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
13-08-2014, 09:39 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(13-08-2014 09:35 AM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  
(13-08-2014 06:43 AM)Luminon Wrote:  You don't get shot for not paying taxes, you get shot for resisting. But between not paying and resisting and getting shot, there is a straight line of events.

This doesn't exactly answer my question. You keep asserting things as though you are asserting from personal experience. So this was just speculation? You've never actually heard of someone being shot for not paying taxes?

I already asked him for an example and he admitted there were none.

(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
13-08-2014, 09:58 AM
No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(13-08-2014 09:39 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(13-08-2014 09:35 AM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  This doesn't exactly answer my question. You keep asserting things as though you are asserting from personal experience. So this was just speculation? You've never actually heard of someone being shot for not paying taxes?

I already asked him for an example and he admitted there were none.

Thanks. Missed that. *sigh*

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
13-08-2014, 10:21 AM (This post was last modified: 13-08-2014 10:34 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(13-08-2014 05:55 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Lumi, I'm going to give you ten seconds to stop, reconsider what you just wrote, and see if you don't want to retract it before I shove your point back so far up your ass it'll be knocking your teeth out of your mouth.

Done? Reconsidered? No?

Good, let's get started.

Your argument here boils down to 'only consequences matter, not principles'. Okay, let's run with that. we have plenty of examples of states that are, get this, not police states or fascist dictatorships! We have plenty of examples of states that are horribly supressive, and others that wonderfully progressive.

Here you try to single out and implicate the United States, presumable to damn the underlying principles of a democratic republic state, by pointing to the abuses of some police forces within it. Your argument being "your systems allows for some police to abuse their power, therefore the state is unjust". Okay, now let's apply the same idea but reverse it. Let's look at examples of state-less regions, and let's look at their track record for protecting human rights and freedom. Do you really want me to go there? because I don't know of any state-less, anarchy friendly region that is not consumed by war, strife, and human rights violations on a scope and scale as to me the LAPD blush.

Now here is where you might attempt to argue, "that's not fair, they're not following my principles!". Fair enough, to which I'd retort, the abuses of the police forces stem from them not abiding by the principles of a representative government and the consensus of their citizens. The police, much like elected officials, are 'public servants'; problems and abuse arise when they're no longer held accountable to that standard. I propose that the system we have is in dire need cleaning and restructuring, fist among them being election reform to attempt to regain the democratic process and make government once more accountable to the will of the people it is meant to represent. On the other hand you think we should ditch the whole thing. But whereas I can point to examples of current states that operate peacefully and well, what examples do you have of peaceful anarchy of a nation-sized region?
Nope. Most of this thread was that government is wrong in principle. You haven't disproven that. Now I also showed that it's also wrong in consequences. This plus that means you've got no leg to stand on.
Don't tell me about state-less regions, because they're usually big smoking craters after failed states. I don't say raise hell and chaos, I say raise children peacefully and when they grow up, they'll see the state as a medieval barbaric custom, just as I do. Yes, I agree having one orderly mobster is better than having multiple mobsters fighting for dominance, but that doesn't make them morally better.
We have of course numerous examples of failing states and government crises and scandals, so there's that Drinking Beverage Power corrupts.
I think we can agree that a smaller state is safer, there's less to watch. But with various reforms you're trying the impossible. You're trying to create this hybrid dracorn animal, that breathes fire at bad people, but doesn't eat princesses, in fact it likes to carry them. I don't think it works that way but you could make a minarchist case for having a small dracorn that doesn't eat many princesses but still can scorch a bad person or two. But then I'll tell you, dracorn is inherently immoral and also in a few generations it eats and grows to be huge and turns out to have been a regular princess-eating dragon all along.

If you excuse me, that was just a small paraphrase on the philosophical fairy-tale about Argoth and the dragon. You can give it a listen, it's quite fun.
http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FD...Dragon.mp3

(13-08-2014 05:55 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  An unfortunate casualty of the misplaced 'war on drugs', which when combined with the 'war on terror', has seen a steady trend of abuse and the use of excessive force. I'll not deny that, because I don't condone it either. The DA and the police aren't as accountable as I would like them to be, and that can be fixed; we can change the system without burning it all down around us.
I don't say burn it down. I say, do whatever you have to do, but raise your children with talk, show, reasoning and negotiation, without time-outs, force and yelling. So when they grow up, they'll see this chimeric hybrid of a dracorn that you're trying to stitch together. And they'll say, what the fucking hell is that?! Why do we still have this insane ancient pre-medieval custom around?

Of course your plan can never work. USA were founded as the smallest and most transparent government ever, now it's the biggest and most expensive. Secondly, if voting could change anything, they'd make it "undemocratic" long ago. Rulers know that voting can be gotten around, if they're good at it. Only young inexperienced tax farmers like Kim Jong Un can't put on a convincing show and must keep it strict with junta and all. But even though it looks like you have a chance of changing the system, there's the majority, quotas, guidelines and so on, you really don't. Every single public sector employee is against you to displace your papers or whatever. (remember when NSA faced an audit? LOL Computer failure)
But the only thing you really have a control over is shaping the brains of your children. If you don't use violence, they'll see violence as foreign.


(13-08-2014 05:55 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  See the first point, where I absolutely ruin your shit when you attempt to argue 'only consequences matter' in your favor.

Also, that gang rape is still a violation of the consensus (at least here in the United States). Here in the US we have outlawed rape, because we have a consensus that forcing sexual intercourse upon another individual against their consent is wrong. This is put into law, a law enforce by those whose job it is to enforce the law (i.e. police). So the 'consensus' of the gang rapists is superseded by the consensus of the much larger group of people (the country) that have already weighed in on this issue with laws and regulations. If they do commit rape, they are in violation of that consensus and will be brought to justice for defying it; and no amount of crying out to libertarian principles (or statist strawmen) will save them.

Fucking hell, we should give you your own law (like Godwin's) for crying 'Rape' to justify your position... Facepalm
OK, you have said that pussy-rape is bad, but wallet-rape is good. Give me your money. Oh, it's good, but only if I have a blue costume on? What are you, some sort of social metaphysicist?

(13-08-2014 05:55 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Disagreeing with the consensus doesn't make you immune to the repercussions if you violate it in certain ways. Actions have consequences, and unilaterally defying the agreed upon consensus (laws) will have repercussions (being found in violation of said laws). And they do have the power to enforce it, with force if necessary, because enough of them agreed that they can and should. Don't like it? Try to argue for a change in the consensus; but just flat out ignoring it will bite you in the ass.
Social metaphysics. Buzzwords. There is no objective way how people are excluded or included from a consensus. The geography is chosen quite arbitrarily. There's nothing about rocks and shrubbery that says I should give money to this or that band of people. Countries don't exist, they're imaginary lines on a map. To pay real money for imaginary map lines is crazy.

(13-08-2014 05:55 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Because the market will magically label everything perfectly (even though there is no regulation making them do so), and will never lie about the labeling (even though there is no ramification for defying non-existent regulation), and you'll never have to worry about seeking redress from the seller because they will never do wrong (even though this have never been observed and has no basis in empirical reality), and they can be trusted to never do wrong because of their reputation (even though public trust would be issue given non-perfect information availability); and all of this will work because of free-market capitalism?

Send in the magically free-market pixies, we need more pixie-dust here to hide reality!
Market is a neuron network computing. Money bills carry numeric information like computer bytes, people act as decision-making nodes and the whole system together has an enormous processing power to get everything right and make products available to people who want them. That's how market is, it's an "internet of things". It's much more efficient than a billion of bureaucrats.
People 100 years ago didn't have these concepts from computer science, they actually had to study economy, but now I can directly point at how the same principle works in IT.

(13-08-2014 05:55 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  People and corporations can, and very often will, do whatever they can get away with. You've never made a compelling case for how making it even harder to hold them accountable for their actions, will be a net positive. Arguably our biggest problem in the United States right now is the lack of accountability; corporations are not accountable to the government, the elected officials and the police are not accountable to the people. How is less accountability here going to make things better jackass?
Corporations are naturally accountable. If they make a crappy product, people stop buying it. Corporations go bankrupt. Yay revenge!


(13-08-2014 05:55 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You make the government accountable to the people, and make it responsive to the consensus. There is no guarantee that things won't go 'wrong', and to demand otherwise is naive in the extreme; we are all human after all. The single, most fundamental aspect that neither of us can do away with the people themselves. I hope that by having people participate in a government that efficiently represents them, so that they can negotiate and come to terms and create agreed upon consensuses that will help them all to get alone and operate with one another. This will allow the government and the laws to change as the people change, and this is what he have (in principle, if not always in practice) in the United States. Even the highest law in the land, the Constitution, is amenable to later revisions to reflect the changes in society and the world. It has been changed in the past, and will be changed in the future. This relies on the government representing and operating on a general bell curve. Just look at marriage equality and the decriminalization of marijuana, see how things are progressing as the national consensus changes.

But no, somehow things will all magically be better when we have zero accountability and allow everyone to fend for themselves...
Free market is a full personal accountability for both individuals and corporations. It's also the most free yet democratic thing ever invented. It has all these things built-in and you do not need to create artificial layers of constitution, laws and institutions with these mechanisms spelled out. I guarantee you, once they get set in, economic principles secretly overrule this theater and people will begin to make deals beyond the official policy, checks and balances. This creates a lot of artificial problems, which calls for more laws, more controlling institutions, more spending on justice... The thing gets so big that it's impossible to control and everything gets hidden in there.

Plus, none of what you say is economically productive. Net government worth is pure loss. Market is both democratic and productive. Yay efficiency!

And, I still don't quite understand how a "representative" is supposed to be useful. I mean, some guy I don't know is magically supposed to know what I need? And that guy isn't even a scientist or engineer, he doesn't know about roads, sewerage, plumbing, power plants... Oh, he can hire these people? Well, then let's skip him as a middleman and raise capital and build roads ourselves. At least Plato said, that kings must be philosophers. Philosophers know what is truth, good, justice, beauty, that sort of stuff. But reps aren't even philosophers. They get a lot of money and rights thrown at them, but giving away our money ties our hands and their hands are tied because they are totally clueless on HOW to solve problems. But they sure like the money, which is why they blame problems on previous administration and ask for more money to fund the police to beat protesters in case they protest against there being too much taxes and police.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2014, 10:43 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
I know you're back to ignoring me, but it may interest the viewers at home to know just how far down from rock bottom you can apparently dig.

(13-08-2014 10:21 AM)Luminon Wrote:  USA were founded as the smallest and most transparent government ever, now it's the biggest and most expensive.

Nope.

Read a book.

(13-08-2014 10:21 AM)Luminon Wrote:  But the only thing you really have a control over is shaping the brains of your children. If you don't use violence, they'll see violence as foreign.

Protip: asserting things doesn't make them true.

(13-08-2014 10:21 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Countries don't exist, they're imaginary lines on a map. To pay real money for imaginary map lines is crazy.

You... you do realize that money is "imaginary", too, then, right?

And social constructs are not actually imaginary in the first place.

Read a book.

(13-08-2014 10:21 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Corporations are naturally accountable. If they make a crappy product, people stop buying it. Corporations go bankrupt. Yay revenge!

This is the kind of remedially simplistic nonsense that would get you laughed out of any real economics class.

Protip: "everybody has magic perfect knowledge and perfect good faith" is not a realistic assumption.

Read a book.

(13-08-2014 10:21 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Free market is a full personal accountability for both individuals and corporations. It's also the most free yet democratic thing ever invented. It has all these things built-in and you do not need to create artificial layers of constitution, laws and institutions with these mechanisms spelled out.

This is patent nonsense.

Markets respond to movement of capital. Capital is not equally distributed. Therefore market influence is not equally distributed. By what insane troll logic is that "the most democratic thing ever invented"?

Do you mean to say that there are no barriers to participation? Because that's farcically wrong, too.

Nothing is "built-in" to social interaction. That's incoherence of the highest order.

Tell the man with no capital in an unregulated market how free he is. No, really; I'm sure he'd be fascinated to learn how his disenfranchisement and powerlessness are a result of all the freedom you say he has.

...

You know, most people would say masturbation is not for public display. This thread clearly demonstrates that you think otherwise.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
13-08-2014, 10:43 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(13-08-2014 09:35 AM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  This doesn't exactly answer my question. You keep asserting things as though you are asserting from personal experience. So this was just speculation? You've never actually heard of someone being shot for not paying taxes?
By the time you get shot, it will be called differently, such as "resisting the arrest". The name will be different, but it all started with not paying taxes. 99,99 % people pay the taxes. The remaining 0,01 % don't resist the arrest. But if they hypothetically did, they get shot. That is sort of the purpose of there being a long line of warnings and threats between the tax and the bullet - it saves lots of bullets. But none of that matters, the line is straight. As long as you resist, the bullet is coming closer and closer. As long as there is a bullet slowly heading your way, you know you're not free.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2014, 10:56 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Question for the home audience:

In an obstinacy-off between ol' Lumi here and this guy, who would win?

I'll open the books at even odds.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2014, 12:17 PM
No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Just raise children peacefully. It's that easy! But wait, don't order yet! If you act now you'll also never have to pay taxes again. Now how much would you pay? Order now while supplies last!

How many kids have you raised? Are you aware that aggression is not the source of all human suffering? That greed is not the result of aggression?

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
13-08-2014, 12:55 PM (This post was last modified: 13-08-2014 01:02 PM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(13-08-2014 12:17 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  Just raise children peacefully. It's that easy! But wait, don't order yet! If you act now you'll also never have to pay taxes again. Now how much would you pay? Order now while supplies last!
Nope. Raising children is like teaching them our native language. If we were raised English, we teach them English. If we were raised violently and neglectfully, we teach them violence and neglect. You can't teach something that you don't have!
The basic corruption and hypocrisy of parents comes up when they hold a 6-year old morally responsible for not studying at school, but they avoid responsibility that they had to read some parenting books and realize that spanking does not work and it is extremely harmful. They always seek excuses, yet when a kid brings F from the school, they punish him with full responsibility. A child can not be more responsible than parents.

(13-08-2014 12:17 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  How many kids have you raised? Are you aware that aggression is not the source of all human suffering? That greed is not the result of aggression?
- My mom raised three kids and all of them badly. So raising kids doesn't make one an authority on raising kids. Empathy, rationality and reading books on parenting make one an authority.

- I can track greed quite easily to aggression, both personal and economic greed. Greed stems from early deprivation of needs, that sets in deep as an unresolved trauma and keep powering person's addictive activity in vain attempts to bring to consciousness and resolve that rejected painful experience. Traumas get pushed into the unconscious as a survival mechanism and reaction to shock (such as parental or teacher aggression), to keep us sort of functioning so that we don't die right away, so we stop wailing before we get killed by the parent, enemy of the tribe or a predator.
Greedy or any other compulsive activities allow the person to avoid the pain and resolution. The pain of addiction or compulsive avoidance of logic (there is no God) is always lesser at the moment than confronting the original pain (my parents lied to me) in a therapy.
Basic psychology that my parents ignored Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2014, 12:57 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(13-08-2014 12:55 PM)Luminon Wrote:  - I can track greed quite easily to aggression, both personal and economic greed. Greed stems from early deprivation of needs, that sets in deep as an unresolved trauma and keep powering person's addictive activity in vain attempts to bring to consciousness and resolve that rejected painful experience. Traumas get pushed into the unconscious as a survival mechanism and reaction to shock, to keep us sort of functioning so that we don't die right away, so we stop wailing before we get killed by the parent, enemy of the tribe or a predator.
Greedy or any other compulsive activities allow the person to avoid the pain and resolution.
Basic psychology that my parents ignored Drinking Beverage

Self-affirming circlejerk presuppositionalism: it's not just for theists anymore!

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
13-08-2014, 12:59 PM
No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(13-08-2014 12:55 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(13-08-2014 12:17 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  Just raise children peacefully. It's that easy! But wait, don't order yet! If you act now you'll also never have to pay taxes again. Now how much would you pay? Order now while supplies last!
Nope. Raising children is like teaching them our native language. If we were raised English, we teach them English. If we were raised violently and neglectfully, we teach them violence and neglect.
The basic corruption and hypocrisy of parents comes up when they hold a 6-year old morally responsible for not studying at school, but they avoid responsibility that they had to read some parenting books and realize that spanking does not work and it is extremely harmful. They always seek excuses, yet when a kid brings F from the school, they punish him with full responsibility. A child can not be more responsible than parents.

(13-08-2014 12:17 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  How many kids have you raised? Are you aware that aggression is not the source of all human suffering? That greed is not the result of aggression?
- My mom raised three kids and all of them badly. So raising kids doesn't make one an authority on raising kids. Empathy, rationality and reading books on parenting make one an authority.

- I can track greed quite easily to aggression, both personal and economic greed. Greed stems from early deprivation of needs, that sets in deep as an unresolved trauma and keep powering person's addictive activity in vain attempts to bring to consciousness and resolve that rejected painful experience. Traumas get pushed into the unconscious as a survival mechanism and reaction to shock, to keep us sort of functioning so that we don't die right away, so we stop wailing before we get killed by the parent, enemy of the tribe or a predator.
Greedy or any other compulsive activities allow the person to avoid the pain and resolution.
Basic psychology that my parents ignored Drinking Beverage

I don't know man. Your concepts in raising children seem woefully simplistic to me. You make it sound as easy as raising chickens or growing corn.

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
[+] 2 users Like Cardinal Smurf's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: