as well, I'd like to meet them... personally. Maybe one would have a coffee with me.

If you claim there are nuances to principles, there are no nuances to getting arrested or shot for disobeying the power.
The Venus Project
FreeDomain Radio - The greatest philosophy show on the web!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: