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
31-07-2014, 10:40 AM (This post was last modified: 31-07-2014 10:47 AM by Adrianime.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(23-06-2014 04:27 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Man, I'm sorry. I must be some kind of monster for pushing your buttons like that. I heard abusers do that. Maybe it's some kind of trolling, teasing or bullying. Maybe I'm addicted to yanking your leg and you're a bit too ready to react. I've been bullied a lot, but never actually bullied anyone. But I think they do it for the sense of control. I can control you, I can detonate you quite easily. I mean, it's still your responsibility, you come with steam blowing out of your ears, it's not my idea. But once you react, you always react, like a robot. As a prime neurotic here, I say that's not healthy at all. I was like that in my early teens, before I understood that bullies actually want that. Abusers get a kick from driving their victims out of control. But even abused people get a kick from managing abusive people (that would be you). They like it as an adrenaline sport.
Luminon Wrote:And I don't think it's really me you've got a problem with. I am just some anonymous young guy on the net. If someone made you very angry in the past, but he was more powerful, so powerful that you could not even show your anger, you save it for later and forget it is there. And then it erupts at anyone who resembles the original situation. But it will repeat indefinitely, because I am not the one who caused that. You are recreating the old scenario with new person (me) but it will not calm you down permanently, because I am not the one who caused your anger and repressed it. You're on a wrong address. If you can remember who was it and when, and re-live the situation, which is rather unpleasant, you will get a hold of this reaction. There's no other way but this therapy. But first you've got to recognize that flying off the handle like that isn't healthy or righteous.
What the shizdizzle... (where was this from?)

I prefer fantasy, but I have to live in reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2014, 10:41 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(31-07-2014 10:34 AM)Luminon Wrote:  And yeah, I'd take private justice that competes with each other, just like I want private insurance that has a competition. Competition improves services.

How will you protect yourselves (you lucky anarchists) from
- monopolies
- cartels

These already exist even in the current climate where they are subject to such things as legal break ups.

Why do you think, that if you deconstruct the government, that people won't just band together again and make a new government? I could easily make a new government with less civil liberties - let's just enslave all the blacks again, why not? How will you prevent that?

Rights and so forth protected by a strong government are a positive thing - you want to abandon that? Will people be free in your little dream world?

Why do you think that private justice is better? From the point of view of the sap who's stuck in jail, he can't shop for a new cell.

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
31-07-2014, 10:55 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(31-07-2014 10:41 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(31-07-2014 10:34 AM)Luminon Wrote:  And yeah, I'd take private justice that competes with each other, just like I want private insurance that has a competition. Competition improves services.

How will you protect yourselves (you lucky anarchists) from
- monopolies
- cartels

These already exist even in the current climate where they are subject to such things as legal break ups.

Why do you think, that if you deconstruct the government, that people won't just band together again and make a new government? I could easily make a new government with less civil liberties - let's just enslave all the blacks again, why not? How will you prevent that?

Rights and so forth protected by a strong government are a positive thing - you want to abandon that? Will people be free in your little dream world?

Why do you think that private justice is better? From the point of view of the sap who's stuck in jail, he can't shop for a new cell.

He will never directly answer these questions but from following his descent into insanity I can give you the cliff notes version. Government is bad because reasons (never to be explained) It is the ONLY source of oppression, despite there being tons of examples where this is blatantly untrue. Everyone actually hates all forms of government or they are evil and/or brainwashed. All facts and figures are to be distrusted from any source that is not clearly pro-libertarian/anarchist.

(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
31-07-2014, 10:59 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(31-07-2014 09:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(31-07-2014 09:16 AM)Res Publica Wrote:  Perhaps the biggest problem with libertarians is that they ignore that the free market can exist under a socialist system, and that you can have a state and a free market.

I myself believe the best system is free market socialism, as it can ensure social justice, prosperity and freedom.
These words sound very nice, but what do they mean?
Socialism: using violence to take property from the individual and re-distribute it trough a group of centralized powerfully violent individuals.
I don't know how that jibes with anything good.

I really not sure what fucking dictionary you are using, because that is not a definition I have ever heard from any honest and informed individual. Below I have included an academic definition of socialism.
Wikipedia Wrote:Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy...

(31-07-2014 09:37 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(31-07-2014 09:16 AM)Res Publica Wrote:  Unlike libertarians, who see only room for the individual, I believe there is room for individualism within the nation. Nationalism, contrary to popular belief, is not necessarily putting the nation above the individual, but merely wanting self-determination for your national group.
Nation? What the hell is a nation? It's a made-up (cultural) thing. It's like a sports club and I'm not even a fan. Nationalism only makes sense if you're oppressed by another nation, which is not exactly an argument for being a nationalist, more like against it.
I know nationalism piggybacked every single social issue there was, labor issues, religious conflicts, industrialization, agrarian revolution, bourgeoise revolution....
But in the end, nation gets so generalized that it does not mean almost anything except language (and you see English isn't my national language anyway). In the end the only thing that means is a freedom for the individual. If sovereign nations are good, then sovereign individuals are even better. And people must be raised to be sovereign since birth. That is, without violence.
Wikipedia Wrote:A nation refers to a large group of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history.
That is a nation, a group of people who share a common heritage. There are different ways of defining nationality, but I myself prefer to define nationality culturally. So I would say that a nation, in the broadest sense, is a large group of people who share a culture and history. A nation is essential because it is the best way to protect your culture.

Quote:I don't require people to be nicer. If people do not have the police and army monopoly on power and money, they have statistically no choice but to be nice, or face private municipal security organizations, sheriffs, personal weapons and private-run prisons.
So just let the rich lord over the poor? How is this not totalitarian? Read the Iron Heel by Jack London, that book describes just how your utopia would turn out.

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
31-07-2014, 11:01 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(31-07-2014 10:02 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(31-07-2014 09:55 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  So, in a libertarian world, I can just make my currency and it must be accepted?

Facepalm
You can make your own currency even today, in libertarian world called internet. Ever heard of Dogecoin? Wink

I have and it's not performing as expected. Go figure. It got a pretty good bump during the olympics but has since fallen rather stagnant. Their future isn't so optimistic.

People also invested a government backed currency into this...Bitcoin was supposed to revolutionalize the way the Internet paid for things...

That didn't work out well either. Websites tried to force their customers to pay for things using Bitcoin, which you exchanged real money for it, but those websites abandoned it -- or added other means of paying.

Besides that's not what your image said.

Currancy can be very loosely defined, e.g.; bartering. But I can't go to a department store and offer a trade.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2014, 11:01 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(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.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like DLJ's post
31-07-2014, 11:15 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(31-07-2014 10:41 AM)morondog Wrote:  How will you protect yourselves (you lucky anarchists) from
- monopolies
- cartels

These already exist even in the current climate where they are subject to such things as legal break ups.
If monopolies are bad, government is the greatest and worst monopoly of all, it's the monopoly on violence.
Google is a monopoly. Why? Because it provides top-quality services, most are extremely cheap or for advertising. Government is a monopoly, because it can shoot people.
If you study Austrian economy, you'll see, that most of the super-rich corporate monopolies (not in digital world) are just government cronies. (rent-seeking)

(31-07-2014 10:41 AM)morondog Wrote:  Why do you think, that if you deconstruct the government, that people won't just band together again and make a new government? I could easily make a new government with less civil liberties - let's just enslave all the blacks again, why not? How will you prevent that?
GOOD QUESTION.
By propagating a peaceful upbringing of children. This is a big point, big theory of psychohistory, philosophy and science behind that. You'll need to read up on that, but the point is, if you do not use force as a parental "discipline", children will see state force as a completely foreign, hostile element. If you use negotiation instead of spanking, state will be seen as a primitive tribalism.
See psychohistory, Bomb in the brain series and listen to the podcast about Socrates and his voluntary death by the state.

http://psychohistory.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbiq2-uk...45EEB95C80
http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FD...Family.mp3
http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FD...it_Man.mp3

(31-07-2014 10:41 AM)morondog Wrote:  Rights and so forth protected by a strong government are a positive thing - you want to abandon that? Will people be free in your little dream world?
Rights and so forth are a good thing. But where is evidence that a strong government really protects them? Where is your property right, when you pay taxes? Where is your freedom, if you don't pay taxes? Isn't taking money from you what this is really all about? Yes, you get some money back in form of services you can't choose. But politicians have learned to take the money bit by bit, not everything at once. They still steal enough to retire forever after just one election term.
[Image: 178314466466020555_cZvl28ez_c.jpg]

(31-07-2014 10:41 AM)morondog Wrote:  Why do you think that private justice is better? From the point of view of the sap who's stuck in jail, he can't shop for a new cell.
Private justice would not follow made-up laws like carrying a piece of vegetation in your pocket gets you to jail. That kind of law is used by central power to boost prison industry that gets paid by printed dollars.
In a free society, security would only step in if you actively attack someone or actively steal or destroy something. Not if you do your own thing. In a free society there would be no administrative power difference between a security guy and a normal guy.
As for people in jail, where's your compassion with their victims?

And by the way, would you please talk to me at least as politely as when you talk to visiting Christians? Equals would be better, but I'd settle for Christian visitor treatment.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2014, 11:20 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Fair warning, guys. This can only end one way: Luminon gets pissy because all y'all keep dragging reality into his delusion, and decides to ignore you because he can't accept anything which doesn't come from sources that are already part of his delusional circlejerk bias-laden self-affirming sanctimonious bubble.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
31-07-2014, 11:28 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(31-07-2014 11:15 AM)Luminon Wrote:  And by the way, would you please talk to me at least as politely as when you talk to visiting Christians? Equals would be better, but I'd settle for Christian visitor treatment.

LOL. I ain't polite. I just answer how I feel at the time - if I answer politely it's 'cos I feel like it. Right now you're not someone I feel like being polite to Smile You can choose if you get insulted. If you don't get insulted you may win some respect from me. But ja, I'm just gonna use my super-ultimate freedom to be a dick until I don't feel like it any more - this is in line with anarchist principles so you should feel happy Smile

I'm afraid you haven't answered my questions to my satisfaction. I will supply details at some other time...

How's that for polite Smile

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
31-07-2014, 11:42 AM (This post was last modified: 31-07-2014 11:49 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(31-07-2014 11:28 AM)morondog Wrote:  LOL. I ain't polite. I just answer how I feel at the time - if I answer politely it's 'cos I feel like it. Right now you're not someone I feel like being polite to Smile You can choose if you get insulted. If you don't get insulted you may win some respect from me. But ja, I'm just gonna use my super-ultimate freedom to be a dick until I don't feel like it any more - this is in line with anarchist principles so you should feel happy Smile

I'm afraid you haven't answered my questions to my satisfaction. I will supply details at some other time...

How's that for polite Smile
Fair enough. I just want to say, I answered the same way that an atheist would answer to a Christian. (you won't get satisfactory answers because your ideas are misinformed, just like I was on libertarianism several years ago) Christians have a lot to learn about how the world works, about evolution, astronomy, logic, history...

And I think the statists have similar need to learn. The government has this weird power to make a law about absolutely anything they want. Usually it's just boring things, but they can totally make laws like you must stand on one foot, in pink panties, on the roof and sing the anthem, or you go to jail. They totally can do that. And I always found that a bit weird.
And then I learned that government has absolutely no obligation to obey science. I learned that politicians are not very educated and don't know how to solve problems. They just order other people to solve problems (drive safely, don't attack) or get attacked by superior force. It's like a safety vent against violence, but it doesn't actually solve causes of problems. Science invented vaccines and eradicated plagues. But whatever government did, is still here. Stuff like wars.
If you're moral because God might punish you, you're not moral, you're obedient. It's the same with government. The longer I thought about the government, the more it reminded me of God. So I am endlessly fascinated by atheists, do they just have a secular God? Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: