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, 10:48 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(11-08-2014 10:18 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(11-08-2014 09:29 AM)morondog Wrote:  Who is the someone, wise guy?

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?

Untreated milk can kill. You want to be allowed to sell it?

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.

Your so wonderful ideas solve these problems how? Working against them within the existing framework will solve them faster IMO.

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.

So the solution is anarchy? Not better regulation?

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.

Slight addendum Lumy values "his" freedom above everything else. He cares not one bit about anyone else. He shows this in his disdain for taxes and regulations. He would rather see the world burn than have to pull his weight.

(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
11-08-2014, 11:29 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(11-08-2014 10:47 AM)Luminon Wrote:  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.

Ah, yes, that perennial nightmare of the ideologically pure:
nuance.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes, ol' Lumi.

And only a fool solves problems with Magical Thinking™.

... 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, 12:10 PM
No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Luminon, I'm curious: in what specific ways is your current life so horribly unpleasant as to warrant a change in government? In other words, how does your philosophy apply to you materially?

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2014, 01:37 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(11-08-2014 12:10 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  Luminon, I'm curious: in what specific ways is your current life so horribly unpleasant as to warrant a change in government? In other words, how does your philosophy apply to you materially?
You might want to reconsider that argument.
Why does my particular life have to be downright horribly unpleasant in order to warrant changes in government?
Do I have to be black, to be an abolitionist? Do I have to be a woman, to demand equal civil rights for women? Do I have to be a child, to be against spanking? Do I have to be a drug addict, to demand the end of war on drugs? Do I have to be a Palestinian terrorist to wish that the U.S. would stop paying Israel 3 billion dollars per year?

Materially, you mean? I suffer from a lack of economic opportunities due to the government stealing 60 % of money from the economy (a.k.a. public sector) and blowing them on fake projects to stuff oligarch pockets. Many years of my life are wasted by memorizing pointless trivia in mandatory government schools that is useless on job market. And I already mentioned the dentist bills. Fair enough?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2014, 01:41 PM
No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(11-08-2014 01:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(11-08-2014 12:10 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  Luminon, I'm curious: in what specific ways is your current life so horribly unpleasant as to warrant a change in government? In other words, how does your philosophy apply to you materially?
You might want to reconsider that argument.
Why does my particular life have to be downright horribly unpleasant in order to warrant changes in government?
Do I have to be black, to be an abolitionist? Do I have to be a woman, to demand equal civil rights for women? Do I have to be a child, to be against spanking? Do I have to be a drug addict, to demand the end of war on drugs? Do I have to be a Palestinian terrorist to wish that the U.S. would stop paying Israel 3 billion dollars per year?

Materially, you mean? I suffer from a lack of economic opportunities due to the government stealing 60 % of money from the economy (a.k.a. public sector) and blowing them on fake projects to stuff oligarch pockets. Many years of my life are wasted by memorizing pointless trivia in mandatory government schools that is useless on job market. And I already mentioned the dentist bills. Fair enough?

In a word: no. Not fair enough. You're advocating very dramatic changes which would affect the lives of everyone around you. Are you interested in whether or not they are happy with the way things are? And even if they aren't perfectly happy, maybe they have different ideas about how to make things better. Something that doesn't involve gutting.

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2014, 02:05 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(11-08-2014 10:47 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(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.


It's 'consensus' you dense motehrfucker, it is always the consensus. Right's aren't 'inalienable' or 'natural' or 'inherent' until we come to the consensus to make them so. What is, and is not, considered a 'right' changes with the consensus. There is nothing in the whole fucking universe that gives anyone the right to use force, or conversely the right to never be subjected to force. Philosophy does not dictate the nature of reality.


People who existed before you were born came to an agreed upon consensus, and had a hand in constructing the society you live it. It's laws, rules, mores, everything. Now instead of improving the system you have, you'd rather scrap it (not only for yourself, but for everyone else as well; regardless of their desires) just because you personally didn't have a hand in dictating it's creation in the first place. Well, fuck you; the universe doesn't owe you shit. You don't have any fucking right outside of what you can convince others you have, because all the philosophy in the world cannot both grant you and protect your 'inalienable natural rights' if the rest of society hasn't reached the same consensus.


Welcome to the real world jackass...

[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, 02:08 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(11-08-2014 01:41 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  In a word: no. Not fair enough. You're advocating very dramatic changes which would affect the lives of everyone around you. Are you interested in whether or not they are happy with the way things are? And even if they aren't perfectly happy, maybe they have different ideas about how to make things better. Something that doesn't involve gutting.
No, I advocate very non-dramatic changes to society. Nothing as dramatic as war on drugs and war on terror, nothing as dramatic as slavery or gigantic social schemes of compulsory state schools and welfare.

But it does not matter what happens with money after they are stolen, because stealing is immoral. I don't care if they were used on the most reasonable things ever. When there is a gun in the room, the results don't matter.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2014, 02:13 PM
No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(11-08-2014 02:08 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(11-08-2014 01:41 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  In a word: no. Not fair enough. You're advocating very dramatic changes which would affect the lives of everyone around you. Are you interested in whether or not they are happy with the way things are? And even if they aren't perfectly happy, maybe they have different ideas about how to make things better. Something that doesn't involve gutting.
No, I advocate very non-dramatic changes to society. Nothing as dramatic as war on drugs and war on terror, nothing as dramatic as slavery or gigantic social schemes of compulsory state schools and welfare.

But it does not matter what happens with money after they are stolen, because stealing is immoral. I don't care if they were used on the most reasonable things ever. When there is a gun in the room, the results don't matter.

Perhaps we are defining the word "dramatic" differently. The amount of change that would be required to implement your proposed system looks dramatic to me. You have yet to convince me otherwise.

What's truly odd is the sense I cannot shake that the system of government you propose to change is a system you have yet to experience for yourself. Sounds more like what you really want is change in Czech Republic.

In any case, do you believe your (or Molyneaux's) proposal is gaining in popularity?

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2014, 02:38 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(11-08-2014 02:13 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  Perhaps we are defining the word "dramatic" differently. The amount of change that would be required to implement your proposed system looks dramatic to me. You have yet to convince me otherwise.

What's truly odd is the sense I cannot shake that the system of government you propose to change is a system you have yet to experience for yourself. Sounds more like what you really want is change in Czech Republic.

In any case, do you believe your (or Molyneaux's) proposal is gaining in popularity?
Well then, dramatism is subjective. But morality is not subjective. Taxes are taken at gunpoint and no matter what political social planners do with them, they can never make up for it. If they were so good social planners, surely they could convince people to donate voluntarily, without punishment for not paying taxes.

I experience the changes myself when I make a deal to work for a friend and get money on the hand, without giving money to the state. It's a sweet deal. You experienced anarchy too, when you married your wife. Your wife, your choice and hers too. You didn't exactly called into a government-run wife-pen to find you a woman, a service that ensures everyone gets a woman. Yay equality!

Molyneux reached tens of millions of people, perhaps. He always complains how he pays enormous broadband fees for the terabytes of his podcasts that people download. Every once a while he says they want him to pay extra 7,000 for unexpected traffic. This doesn't exactly translate to money, because his donations are voluntary.

Well, if anything, I wish for changes in America. If America was truly a free country, Soviet Union would fall sooner and there would be no problems with post-communistic Czech regime.

(11-08-2014 02:05 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  It's 'consensus' you dense motehrfucker, it is always the consensus. Right's aren't 'inalienable' or 'natural' or 'inherent' until we come to the consensus to make them so. What is, and is not, considered a 'right' changes with the consensus. There is nothing in the whole fucking universe that gives anyone the right to use force, or conversely the right to never be subjected to force. Philosophy does not dictate the nature of reality.


People who existed before you were born came to an agreed upon consensus, and had a hand in constructing the society you live it. It's laws, rules, mores, everything. Now instead of improving the system you have, you'd rather scrap it (not only for yourself, but for everyone else as well; regardless of their desires) just because you personally didn't have a hand in dictating it's creation in the first place. Well, fuck you; the universe doesn't owe you shit. You don't have any fucking right outside of what you can convince others you have, because all the philosophy in the world cannot both grant you and protect your 'inalienable natural rights' if the rest of society hasn't reached the same consensus.


Welcome to the real world jackass...
If there was a consensus, there would be no guns and prisons for not paying taxes.
So there is no consensus and laws are just make-believe. It's true, the universe doesn't owe me shit, and I don't owe shit to the state. By the way, government isn't real. It's just buildings full of people with papers, guns and badass costumes, like a BDSM mafia.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2014, 02:52 PM
No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(11-08-2014 02:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(11-08-2014 02:13 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  Perhaps we are defining the word "dramatic" differently. The amount of change that would be required to implement your proposed system looks dramatic to me. You have yet to convince me otherwise.

What's truly odd is the sense I cannot shake that the system of government you propose to change is a system you have yet to experience for yourself. Sounds more like what you really want is change in Czech Republic.

In any case, do you believe your (or Molyneaux's) proposal is gaining in popularity?
Well then, dramatism is subjective. But morality is not subjective. Taxes are taken at gunpoint and no matter what political social planners do with them, they can never make up for it. If they were so good social planners, surely they could convince people to donate voluntarily, without punishment for not paying taxes.

I experience the changes myself when I make a deal to work for a friend and get money on the hand, without giving money to the state. It's a sweet deal. You experienced anarchy too, when you married your wife. Your wife, your choice and hers too. You didn't exactly called into a government-run wife-pen to find you a woman, a service that ensures everyone gets a woman. Yay equality!

Molyneux reached tens of millions of people, perhaps. He always complains how he pays enormous broadband fees for the terabytes of his podcasts that people download. Every once a while he says they want him to pay extra 7,000 for unexpected traffic. This doesn't exactly translate to money, because his donations are voluntary.

Well, if anything, I wish for changes in America. If America was truly a free country, Soviet Union would fall sooner and there would be no problems with post-communistic Czech regime.

(11-08-2014 02:05 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  It's 'consensus' you dense motehrfucker, it is always the consensus. Right's aren't 'inalienable' or 'natural' or 'inherent' until we come to the consensus to make them so. What is, and is not, considered a 'right' changes with the consensus. There is nothing in the whole fucking universe that gives anyone the right to use force, or conversely the right to never be subjected to force. Philosophy does not dictate the nature of reality.


People who existed before you were born came to an agreed upon consensus, and had a hand in constructing the society you live it. It's laws, rules, mores, everything. Now instead of improving the system you have, you'd rather scrap it (not only for yourself, but for everyone else as well; regardless of their desires) just because you personally didn't have a hand in dictating it's creation in the first place. Well, fuck you; the universe doesn't owe you shit. You don't have any fucking right outside of what you can convince others you have, because all the philosophy in the world cannot both grant you and protect your 'inalienable natural rights' if the rest of society hasn't reached the same consensus.


Welcome to the real world jackass...
If there was a consensus, there would be no guns and prisons for not paying taxes.
So there is no consensus and laws are just make-believe. It's true, the universe doesn't owe me shit, and I don't owe shit to the state. By the way, government isn't real. It's just buildings full of people with papers, guns and badass costumes, like a BDSM mafia.

Doesn't seem wise trying to judge the popularity of a message based on number of podcasts downloaded or even web hits. Just because people are exposed to an idea doesn't mean they agree with it. Case in point: your ideas in this forum thread.

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Cardinal Smurf's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: