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
11-08-2014, 04:05 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(11-08-2014 03:45 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  But Lumi has a huge fucking shit-fit about only one of those supposed 'lack of freedom' scenarios (note for the slow: it gals him that he was born into a state that existed before he did, because reasons).

It's not... bad... to criticise the political system / state. Of all the examples cited, political systems are the only thing that are a human construct and that can be easily changed if desired. But... the reasons given as criticism of the central-government political system (aka the big bad state) are weak IMO.

And the especial weakness is that there have been no real examples cited of the state actually taking away freedom, in such a way that I can see that anarchy is a better system.

The claims that private security and so forth is better are just claims - there's no way a person can seriously support changing the status quo on the basis of the rhetoric, until the claims are actually tested - preferably on a small scale.

And Lumi, you'd best find a more convincing argument than the not-spanking one. It's not compelling at all. Your only answer to a number of serious criticisms of your point of view is that people are going to be nicer to each other and not game the system purely because they weren't spanked - that view is hopelessly naive.

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
[+] 4 users Like morondog's post
11-08-2014, 07:46 AM (This post was last modified: 11-08-2014 07:54 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(11-08-2014 03:36 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  We did that once before Lumi, with the point being that adhering to libertarian principles does not, in and of itself, guarantee an anarcho-capitalist society. There is nothing that stops property from being consolidated or monopolized and leading towards the creation of states or even absolute monarchies, that being a single person who has monopolized all property and is merely exercising their 'property rights' on those willing to submit to her stipulations (laws) in exchanged for the right to live and operate on her property (territory/country).
"There is nothing that stops X from Y" = NOT AN ARGUMENT
My argument is, if there is something that has the power to prevent X from Y, it will deliberately do Y to X in order to consolidate its power. Who has the power to protect everyone, has the power to kill or enslave everyone. When that power is used sparsely, with caution, diplomacy, subtlety and granting people wishes for money stolen from them, it's called social democracy.

(11-08-2014 03:36 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  And of course you shouldn't blindly trust those in power, that is why I advocate for transparency; and transparency is good for any social construct that values honesty and requires a degree of trust. So your images, if they are meant to disparage criticism again't libertarianism, are nothing but facile strawmen. Or in other words, par for the fucking course as far as you are concerned.
Transparency is needed when someone has the power to command nation-wide police forces and nation-wide tax collection. Then you need helluva transparency to keep that system from collapsing unto itself like a massive welfare-warfare money-forging empire. Oh, that was the Imperium Romanum.
But if there is no super-personal power, you don't need transparency. Everyone keeps track of their own money, it's called accounting.

(11-08-2014 03:40 AM)morondog Wrote:  What freedom do you lack? Other than the freedom not to pay taxes which is not a valid answer as explained to you before.
Freedom is indivisible. If someone has the power to take a few of freedoms away, he has the power to take all of them away - and this is what inevitably happens to consolidate the central power. Every single law detracts from our freedom. More laws does not equal more freedom and justice, it's just like computer code. More code does not mean more processing. (USA has about a million laws, world record)
As Seneca said, the more laws, the more corrupt the state.

What about the freedom of living according to my conscience? Not supporting with my money what I think are criminal schemes?
What about the freedom to keep a piece of vegetable in my pocket without getting beaten and arrested, and I don't mean a carrot, ladies? What about planting, growing and smoking what I want? What about Americans criminally selling raw milk or choosing (not) to water their lawns?
What about freedom of trade, travel, association, free enterprise, copying and sharing data, working where I want, how I want, for how much I want, driving where I want and how fast I can safely handle...
What about the freedom of not supporting the "social programs" of drug prohibition and work prohibition, or gender-discriminatory policies?
What about deciding what shape of a banana and what name of a product I want to buy, instead of bureaucrats in Brussel?
What about the freedom from having my potential future kids indoctrinated into allegiance to a non-existent secular entity that uses violence? What about the freedom not to pay for public education if also I pay for private education?
I'd like to work in some marvelous jobs that will never materialize, because government takes 60 % money out of economy and willy-nilly spends them in public sector where everyone do their best to steal them and never work again.

But if you want some specific examples from my life... Healthcare is nationalized and so are the insurance companies. They have exact the same programs and they only cover the worst and cheapest medical solutions (unless I need heart surgery). I have big dentistry expenses.
Also, I would love to work someday as a teacher, but education is nationalized too, so I couldn't choose my subjects to teach. I'd have to teach government-prescribed meaningless stuff made to fragment minds and produce barely competent people, who in America can hardly read when graduate.

(11-08-2014 04:05 AM)morondog Wrote:  It's not... bad... to criticise the political system / state. Of all the examples cited, political systems are the only thing that are a human construct and that can be easily changed if desired. But... the reasons given as criticism of the central-government political system (aka the big bad state) are weak IMO.

And the especial weakness is that there have been no real examples cited of the state actually taking away freedom, in such a way that I can see that anarchy is a better system.

The claims that private security and so forth is better are just claims - there's no way a person can seriously support changing the status quo on the basis of the rhetoric, until the claims are actually tested - preferably on a small scale.
That's very nicely said. Yes, state is a human construct and can be changed.
Very well, did you get to test democracy on small scale before you chose to sign up for it? If you have this standard of testing for whatever I say, you must apply it to whatever there is today. Call it revisionism of the present, but we can't have double standards Wink If scientists discovered that some presently popular and cheap Chinese plastic bottles for kids contain polychlorine biphenyls, what do we do? Wait till the supplies are sold out, or act immediately?

Btw, anarchy is not a system, just like atheism is not a belief. The proper name should be anarcho-capitalism or ancap. But capitalism must be understood as the Austrian Economics, which doesn't need state regulation. And it's something you need to read up on, it's rather counter-intuitive.

(11-08-2014 04:05 AM)morondog Wrote:  And Lumi, you'd best find a more convincing argument than the not-spanking one. It's not compelling at all. Your only answer to a number of serious criticisms of your point of view is that people are going to be nicer to each other and not game the system purely because they weren't spanked - that view is hopelessly naive.
"Hopelessly naive" is not an argument, it is an emotional defense, which only makes it more credible. If you accept that Chinese plastic bottles and lead paint can have an effect on children, then you have to accept that hitting children hundreds of times and keeping them around aggressors also has an effect on them.
Actually, you may be right. It's not a good argument. Maybe it's so compelling that the emotional defenses slam down the reasoning before you even realize you've gone defensive.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2014, 08:28 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(11-08-2014 07:46 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(11-08-2014 04:05 AM)morondog Wrote:  And Lumi, you'd best find a more convincing argument than the not-spanking one. It's not compelling at all. Your only answer to a number of serious criticisms of your point of view is that people are going to be nicer to each other and not game the system purely because they weren't spanked - that view is hopelessly naive.
"Hopelessly naive" is not an argument, it is an emotional defense, which only makes it more credible. If you accept that Chinese plastic bottles and lead paint can have an effect on children, then you have to accept that hitting children hundreds of times and keeping them around aggressors also has an effect on them.
Actually, you may be right. It's not a good argument. Maybe it's so compelling that the emotional defenses slam down the reasoning before you even realize you've gone defensive.

Presuppositionalism: it's not just for theists anymore!

Protip: if the best justification you can think of is "when people say I'm wrong that means I'm right", you're a fucking joke.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
11-08-2014, 08:46 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
I really don't mind that Luminon has these wild views and opinions...it's his/her inability to consider other positions or admit any fault in his argument whatsoever that gets to me. It actually is very similar to listening to somebody preach about their religion.

In almost anything, if you can't even entertain the chance that you could be wrong, you are probably irrationally wanting it to be true.

I prefer fantasy, but I have to live in reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Adrianime's post
11-08-2014, 08:55 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(11-08-2014 08:46 AM)Adrianime Wrote:  I really don't mind that Luminon has these wild views and opinions...it's his/her inability to consider other positions or admit any fault in his argument whatsoever that gets to me. It actually is very similar to listening to somebody preach about their religion.

It is listening to somebody preach their religion.

It just happens not to involve the word "God".

(11-08-2014 08:46 AM)Adrianime Wrote:  In almost anything, if you can't even entertain the chance that you could be wrong, you are probably irrationally wanting it to be true.

Ol' Lumi admits as much. He doesn't seem to realise it's a bad thing.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
11-08-2014, 09:29 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(11-08-2014 07:46 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(11-08-2014 03:40 AM)morondog Wrote:  What freedom do you lack? Other than the freedom not to pay taxes which is not a valid answer as explained to you before.
Freedom is indivisible. If someone has the power to take a few of freedoms away, he has the power to take all of them away - and this is what inevitably happens to consolidate the central power. Every single law detracts from our freedom. More laws does not equal more freedom and justice, it's just like computer code. More code does not mean more processing. (USA has about a million laws, world record)
As Seneca said, the more laws, the more corrupt the state.
Who is the someone, wise guy?

Quote:What about the freedom of living according to my conscience? Not supporting with my money what I think are criminal schemes?
Ah, taxation, your perennial bug-bear, raises its head again. How about *voting* chum? Is building roads and infrastructure really a criminal scheme? Why should you get to decide?

Quote:What about the freedom to keep a piece of vegetable in my pocket without getting beaten and arrested, and I don't mean a carrot, ladies? What about planting, growing and smoking what I want? What about Americans criminally selling raw milk or choosing (not) to water their lawns?
Untreated milk can kill. You want to be allowed to sell it?

Quote:What about freedom of trade, travel, association, free enterprise, copying and sharing data, working where I want, how I want, for how much I want, driving where I want and how fast I can safely handle...
So you want the freedom to steal without consequence (copying data), the freedom to risk *other* people's lives without consequence (driving how fast you think you can handle)? Yeah, good luck with that. Me and my government thug army will stop your scumbag scheme.

Quote:What about the freedom of not supporting the "social programs" of drug prohibition and work prohibition, or gender-discriminatory policies?
Your so wonderful ideas solve these problems how? Working against them within the existing framework will solve them faster IMO.

Quote:What about deciding what shape of a banana and what name of a product I want to buy, instead of bureaucrats in Brussel?
What about the freedom from having my potential future kids indoctrinated into allegiance to a non-existent secular entity that uses violence? What about the freedom not to pay for public education if also I pay for private education?
You want the freedom to not support those members of society who cannot afford their own education, if I am reading this rightly? You don't want your goddamn taxes spent on things you don't approve of, regardless of whether you understand why they are spent that way or not.

Quote:I'd like to work in some marvelous jobs that will never materialize, because government takes 60 % money out of economy and willy-nilly spends them in public sector where everyone do their best to steal them and never work again.
So the solution is anarchy? Not better regulation?

Quote:But if you want some specific examples from my life... Healthcare is nationalized and so are the insurance companies. They have exact the same programs and they only cover the worst and cheapest medical solutions (unless I need heart surgery). I have big dentistry expenses.
Also, I would love to work someday as a teacher, but education is nationalized too, so I couldn't choose my subjects to teach. I'd have to teach government-prescribed meaningless stuff made to fragment minds and produce barely competent people, who in America can hardly read when graduate.
Well, education and health care are problems, granted. Now how will being in an anarchist society help? You are suddenly gonna have so much money you will afford the best healthcare?

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
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
11-08-2014, 10:04 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(11-08-2014 07:46 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(11-08-2014 03:36 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  We did that once before Lumi, with the point being that adhering to libertarian principles does not, in and of itself, guarantee an anarcho-capitalist society. There is nothing that stops property from being consolidated or monopolized and leading towards the creation of states or even absolute monarchies, that being a single person who has monopolized all property and is merely exercising their 'property rights' on those willing to submit to her stipulations (laws) in exchanged for the right to live and operate on her property (territory/country).
"There is nothing that stops X from Y" = NOT AN ARGUMENT
My argument is, if there is something that has the power to prevent X from Y, it will deliberately do Y to X in order to consolidate its power. Who has the power to protect everyone, has the power to kill or enslave everyone. When that power is used sparsely, with caution, diplomacy, subtlety and granting people wishes for money stolen from them, it's called social democracy.

Wow, that is funny. I think, that you think, that you actually made a point there. But nonetheless, you do have a strange way of attempting to defend yourself.

Now, now Lumi; I hope that in all of your study of 'economics', you had not forgotten that humans have evolved to be social creatures? We form families, and outside of them we form extended families; evolutionary history is rife with the effects of kin selection. This gives us the evolutionary basis for society, the interaction between individuals. All a government really is at base, is an extension of this dynamic. By arguing for anarchy, you are arguing against human nature; one bred into us by hundreds of thousands of years. We work very well in groups, and our knowledge and technology allows us to expand how effective we can be as a larger and larger group.

Also, if the people agree to taxes, it's still social democracy. Being born into rules you don't like, doesn't negate those rules; anymore so than being born to parents you don't like makes them any less your parents.

LOL TAXES is not an argument... Rolleyes



(11-08-2014 07:46 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(11-08-2014 03:36 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  And of course you shouldn't blindly trust those in power, that is why I advocate for transparency; and transparency is good for any social construct that values honesty and requires a degree of trust. So your images, if they are meant to disparage criticism against libertarianism, are nothing but facile strawmen. Or in other words, par for the fucking course as far as you are concerned.
Transparency is needed when someone has the power to command nation-wide police forces and nation-wide tax collection. Then you need helluva transparency to keep that system from collapsing unto itself like a massive welfare-warfare money-forging empire. Oh, that was the Imperium Romanum.
But if there is no super-personal power, you don't need transparency. Everyone keeps track of their own money, it's called accounting.

Transparency is needed in every interaction where deception is not the primary objective.

Also, without a unifying authority to establish an agreed upon medium of exchange (i.e. currency), you're advocating that we return back to bartering? How very medeival of you...


LOL ROMAN EMPIRE is not an argument... Rolleyes

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
11-08-2014, 10:15 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(11-08-2014 08:46 AM)Adrianime Wrote:  I really don't mind that Luminon has these wild views and opinions...it's his/her inability to consider other positions or admit any fault in his argument whatsoever that gets to me. It actually is very similar to listening to somebody preach about their religion.

In almost anything, if you can't even entertain the chance that you could be wrong, you are probably irrationally wanting it to be true.
Imagine I'm an atheist coming out of the closet. You're one of the more moderate Christians. You don't mind I am an atheist, but that I didn't admit any faults of atheism. Also, I can't consider any other positions than atheism, despite being pro-God for most of my life Rolleyes I preach atheism like it's my religion.
I probably irrationally want atheism to be true.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2014, 10:18 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(11-08-2014 09:29 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(11-08-2014 07:46 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Freedom is indivisible. If someone has the power to take a few of freedoms away, he has the power to take all of them away - and this is what inevitably happens to consolidate the central power. Every single law detracts from our freedom. More laws does not equal more freedom and justice, it's just like computer code. More code does not mean more processing. (USA has about a million laws, world record)
As Seneca said, the more laws, the more corrupt the state.
Who is the someone, wise guy?

Quote:What about the freedom of living according to my conscience? Not supporting with my money what I think are criminal schemes?
Ah, taxation, your perennial bug-bear, raises its head again. How about *voting* chum? Is building roads and infrastructure really a criminal scheme? Why should you get to decide?

Quote:What about the freedom to keep a piece of vegetable in my pocket without getting beaten and arrested, and I don't mean a carrot, ladies? What about planting, growing and smoking what I want? What about Americans criminally selling raw milk or choosing (not) to water their lawns?
Untreated milk can kill. You want to be allowed to sell it?

Quote:What about freedom of trade, travel, association, free enterprise, copying and sharing data, working where I want, how I want, for how much I want, driving where I want and how fast I can safely handle...
So you want the freedom to steal without consequence (copying data), the freedom to risk *other* people's lives without consequence (driving how fast you think you can handle)? Yeah, good luck with that. Me and my government thug army will stop your scumbag scheme.

Quote:What about the freedom of not supporting the "social programs" of drug prohibition and work prohibition, or gender-discriminatory policies?
Your so wonderful ideas solve these problems how? Working against them within the existing framework will solve them faster IMO.

Quote:What about deciding what shape of a banana and what name of a product I want to buy, instead of bureaucrats in Brussel?
What about the freedom from having my potential future kids indoctrinated into allegiance to a non-existent secular entity that uses violence? What about the freedom not to pay for public education if also I pay for private education?
You want the freedom to not support those members of society who cannot afford their own education, if I am reading this rightly? You don't want your goddamn taxes spent on things you don't approve of, regardless of whether you understand why they are spent that way or not.

Quote:I'd like to work in some marvelous jobs that will never materialize, because government takes 60 % money out of economy and willy-nilly spends them in public sector where everyone do their best to steal them and never work again.
So the solution is anarchy? Not better regulation?

Quote:But if you want some specific examples from my life... Healthcare is nationalized and so are the insurance companies. They have exact the same programs and they only cover the worst and cheapest medical solutions (unless I need heart surgery). I have big dentistry expenses.
Also, I would love to work someday as a teacher, but education is nationalized too, so I couldn't choose my subjects to teach. I'd have to teach government-prescribed meaningless stuff made to fragment minds and produce barely competent people, who in America can hardly read when graduate.
Well, education and health care are problems, granted. Now how will being in an anarchist society help? You are suddenly gonna have so much money you will afford the best healthcare?

Well, what do you expect? Lumi seems to have no concept of the fact that people's actions, and their consequences, extend far beyond themselves and their immediate effects. But acknowledging this, and taking it into account legislatively, would detract from his precious freedom; even as it inadvertently treads on the freedom of others.

Take the milk example. Who needs to have their freedom protected more, the person who desires to sell unsafe milk? Or the person who desire to consume milk without risking unknowingly risking their lives? I'm going to go ahead and side with the consumer on this one, and most everyone else agrees. So the majority agrees to pass a law to limit the selling of the collectively recognized and agreed upon threat. Now the sellers in the minority might seethe at the 'infringement' of their 'freedom' to sell whatever they like. Now Lumi at this point advocates anarchy, because freedom must always be the most sacred right. I'd suggest (and most everyone else seems to agree) that the minority sellers suck it up, realizing that everyone is in a minority on some issues at some time; nobody gets 100% of what they want 100% of the time. We compromise, and a regulation requiring the pasteurization of milk before it can be sold is a compromise within the society between the the sellers and the consumers. the society has deemed that the safety of consumers (and most, if not all members in society are consumers) is important and worth protecting. Sometimes the interest of protecting everyone limits what certain individuals can and cannot do. That is the essence of compromise, and compromise is crucial for a responsive and working social contract.

And this is where Lumi fails, as his construct values freedom above all else without compromise.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
11-08-2014, 10:47 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(11-08-2014 10:18 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Well, what do you expect? Lumi seems to have no concept of the fact that people's actions, and their consequences, extend far beyond themselves and their immediate effects. But acknowledging this, and taking it into account legislatively, would detract from his precious freedom; even as it inadvertently treads on the freedom of others.

Take the milk example. Who needs to have their freedom protected more, the person who desires to sell unsafe milk? Or the person who desire to consume milk without risking unknowingly risking their lives? I'm going to go ahead and side with the consumer on this one, and most everyone else agrees. So the majority agrees to pass a law to limit the selling of the collectively recognized and agreed upon threat. Now the sellers in the minority might seethe at the 'infringement' of their 'freedom' to sell whatever they like. Now Lumi at this point advocates anarchy, because freedom must always be the most sacred right. I'd suggest (and most everyone else seems to agree) that the minority sellers suck it up, realizing that everyone is in a minority on some issues at some time; nobody gets 100% of what they want 100% of the time. We compromise, and a regulation requiring the pasteurization of milk before it can be sold is a compromise within the society between the the sellers and the consumers. the society has deemed that the safety of consumers (and most, if not all members in society are consumers) is important and worth protecting. Sometimes the interest of protecting everyone limits what certain individuals can and cannot do. That is the essence of compromise, and compromise is crucial for a responsive and working social contract.

And this is where Lumi fails, as his construct values freedom above all else without compromise.
There is no such thing as society, that would have the right to initiate force.
People who can't act reasonably around raw milk can't be trusted to vote for "the right people", whatever that means.
People who can punish anyone for raw milk, can also beat money out of them under any other reason.

You can't have it both ways, treat people as incompetent to use their own bodies, but let them have votes and parliament and control over centralized police and military. Either we are big boys and girls enough to handle raw milk and cannabis and cars and guns, in which case we don'need government to parent us, or we're not big enough to vote.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: