Poll: Allah, Yahweh, atheist? Left wing, right wing, no wing?
Left wing
Right wing
No wing
[Show Results]
 
No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-08-2014, 03:08 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  As for guns...meh. That is not necessary. America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense - and all the cops went fully paramilitary anyway.


As a reminder of the time Luminon advocated murdering government employees for doing their job.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Revenant77x's post
01-08-2014, 03:17 AM (This post was last modified: 01-08-2014 03:33 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(31-07-2014 11:53 PM)morondog Wrote:  Do you *know* what my fucking government was up to when I was a kid boyo? Zimbos in general have a healthy distrust of anyone in positions of power. I look forward to your answers (no weaselling) to my questions namely:

- How do you guarantee rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of expression, property rights (you brought those up), free and fair justice? You are talking anarchy. By definition anything goes. I can enslave you tomorrow and no one can say a damn thing against it unless they're stronger than me.

Rights will be protected by not giving most of our money away to central power that controls media, army, police and tax collectors. This central power is dangerous, because it can print money and violently force people to use the printed money. This is how all the unbelievably powerful American army and paramilitary police force is financed. On free market these things would be so expensive, that nobody could put together a superior force, considering that offense is much more difficult than defense. (one reason why U.S. Army couldn't completely wipe out Afghan goat herders in mountains or Vietcong holed up in jungle) On free market, few people would be willing to get killed for a salary. Only stupid shit like "serving your country" can turn people into killing machines for a shitty pay.

Money and market are the most democratic institution in the world, because money are like voting ballots. Some people have more money than others, but that is because others have voted for them before. Unless they're paid by taxes, which severs the link of knowing who did a good job.

Anarchy means without rulers, not without rules. People can make rules and choose not to support those who break the rules. Agreeing to rules frees us for cooperation. But if a ruler makes rules, then every rule is a big lie, because he can just make them up and he is not subject to them. Anarchy is like the internet in the real world, there is a rule called TCP/IP and who doesn't obey, doesn't get much action with other computers.

(31-07-2014 11:53 PM)morondog Wrote:  By *definition*, it's an unstable political situation which as far as I can see will immediately result in people banding together for self-protection, i.e. forming a new government.
Repost from Michael Tadlock:
*Yes, it would be with the present method of disciplining children by using violence - hitting, yelling, threats and neglect. People grow up broken. Americans overthrow Saddam and religious sects start fighting for his chair. Only peaceful parenting is the way to break the cycle.
Look up Psychohistory and Bomb in the brain.*

(31-07-2014 11:53 PM)morondog Wrote:  - You say free market competition with no regulation is the way to go, but monopolies already exist even right now. So if google monopolizes internet services in your anarchy and then jacks the prices through the roof because they can, how will you protect against that?
Monopolies are not inherently wrong, they are wrong only if they were created as government-enforced privileges and sucking involuntarily paid taxpayer money from the state budget through lobbying.
If someone builds a monopoly on free market - like Google, then he is probably damn good at what he's doing and can provide better service at cheaper price than everyone else. Everyone is richer by that guy doing his job and they can get more money elsewhere. Anyone can start a competition, if they don't get thrown into jail by the government.

(31-07-2014 11:53 PM)morondog Wrote:  Again, it seems to me that it's trivially easy to see that people will band together for self-protection against this kind of thing i.e. form a new government.
People already do... I mean, nowadays government does everything, but half of that is just hiring private companies to do government's job. Politicians do not build roads, they hire companies that build roads, only more expensively to cut a shady deal for our money. Government hires private security agencies to do policing jobs.
All these companies are just regular business on the market, that anyone could hire, a town, a street, a local businessman. If government didn't take our money away, we could hire these people ourselves, no Congress necessary.

A conflict in the court costs a lot of money, takes years and is by no means certain that you will win. America has more than a million laws! No wonder the richest people can just skip it and bribe someone, or hire an army of lawyers.
Instead people find it cheaper to pay insurance and to use mediation. There is an insurance-mediator combination in anarchistic theory called Dispute Resolution Organization, that can completely replace the court system.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-08-2014, 03:20 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(31-07-2014 05:57 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(31-07-2014 05:49 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Same Lummy thread different day. He is advocating for murdering Government employees now.

Government employees?

So what? Police, firefighters, nurses, doctors, school teachers, department call center staff, city council members (from major to lollypop stick holder), politicians, SOE staff, armed forces, coast guard etc.. etc..

That's a lot of people... My mom's a primary school teacher, what the fuck have you got against her Lummy? You wanna kill my mother? What the fuck is wrong with you!!?
Besides pop me out her vagina wtf has she ever done to you and done to deserve to be put up against a wall and shot?

Not cool bro.
Rev is a complete cunt-faced liar.
I have always advocated non-aggression. Non-aggression means that people should pay other people for service directly, not through a violent agency called IRS.
Also, as a method of social revolution I have advocated peaceful parenting of children, without punishments. Children do not owe us respect and obedience just for squirting them out and government does not deserve respect and obedience just for being there as a legal fiction when we were born.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-08-2014, 03:31 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(01-08-2014 03:17 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(31-07-2014 11:53 PM)morondog Wrote:  Do you *know* what my fucking government was up to when I was a kid boyo? Zimbos in general have a healthy distrust of anyone in positions of power. I look forward to your answers (no weaselling) to my questions namely:

- How do you guarantee rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of expression, property rights (you brought those up), free and fair justice? You are talking anarchy. By definition anything goes. I can enslave you tomorrow and no one can say a damn thing against it unless they're stronger than me.

Rights will be protected by not giving most of our money away to central power that controls media, army, police and tax collectors. This central power is dangerous, because it can print money and violently force people to use the printed money. This is how all the unbelievably powerful American army and paramilitary police force is financed. On free market these things would be so expensive and difficult, that nobody could put together a superior force, considering that offense is much more expensive than defense. (one reason why U.S. Army couldn't completely wipe out Afghan goat herders in mountains or Vietcong holed up in jungle)

Money and market is the most democratic institution in the world, because money are like voting bills. Some people have more money than others, but that is because others have voted for them before. Unless they're paid by taxes, which severs the link of knowing who did a good job.

Anarchy means without rulers, not without rules. People can make rules and choose not to support those who break the rules. Agreeing to rules frees us for cooperation. But if a ruler makes rules, then every rule is a big lie, because he can just make them up and he is not subject to them. Anarchy is like the internet in the real world, there is a rule called TCP/IP and who doesn't obey, doesn't get much action with other computers.

(31-07-2014 11:53 PM)morondog Wrote:  By *definition*, it's an unstable political situation which as far as I can see will immediately result in people banding together for self-protection, i.e. forming a new government.
Repost from Michael Tadlock:
*Yes, it would be with the present method of disciplining children by using violence - hitting, yelling, threats and neglect. People grow up broken. Americans overthrow Saddam and religious sects start fighting for his chair. Only peaceful parenting is the way to break the cycle.
Look up Psychohistory and Bomb in the brain.*

(31-07-2014 11:53 PM)morondog Wrote:  - You say free market competition with no regulation is the way to go, but monopolies already exist even right now. So if google monopolizes internet services in your anarchy and then jacks the prices through the roof because they can, how will you protect against that?
Monopolies are not inherently wrong, they are wrong only if they were created as government-enforced privileges and sucking involuntarily paid taxpayer money from the state budget through lobbying.
If someone builds a monopoly on free market - like Google, then he is probably damn good at what he's doing and can provide better service at cheaper price than everyone else. Everyone is richer by that guy doing his job and they can get more money elsewhere.

(31-07-2014 11:53 PM)morondog Wrote:  Again, it seems to me that it's trivially easy to see that people will band together for self-protection against this kind of thing i.e. form a new government.
People already do... I mean, nowadays government does everything, but half of that is just hiring private companies to do government's job. Politicians do not build roads, they hire companies that build roads, only more expensively to cut a shady deal for our money. Government hires private security agencies to do policing jobs.
All these companies are just regular business on the market, that anyone could hire, a town, a street, a local businessman. If government didn't take our money away, we could hire these people ourselves, no Congress necessary.

A conflict in the court costs a lot of money, takes years and is by no means certain that you will win. America has more than a million laws! No wonder the richest people can just skip it and bribe someone, or hire an army of lawyers.
Instead people find it cheaper to pay insurance and to use mediation. There is an insurance-mediator combination in anarchistic theory called Dispute Resolution Organization, that can completely replace the court system.

Well, I can't see that your proposed replacement system is anything better than what we have now, regardless of how flawed what we have now *is* - that's how bad I think your system is, literally *anything*, *any* form of government is better, even a dictatorship - at least in a dictatorship there's an incentive for the top man to try and keep people on his side and reign in the warlord types.

You are still appealing to the idea that human nature is gonna miraculously change if people stop spanking their kids - how can you not see this is laughable?

The problem with monopolies is sure, they may do a good job now and corner the market, but once they've cornered the market they *stifle* competition and can charge whatever they like. You haven't addressed how you could work around this.

In any case, this is all extremely theoretical. You can't swap the system out overnight.
- Can you envision a case study to test these ideas?
- How will you effect a non-violent transition to the new system? Especially given that pretty much everyone except you and a few other fringe types doesn't want it?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
01-08-2014, 03:33 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(01-08-2014 03:20 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(31-07-2014 05:57 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Government employees?

So what? Police, firefighters, nurses, doctors, school teachers, department call center staff, city council members (from major to lollypop stick holder), politicians, SOE staff, armed forces, coast guard etc.. etc..

That's a lot of people... My mom's a primary school teacher, what the fuck have you got against her Lummy? You wanna kill my mother? What the fuck is wrong with you!!?
Besides pop me out her vagina wtf has she ever done to you and done to deserve to be put up against a wall and shot?

Not cool bro.
Rev is a complete cunt-faced liar.
I have always advocated non-aggression. Non-aggression means that people should pay other people for service directly, not through a violent agency called IRS.
Also, as a method of social revolution I have advocated peaceful parenting of children, without punishments. Children do not owe us respect and obedience just for squirting them out and government does not deserve respect and obedience just for being there as a legal fiction when we were born.


(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  As for guns...meh. That is not necessary. America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense - and all the cops went fully paramilitary anyway.

That is you advocating for the murder of government officials. Which also makes you a liar. If you do not understand why this is not an ok thing to say you need to reexamine your morals.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-08-2014, 03:47 AM (This post was last modified: 01-08-2014 03:51 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(01-08-2014 03:31 AM)morondog Wrote:  Well, I can't see that your proposed replacement system is anything better than what we have now, regardless of how flawed what we have now *is* - that's how bad I think your system is, literally *anything*, *any* form of government is better, even a dictatorship - at least in a dictatorship there's an incentive for the top man to try and keep people on his side and reign in the warlord types.

You are still appealing to the idea that human nature is gonna miraculously change if people stop spanking their kids - how can you not see this is laughable?

The problem with monopolies is sure, they may do a good job now and corner the market, but once they've cornered the market they *stifle* competition and can charge whatever they like. You haven't addressed how you could work around this.

In any case, this is all extremely theoretical. You can't swap the system out overnight.
- Can you envision a case study to test these ideas?
- How will you effect a non-violent transition to the new system? Especially given that pretty much everyone except you and a few other fringe types doesn't want it?

Firstly, violence and neglect of children is proven to be extremely harmful since 1940's. It's a scientific fact and I will not argue about that, until you get informed.




Secondly, our daily lives and internet lives are like that. Anarchy is not chaos, it is voluntarism. I advocate voluntarism, like on the market. Whatever you do, I can't send you to jail for disobeying me. Everyone says, buy my product, but if you don't, you get to keep your money. But if you decide not to send your money to the government, they will abduct you and lock you up. If you resist, they will shoot you for resisting, but actually for not giving your money to begin with. It's not about law and order, it's really about your money.

Thirdly, I don't know how to change the system, but that means nothing. The system is morally wrong, unscientific, economically meaningless. Slavery was wrong regardless if people knew how to end it and what will replace it. They just did it and it freed the economy for big machines that can pick cotton much faster than black slaves and are powered by distilled liquid prehistoric monsters, which absolutely nobody could imagine at the time. If something is wrong, it must be ended outright, not gradually. When domestic violence against women was outlawed, were husbands supposed to smack their wives less and less gradually? (yeah, Rev will say I advocate beating women, go ahead)
However, I have some hope for the dollar collapse, that might instantly obliterate government funding. American government did not make any single decision to avert or soften the collapse, ever, in a 50 years or so.



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-08-2014, 03:59 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(01-08-2014 03:47 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Firstly, violence and neglect of children is proven to be extremely harmful since 1940's. It's a scientific fact and I will not argue about that, until you get informed.

I didn't say violence wasn't harmful. I said your proposed solution for ending violence is so stupid and infantile that words actually fail me.

I'm done. You have answered to my satisfaction.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
01-08-2014, 04:31 AM (This post was last modified: 01-08-2014 04:41 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(01-08-2014 03:59 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(01-08-2014 03:47 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Firstly, violence and neglect of children is proven to be extremely harmful since 1940's. It's a scientific fact and I will not argue about that, until you get informed.

I didn't say violence wasn't harmful. I said your proposed solution for ending violence is so stupid and infantile that words actually fail me.

I'm done. You have answered to my satisfaction.
OK. But why is my solution so stupid and infantile? You don't say why or compared to what, so it's not a rational argument. It seems to raise a lot of emotion in you. It did in me too, when I first heard about the idea. Condemning violence against children meant a fundamental change of my relationship to my parents (who were violent against me) and it was very painful and stressful, to put it mildly. It was a deep conflict in myself, nothing lesser than going from a believer to atheist or going through a divorce. It is dangerous and risky to health. We only question our relationships at considerable pain for the sake of scientific facts and rational arguments and that is a very unequal fight.
I hoped I'd get more support from people who did the same by going out of the closet as atheists to their religious families, but it doesn't look like that yet.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-08-2014, 05:17 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(01-08-2014 04:31 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(01-08-2014 03:59 AM)morondog Wrote:  I didn't say violence wasn't harmful. I said your proposed solution for ending violence is so stupid and infantile that words actually fail me.

I'm done. You have answered to my satisfaction.
OK. But why is my solution so stupid and infantile? You don't say why or compared to what, so it's not a rational argument. It seems to raise a lot of emotion in you.
Thanks for the psychoanalysis Dodgy

It is *fucking* retarded, to expect that not spanking kids is gonna magically stop the kids themselves from having violent impulses, and make them wonderful model citizens in the new world order where apparently we won't need rules because everyone will be *perfectly* good. I don't think kids should be spanked - but I also don't think that *not* spanking them is the only requirement for bringing up great kids, nor do I think that even if kids have the *best* nurture possible, that some kids won't turn out to be little psychopaths. You apparently do.

As I said, words fail me. You basically announced proudly "I have the solution to world peace, we're gonna need a vast unicorn breeding program", and then when I said "that's fucking dumb" you said "but you didn't say why"... Look bro, if you believe in unicorns it's gonna be a long hard road to explaining to you that unicorn breeding is not a viable solution to world peace.

Quote:It did in me too, when I first heard about the idea. Condemning violence against children meant a fundamental change of my relationship to my parents (who were violent against me) and it was very painful and stressful, to put it mildly. It was a deep conflict in myself, nothing lesser than going from a believer to atheist or going through a divorce. It is dangerous and risky to health. We only question our relationships at considerable pain for the sake of scientific facts and rational arguments and that is a very unequal fight.
I hoped I'd get more support from people who did the same by going out of the closet as atheists to their religious families, but it doesn't look like that yet.
You're saying that by not agreeing with you that spanking kids is the cause of all the world's woes I am *supporting* violence against children?

Christ Rolleyes

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
01-08-2014, 05:42 AM (This post was last modified: 01-08-2014 06:04 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(01-08-2014 05:17 AM)morondog Wrote:  Thanks for the psychoanalysis Dodgy
Well, we all have psyche and it can get injured by violence. In my experience, if it hurts, then examination of it is even more unpleasant than if I was OK. Nobody likes others rummaging in their psyche, because other people may be assholes and we can't let them do that.

(01-08-2014 05:17 AM)morondog Wrote:  It is *fucking* retarded, to expect that not spanking kids is gonna magically stop the kids themselves from having violent impulses, and make them wonderful model citizens in the new world order where apparently we won't need rules because everyone will be *perfectly* good. I don't think kids should be spanked - but I also don't think that *not* spanking them is the only requirement for bringing up great kids, nor do I think that even if kids have the *best* nurture possible, that some kids won't turn out to be little psychopaths. You apparently do.
Please don't accuse me of perfectionism and magic. There is science behind what I say and of course there are books on parenting and teaching negotiation skills to children. The effects are greater than you think now. It's all in the video.

(01-08-2014 05:17 AM)morondog Wrote:  As I said, words fail me. You basically announced proudly "I have the solution to world peace, we're gonna need a vast unicorn breeding program", and then when I said "that's fucking dumb" you said "but you didn't say why"... Look bro, if you believe in unicorns it's gonna be a long hard road to explaining to you that unicorn breeding is not a viable solution to world peace.
Do you think that being exposed to violence since early age may affect brain development? Does this seem like an unlikely idea to you?

(01-08-2014 05:17 AM)morondog Wrote:  You're saying that by not agreeing with you that spanking kids is the cause of all the world's woes I am *supporting* violence against children?

Christ Rolleyes
Nope. I am saying it is something very difficult and painful to think about. It's not something you just look up on Wikipedia. It is probably more painful than when Christians hear that there is no God. It took me more than several months to accept or fully appreciate what it means and there is no point in accusing anyone who can't do it faster.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: