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
06-08-2014, 12:47 PM (This post was last modified: 06-08-2014 01:02 PM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(06-08-2014 12:18 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Yep, remember folks: Collectivization and compromising for the benefit of the greater whole is EVIL!
Compromise to do what? Greater what? Looks like signing blank papers to me. I mean, mandatory pre-emptive greement with all past and future political decisions under death threat. Let's see on the elections which party gets to realize their grand dreams for the population's money this time!
[Image: statism-statism-obama-romney-2012-electi...138751.jpg]

Doesn't look like civilization to me!
[Image: 1176231_298105366993967_265105019_n.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2014, 12:57 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(31-07-2014 11:01 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(31-07-2014 06:51 AM)Luminon Wrote:  ...
So please look at the pic and vote in the poll.

[Image: 10590594_667094376708419_2980131783438047277_n.jpg]

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.

Reposting because ol' Lumi would rather regurgitate facetious image macros and engage in self-aggrandising psychobabble than respond to criticism.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like cjlr's post
06-08-2014, 01:04 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(06-08-2014 12:47 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(06-08-2014 12:18 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Yep, remember folks: Collectivization and compromising for the benefit of the greater whole is EVIL!
Compromise to do what? Greater what? Looks like signing blank papers to me. I mean, mandatory pre-emptive greement with all past and future political decisions under death threat. Let's see on the elections which party gets to realize their grand dreams for the population's money this time!
[Image: statism-statism-obama-romney-2012-electi...138751.jpg]

[Image: The_True_Political_Spectrum.jpg]

As opposed to Lumi's Libertarian wet dreams, a world of theoretical models that only work in reality with a near perfectly homogeneous society that where all people agreed to follow his theoretical models...

You know, where it would only work if everyone magically voluntarily followed his set of rules (and all the evidence of history gives us every reason to believe this would never happen voluntarily, and has only come close to happening in authoritarian dictatorships like North Korea). The irony of this is consistently lost on Lumi, such is his tragedy.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2014, 01:08 PM (This post was last modified: 06-08-2014 01:41 PM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(06-08-2014 12:57 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Reposting because ol' Lumi would rather regurgitate facetious image macros and engage in self-aggrandising psychobabble than respond to criticism.
So you don't consider these questions answered? I thought I did Consider These questions are as old as atheists defending evolution, if you don't count the trial of Socrates. Pictures and videos got made since then.









(06-08-2014 01:04 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  As opposed to Lumi's Libertarian wet dreams, a world of theoretical models that only work in reality with a near perfectly homogeneous society that where all people agreed to follow his theoretical models...

You know, where it would only work if everyone magically voluntarily followed his set of rules (and all the evidence of history gives us every reason to believe this would never happen voluntarily, and has only come close to happening in authoritarian dictatorships like North Korea). The irony of this is consistently lost on Lumi, such is his tragedy.
Quite opposite, politics and imposing majority will only sort of works where there are little or no minorities - like Swiss cantons. When Muslims move to France, Denmark or Britain, that causes both social and political problems. In Netherlands and elsewhere, they try to get into politics! There are also problems with Hungarians and Gypsies in Slovakia.
Diversity + Politics = PROBLEM (Islam in schools)
Diversity - Politics = no problem. Just Chinese, Indian and Italian restaurants everywhere.
In reality, you go out shopping and it doesn't matter what nationality, political orientation or skin color you have, you buy what you want, you leave the rest, no strings attached. You do not have to follow any set of rules, just don't follow rules that tell you to initiate violence (such as the police and IRS work rules).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2014, 01:22 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
You know Lumi, there was a country that actually had your system for a time. Not because they wanted it, but because constant war destroyed the government. That country was Somalia.

But I'm sure the only reason it didn't work out is because they forgot to stop spanking.

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
06-08-2014, 01:35 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
I just watched the first video and that is 4 minutes completely wasted.

Would you please explain how crime would be prevented. What is to stop someone from harming others without a government. What is to stop people with the resources to form a new government and create a totalitarian society from doing so?

And if your answer is anything along the lines of "that would never happen" don't bother answering because you lose if that is your best response.

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt.

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
06-08-2014, 01:35 PM (This post was last modified: 06-08-2014 02:27 PM by cjlr.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(06-08-2014 01:08 PM)Luminon Wrote:  So you don't consider these questions answered? I thought I did.

No. DLJ made the cogent point that government (defined as collective decision-making) and politics (defined as the mechanisms by which government operates) are inevitable and inextricable from any functioning society.

You have not even come close to a coherent response to this.

EDIT: I decided to emphasise the most important section for you:
(31-07-2014 11:01 AM)DLJ Wrote:  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.

Anything other than Magical Thinking™ to address this, ol' Lumi?

(06-08-2014 01:08 PM)Luminon Wrote:  In reality, you go out shopping and it doesn't matter what nationality, political orientation or skin color you have, you buy what you want, you leave the rest, no strings attached.

That's pathetically facile. Markets are composed of humans. Markets are subject to externalities. Markets are flawed. You go out shopping and your choices are massively constrained by your own resources, by the selection of products, by the selection of retailers...

So, gaping hole #1: markets are fundamentally unequal, which you've gone to desperate lengths to ignore and deny (protip: this is not a new observation). An unrestricted market is the tyranny of capital. Period. Recognising irony requires self-awareness, so the beauty of advocating unbridled inequality in the name of freedom is surely lost on you.

To extend an infinitesimal amount of credit, you seem at least dimly aware the real life is not a magical utopia. But because your full-retard no-rules pure market-based anarcho-capitalism relies on everybody being perfect citizens acting in perfect good faith at all times for all eternity, it presents rather some issues when rudely confronted by reality. Your only attempt at a response is to stress how the problems magically go away if everyone magically agrees with you.

Of course, there's a funny thing about such reasoning; did you know that all political systems work perfectly with no conflict when everybody accepts them unconditionally and nobody ever breaks the rules? This is what EK just told you, and once again you either didn't understand the point or disingenuously ignored it.

(06-08-2014 01:08 PM)Luminon Wrote:  You do not have to follow any set of rules, just don't follow rules that tell you to initiate violence (such as the police and IRS work rules).

Insanely gaping hole #2:
You have never even attempted to define either "initiate" or "violence". As such your vapid assertions are meaningless. I suppose this is because any attempt at definition requires you to admit that any such definitions are subjective.

I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like cjlr's post
06-08-2014, 01:56 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(06-08-2014 01:22 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  You know Lumi, there was a country that actually had your system for a time. Not because they wanted it, but because constant war destroyed the government. That country was Somalia.

But I'm sure the only reason it didn't work out is because they forgot to stop spanking.
That country has several governments fighting for dominance. Not what I'd call non-aggression, more like the opposite.


(06-08-2014 01:35 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  I just watched the first video and that is 4 minutes completely wasted.

Would you please explain how crime would be prevented. What is to stop someone from harming others without a government. What is to stop people with the resources to form a new government and create a totalitarian society from doing so?

And if your answer is anything along the lines of "that would never happen" don't bother answering because you lose if that is your best response.

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt.
Government can't prevent crime, it adds to it taxation, which is like robbers taking half of all your income. Most people would rather take their chances with uncertain robbery (which they can fend off with gun) than certain taxes. Government does nothing about crime that we couldn't on our own. Government hires security forces, it hires road builders, media, office cleaning agencies... If government wouldn't take half of our money, people would put money together locally to hire security to prevent crime and it would be cheaper. And violent officers would get sacked, not given paid holiday.

What is to stop people from setting up another government half-dictatorship? Short answer: Bitcoin.


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2014, 02:04 PM (This post was last modified: 06-08-2014 02:21 PM by Res Publica.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(06-08-2014 01:56 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(06-08-2014 01:22 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  You know Lumi, there was a country that actually had your system for a time. Not because they wanted it, but because constant war destroyed the government. That country was Somalia.

But I'm sure the only reason it didn't work out is because they forgot to stop spanking.
That country has several governments fighting for dominance. Not what I'd call non-aggression, more like the opposite.


(06-08-2014 01:35 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  I just watched the first video and that is 4 minutes completely wasted.

Would you please explain how crime would be prevented. What is to stop someone from harming others without a government. What is to stop people with the resources to form a new government and create a totalitarian society from doing so?

And if your answer is anything along the lines of "that would never happen" don't bother answering because you lose if that is your best response.

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt.
Government can't prevent crime, it adds to it taxation, which is like robbers taking half of all your income. Most people would rather take their chances with uncertain robbery (which they can fend off with gun) than certain taxes. Government does nothing about crime that we couldn't on our own. Government hires security forces, it hires road builders, media, office cleaning agencies... If government wouldn't take half of our money, people would put money together locally to hire security to prevent crime and it would be cheaper. And violent officers would get sacked, not given paid holiday.

What is to stop people from setting up another government half-dictatorship? Short answer: Bitcoin.



As much as I would like to hear you god rattle on for 30 mi- No fuck that! I don't want to hear him rattle for hours about how the bitcoin means no one will ever be power hungry again. And didn't the bitcoin crash?

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
06-08-2014, 02:20 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(06-08-2014 08:55 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(06-08-2014 01:48 AM)PKJoe Wrote:  After reading this whole thread, I have a suspicion that Luminon isn't a real person. Yes their is a real person that does the typing, but the persona of Luminon is a farce. I think the person behind that account is just playing a character. There is no other way to explain the bull shit that is coming from him. Most of what he says is nonsensical rambling with no clear point. Half of the rest of what he says is said in such an over the top condescending way that he has to know that not a single person would take him seriously. The rest is just regurgitation of talking points from random conspiracy websites. How he has time to post all this garbage is beyond me, but I think most of what comes from Luninon, he doesn't even believe himself.
I have my doubts about that hypothesis. I've known Luminon since way back in 2012 and the only thing that has changed is that he has become much more arrogant, conceited and condescending. He has always been this delusional.

Libertarianism does that to people. 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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: