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
03-08-2014, 04:13 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
No taxes? This has got to be a joke. It just has to be.

I prefer fantasy, but I have to live in reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2014, 04:17 AM (This post was last modified: 03-08-2014 05:21 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(03-08-2014 04:05 AM)morondog Wrote:  Rolleyes How will you bring me to justice when I kill your family?

You have no money and no friends, by the way. I am a wealthy man. Bodyguards and beautiful babes all over the place. I killed your family 'cos they lived next door and I could sometimes hear the baby crying.

It's perfectly fine because there is no law against it.
Hypothetical questions deserve hypothetical answers. Please ask only empirical questions, bad people don't just come out of nowhere. It may look like that in some of the movies, but these movies are used to relieve people from guilt and responsibility, by tossing hands up and saying "bad people just happen, I ain't got to explain shit".
- If you're rich on free market, that means many people voted for you with their money, because you were very nice and useful to them.
- If you're rich in the government system, that means you have lots of friends in the government who passed some convenient laws for you - for example arms deals for killing whole families in the middle East.

And, you haven't defined justice. This is an atheist forum, so you must use philosophy (or science) to define justice. There is no natural law that a criminal feels a deep urge to travel to Tibet and wall himself off in a freezing cell for 10 years. Prisons are a fast and dirty failsafe for the society, but they are not a scientific solution. No scientist invented prisons, they're social hand-me-downs from centuries ago.

The only real solution is long term peaceful upbringing of children without damaging their brain, towards empathy and negotiation. Which is probably what you never saw as a child. Neither did I. That is, because both of our parents claimed to be good parents, but they probably haven't read a single book on parenting. And they haven't gone through therapy to resolve their own traumas from even shittier parenting of their parents. And as every psychologist knows, traumas are contagious and inherited generation after generation, like a goddamn Xerox of history.
If people are not assaulted and traumatized as children, they are less violent and less criminal. Sweden outlawed spanking in the 70's and the predictions of gangs of unruly kids haven't materialized. Those who haven't been spanked are people who were never beaten up many times by someone several times as big and strong as them on whom they were totally dependent and to whom they still had to show love. That totally warps our relationship to authority. If force is used against us as children, we get used to force as an option, we may even accept and expect it from the society as a necessary thing. But that is not scientific or philosophical, that's Stockholm syndrome.
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/09/world/...hment-ban/
http://www.thelocal.se/20140110/swedish-...me-reports

Moral arguments are paramount to mass human behavior.
As Stefan Molyneux says, the danger to human life is not a random serial killer, who kills maybe 30 or so people. That's like an hour of WW2 in one location. The real danger to human is the argument that it is good to murder, it's moral to obey the president and shoot people he points his finger at. It's moral to take property from taxpayers and shoot them if they disagree or ship them off to rape rooms. The moral argument that it's good to kill is really dangerous and needs to be examined. This argument can not be universal, because two people in the same room can't fulfill it simultaneously, there will always be one killer and one killed even if it was somehow moral. So killing can't be a rule for everyone and if it's not for everyone, it can't be moral. If it's moral to obey the law or president and kill people, then a guy in a coma is immoral.

Just something I heard around 122 minutes here:
http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/309/call-in...2-2006-4pm
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2014, 06:58 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
The funny thing here is that based on the grasps and understandings of human society and human nature displayed so far by the participants in this thread; I actually think the one who would fare the worst in the world Luminon is advocating is Luminon...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Gaest's post
03-08-2014, 08:13 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
I think DLJ is still waiting for a response to his post, Luminon. Consider

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
03-08-2014, 08:47 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(03-08-2014 08:13 AM)Vosur Wrote:  I think DLJ is still waiting for a response to his post, Luminon. Consider

You read my mind.

Actually, that was a timely post as I was just contemplating going through the thread to see whether I'd missed the response.

Thanks.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
03-08-2014, 09:06 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(03-08-2014 04:17 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(03-08-2014 04:05 AM)morondog Wrote:  Rolleyes How will you bring me to justice when I kill your family?

You have no money and no friends, by the way. I am a wealthy man. Bodyguards and beautiful babes all over the place. I killed your family 'cos they lived next door and I could sometimes hear the baby crying.

It's perfectly fine because there is no law against it.
Hypothetical questions deserve hypothetical answers. Please ask only empirical questions, bad people don't just come out of nowhere. It may look like that in some of the movies, but these movies are used to relieve people from guilt and responsibility, by tossing hands up and saying "bad people just happen, I ain't got to explain shit".
- If you're rich on free market, that means many people voted for you with their money, because you were very nice and useful to them.

The stupid here is overwhelming. I love A&W and Wendy's, those cheeseburgers (cheese and bacon only) are some of my favorite foods. Do I "vote" for these companies because they are very nice to me? I don't even know who the fuck is in charge of these companies. I don't know who the manager of the restaurant I go to is, I don't know who his boss is, I don't know who is above him and I don't know who is the leader. None of those people do I even know, yet according to you I must be "voting" for them because they are really nice to me.

What kind of fucking fantasyland do you live in? The Waltons have billions and are complete assholes, yet I still buy from Walmart out of convenience. Have you ever fucking considered that maybe people don't really have that much say where how they "vote" with their wallets.

If this really was democracy then all products would be the same price. That fair trade coffee would be the same price as any other coffee. If only some can even afford to vote certain ways than what kind of fucking democracy is that?

Paleoliberal • English Nationalist • Zionist • Rightist • Anti-Islam • Neoconservative • Republican • Linguistic Revivalist and Purist

Happily Divorced from the Left!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Res Publica's post
03-08-2014, 10:08 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(03-08-2014 06:58 AM)Gaest Wrote:  The funny thing here is that based on the grasps and understandings of human society and human nature displayed so far by the participants in this thread; I actually think the one who would fare the worst in the world Luminon is advocating is Luminon...
Yeah, you're right. The participants in this forum all grew up in society and family neglectful and violent towards children. We all grew up under heavy involvement of the state. Hell, my parents were on welfare for 6 years! I was practically forbidden from working when I was a teen, because that would decrease the welfare. And there were no offers to work as a gastarbeiter, I come from a poor region.

Unfortunately, that doesn't make it any more economical. I am convinced by the power of economic science and rational arguments that what government is doing is wrong both scientifically and morally. The arguments are so compelling, that I am willing to launch myself into a job market. I don't know anything about a job market, but I know that with non-support of the state parasitism it will have about twice as much money to go around for everyone, which sounds quite good! I'm willing to risk that.

(31-07-2014 11:01 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Consider

I looked at the pic. I have a problem with it.

Let's take the simplest one... taxation:

A small tribe have a meeting and decide, much like the pizza example, that they want to change their environment to make life, for all, safer / more efficient / more social / more private / whatever.

They come up with a plan that involves some construction work ... a program of works, in fact.

They need to work out a way to resource the work and decide that as everyone benefits in some way, then contributions should come from everyone.

This scenario does not fit into any of the three categories in the picture.

To make it fit the picture we need to add another factor... dissent.

This could be a dissenting voice of a tribe member against the initial proposal or an external dissenter who joins the tribe late and was not part of the initial decision making process.

One solution for cost-recovery could be to tax consumption (like toll roads). Now, the initial budget could have come from any social group; the whole tribe (the state) or a subset (a corporation or church or co-op).

This seems like the libertarian model... individual/group choice regarding funding and individual choice regarding consumption. So far, so good.

Now, what about the penniless, 90-year-old widow who could not contribute and cannot afford the tax? For example, she is not allowed to use a new road because she neither contributed to the budget nor can she pay the toll.

Charitable donations? Great... but no guarantees. She had two sons who cared for her but they both died during the construction project because the social group (state) could not force the social group (corporation) to abide by best practice health and safety laws.

For any given position (corporate policy, state law, 10 commandments, football rules, TTA forum policies etc.) there will always be dissenters.

To address this, we have Governance; a mechanism whereby all stakeholders' needs, conditions and options are evaluated to determine balanced, negotiated and agreed-upon objectives; setting direction through transparent prioritisation and decision-making; and monitoring performance and compliance against that agreed-upon direction.

Every social grouping has Governance. Some governance systems have proved more useless than others.

I'm sorry, I must have overlooked your post.

There are so many possible meanings behind this "Governance" concept of yours, that it is virtually meaningless. I am a bachelor of law, public administration and economy and I say this is psychobabble legalese newspeak and not even politicians would believe it.

There are two kinds of law, one kind can get you shot by the government, the other kind can't. The law without shooting makes government superfluous, the law with shooting makes it immoral. By shooting I of course mean involvement of armed men whom you can't resist, not even in self-defense, or you get shot. This is the opposite of libertarianism.

What is actually your argument?
- Do you claim that people, many of whom may be business owners can not afford to put together a capital and build a road without violently extorting money from old widows?

- Do you claim that people do not have money to build roads, but they have enough money to pay government bureaucracy, AND the police AND the roads, which are of course built by companies hired by the government?

- Do you claim that roads are not affordable or profitable unless ALL people in an area are taxed, that is, forced at gunpoint to contribute to the building capital? This is what you seem to indirectly imply. Please admit it or provide actual arguments.

Can't people just get together as a corporation or foundation and see if they can put together enough money? Of course such a local road corporation would include the toll profits to divide among shareholders and it would also have its road rights protected and insured by the Dispute Resolution Organization. A DRO does not use violence, it negotiates fines and it may threaten with denial of economic cooperation in stuff like sales or insurance. A DRO that is too strict will not get enough customers and a DRO that is too lenient will not get enough profit. Market evolution by natural selection will show what DRO policy is the best for a local niche or area.

It is immoral to tax people against their will under any premise, such as living in a given village, being members of a family, or being bodily conjoined from birth. None of these geographical or biological facts is an objective reason to forcefully demand money from another person. If they don't contribute to some enterprise as charity or investors, it's bust.
On the other hand, the investors can do whatever they want with the road. They can open it to everyone or close it off to everyone or anything in between. People may also do whatever they want, such as walk on the road or drive on it sometimes. Serious violations of property rights and other conflicts will be mediated either with personal negotiation to arrive at mutually beneficial solution, (business plan using the road!) or through DRO. DRO are also free to come up with any non-violent deal or "punishment" that a market can think of and agree on.

In a free society, nobody would even contemplate this inhumane act of legal machinery to force old widows to cough up money that they don't have - that is the characteristic of faceless and spineless bureaucratic power that faces no social consequences. DROs face social consequences as market choice.

Of course, there may be a case when people in a given area want a road or something else, but can not afford it. That is completely all right. It means that there are too few people in that area, or that local business is not useful enough to generate enough profit to guarantee a road. Of course, there may be market research proving that building a road to a given area would increase profits so much to pay for the road and then some. This is what bank loans are for. In the very end, it may be cheaper for people to let the road as it is or move elsewhere. This is how people scientifically arrive at economic decisions that prevent them from wasting money and make us all richer.

Do you know who caused the American housing bubble crisis, that deluded people into false thinking that building houses is more profitable than it actually was? Government, of course. 10 % of American houses were built wastefully, because the government gave privileges to banksters who distorted the prices of housing. This is a real life equivalent of taxing people at gunpoint to build roads into every middle of nowhere, where nobody ever comes.
http://bastiat.mises.org/2014/03/bubble-...-it-again/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2014, 10:33 AM (This post was last modified: 03-08-2014 10:40 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(03-08-2014 09:06 AM)Res Publica Wrote:  
(03-08-2014 04:17 AM)Luminon Wrote:   - If you're rich on free market, that means many people voted for you with their money, because you were very nice and useful to them.

The stupid here is overwhelming. I love A&W and Wendy's, those cheeseburgers (cheese and bacon only) are some of my favorite foods. Do I "vote" for these companies because they are very nice to me? I don't even know who the fuck is in charge of these companies. I don't know who the manager of the restaurant I go to is, I don't know who his boss is, I don't know who is above him and I don't know who is the leader. None of those people do I even know, yet according to you I must be "voting" for them because they are really nice to me.
No question or problem here. Keep voting with your wallet for the cheeseburgers, if you want.

(03-08-2014 09:06 AM)Res Publica Wrote:  What kind of fucking fantasyland do you live in? The Waltons have billions and are complete assholes, yet I still buy from Walmart out of convenience. Have you ever fucking considered that maybe people don't really have that much say where how they "vote" with their wallets.
Yes, I have considered that. It's because many industries are subsidized by the government, which makes everyone poorer, but some products seem cheaper in the numbers.
On free market, stuff would make sense. Biology says it takes 7 kg of grain to grow one kg of beef. On free market there would be no possible way to make 1 kg of beef cheaper than the price of 7 kg of grain. No way in hell. Likely the beef would be much more expensive than that, due to lots of other costs.
But what government subsidies do, is making grain or some other of these costs pre-paid by the whole taxpayer public, so that private business like McDonald's has the government privilege to offer cheap hamburgers and fatten the American poor classes.
Twinkies are processed food and processing takes resources (money). But government crapitalism is the world where twinkies cost less than carrots.

Companies do all this superfluous production and consumerism, because government privileges and subsidies are for sale by bribing politicians. Also, politicians print money, which decreases purchasing power and so people have to work more to allow the same life standard. But this work produces stuff that must be sold and consumed and thus resources are wasted.

It really sucks what we have today and it has nothing to do with free market or free society. We only have vestiges of free market because it is the only way to have good computers, it is more productive, there is more to steal and of course it saves work for government central planners if people do what they want but give them half the money. If you are a green or hippie or just have brains, you will be against government privileges, that is, government.

(03-08-2014 09:06 AM)Res Publica Wrote:  If this really was democracy then all products would be the same price. That fair trade coffee would be the same price as any other coffee. If only some can even afford to vote certain ways than what kind of fucking democracy is that?
I said this is more democratic than government, not that this is THE democracy. Nope, economy is not politics, it's science. And economics empirically demands that the prices be left as they are, because they contain the prices of everything that the stuff was made of and more.
Government uses violent threats to willy-nilly manipulate the prices as it sees fit and mislead the customers into superfluous consumption or bad investments. If you hate Christian preachers and apologists for spouting bullshit against science, you know what to do with politicians. Economy is science too! Austrian school of economy, I mean. Keynesianism is government make-believe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2014, 10:47 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(03-08-2014 10:33 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(03-08-2014 09:06 AM)Res Publica Wrote:  The stupid here is overwhelming. I love A&W and Wendy's, those cheeseburgers (cheese and bacon only) are some of my favorite foods. Do I "vote" for these companies because they are very nice to me? I don't even know who the fuck is in charge of these companies. I don't know who the manager of the restaurant I go to is, I don't know who his boss is, I don't know who is above him and I don't know who is the leader. None of those people do I even know, yet according to you I must be "voting" for them because they are really nice to me.
No question or problem here. Keep voting with your wallet for the cheeseburgers, if you want.

(03-08-2014 09:06 AM)Res Publica Wrote:  What kind of fucking fantasyland do you live in? The Waltons have billions and are complete assholes, yet I still buy from Walmart out of convenience. Have you ever fucking considered that maybe people don't really have that much say where how they "vote" with their wallets.
Yes, I have considered that. It's because many industries are subsidized by the government, which makes everyone poorer, but some products seem cheaper in the numbers.
On free market, stuff would make sense. Biology says it takes 7 kg of grain to grow one kg of beef. On free market there would be no possible way to make 1 kg of beef cheaper than the price of 7 kg of grain. No way in hell. Likely the beef would be much more expensive than that, due to lots of other costs.
But what government subsidies do, is making grain or some other of these costs pre-paid by the whole taxpayer public, so that private business like McDonald's has the government privilege to offer cheap hamburgers and fatten the American poor classes.
Twinkies are processed food and processing takes resources (money). But government crapitalism is the world where twinkies cost less than carrots.

Companies do all this superfluous production and consumerism, because government privileges and subsidies are for sale by bribing politicians. Also, politicians print money, which decreases purchasing power and so people have to work more to allow the same life standard. But this work produces stuff that must be sold and consumed and thus resources are wasted.

It really sucks what we have today and it has nothing to do with free market or free society. If you are a green or hippie or just have brains, you will be against government privileges, that is, government.

(03-08-2014 09:06 AM)Res Publica Wrote:  If this really was democracy then all products would be the same price. That fair trade coffee would be the same price as any other coffee. If only some can even afford to vote certain ways than what kind of fucking democracy is that?
I said this is more democratic than government, not that this is THE democracy. Nope, economy is not politics, it's science. And economics empirically demands that the prices be left as they are, because they contain the prices of everything that the stuff was made of and more.
Government uses violent threats to willy-nilly manipulate the prices as it sees fit and mislead the customers into superfluous consumption or bad investments. If you hate Christian preachers and apologists for spouting bullshit against science, you know what to do with politicians. Economy is science too! Austrian school of economy, I mean. Keynesianism is government make-believe.

Austrian economics is not science. Say what you will about Keynesianism (I'm not a big fan either), but at least he used mathematical modelling and didn't just pull "economics" out of his ass. Austrian economics isn't science, it is woo. Austrians outright reject the scientific method and data. Disagree with Keynes all you want, he used actual scientific modeling.

If you want an actual economist who supported the free market then go look up Milton Friedman. Of course, you probably hate him as Austrians insist he is a Stalinist market-hater.

Paleoliberal • English Nationalist • Zionist • Rightist • Anti-Islam • Neoconservative • Republican • Linguistic Revivalist and Purist

Happily Divorced from the Left!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-08-2014, 11:03 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(03-08-2014 10:47 AM)Res Publica Wrote:  
(03-08-2014 10:33 AM)Luminon Wrote:  No question or problem here. Keep voting with your wallet for the cheeseburgers, if you want.

Yes, I have considered that. It's because many industries are subsidized by the government, which makes everyone poorer, but some products seem cheaper in the numbers.
On free market, stuff would make sense. Biology says it takes 7 kg of grain to grow one kg of beef. On free market there would be no possible way to make 1 kg of beef cheaper than the price of 7 kg of grain. No way in hell. Likely the beef would be much more expensive than that, due to lots of other costs.
But what government subsidies do, is making grain or some other of these costs pre-paid by the whole taxpayer public, so that private business like McDonald's has the government privilege to offer cheap hamburgers and fatten the American poor classes.
Twinkies are processed food and processing takes resources (money). But government crapitalism is the world where twinkies cost less than carrots.

Companies do all this superfluous production and consumerism, because government privileges and subsidies are for sale by bribing politicians. Also, politicians print money, which decreases purchasing power and so people have to work more to allow the same life standard. But this work produces stuff that must be sold and consumed and thus resources are wasted.

It really sucks what we have today and it has nothing to do with free market or free society. If you are a green or hippie or just have brains, you will be against government privileges, that is, government.

I said this is more democratic than government, not that this is THE democracy. Nope, economy is not politics, it's science. And economics empirically demands that the prices be left as they are, because they contain the prices of everything that the stuff was made of and more.
Government uses violent threats to willy-nilly manipulate the prices as it sees fit and mislead the customers into superfluous consumption or bad investments. If you hate Christian preachers and apologists for spouting bullshit against science, you know what to do with politicians. Economy is science too! Austrian school of economy, I mean. Keynesianism is government make-believe.

Austrian economics is not science. Say what you will about Keynesianism (I'm not a big fan either), but at least he used mathematical modelling and didn't just pull "economics" out of his ass. Austrian economics isn't science, it is woo. Austrians outright reject the scientific method and data. Disagree with Keynes all you want, he used actual scientific modeling.

If you want an actual economist who supported the free market then go look up Milton Friedman. Of course, you probably hate him as Austrians insist he is a Stalinist market-hater.

This has been explained in great detail to him. He is a cult follower of Stefan Molyneux which is why all his weird copypasta arguments are based around the US despite him not living there and the majority of people who respond to him not living there. Luminon has not had a unique thought about economics of government he is a sheep following a conman.

(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
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: