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
19-08-2014, 12:19 AM (This post was last modified: 19-08-2014 01:46 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(18-08-2014 04:34 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(18-08-2014 03:03 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Because even now, food produces have a profit motive to cut corners to make their food cheaper. Without regulation, what is to prevent them from cutting more corners in the name of increasing profits? Nothing, because once again; companies can and will do whatever they can get away with. Less regulation does not magically fix this. And who will enforce and regulate DRO's? Certainly not the government, as that would be interfering with the free-market! Who else would have the power to enfoce anything without the use of force? Once you sign off on never using force, you must realize that you can never force compliance.
I never said about not using force. I meant not initiating force.
Plus, denial of service is not initiation of force and it is very effective as a punishment.
As for the food... People generally can't afford to pay doctor in cash, this is why health insurance exists. Health insurance is gets more profit if customers are healthy. This is why customers who aren't will pay more for health insurance, thus motivating them to eat healthy. This will force food companies to put healthy food on the market.
Also, most unhealthy food in the US such as McDonald's is government subsidized, such as the corn on which beef is grown. Drinking Beverage It takes 7 pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of beef. On free market there is no way in hell that 1 pound of beef would be cheaper than 7 pounds of grain. No chance of that. I tell you, government subsidies make unhealthy food seem cheaper than it actually is. It's tax pre-paid.

Oh Lumi, once again, magical thinking doesn't count.

You're still assuming that Insurance companies would actually exist at all in your unregulated chaos, something I find extremely doubtful. Insurance companies rely upon regulations, not only to regulate how they work, but to regulate how everyone else works as well. This allows them to more accurately judge and assess risk, which is the key to operating a successful insurance company. Without regulations, the potential risks jump exponentially, which would have to be offset by skyrocketing premiums. Remember that there is no one to enforce regulations, so even if the insurance company tried to mandate certain behaviors with a contract; who or what would enforce that contract? Nothing, because the unregulated free-market 'utopia' will not magically force the company to comply with the insurance company's stipulations. Does a breech of contract count as an 'initiation of force' enough for the Insurance company to send their mercenaries after them to make them pay up? Because if there's one thing we need more of, it's company owned and operated militias.

People have a hard enough time getting health insurance as it, what makes you think that it would be at all affordable or common enough for the average consumer in your volatile free market (remember, magic and feels don't count)?



(18-08-2014 04:34 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(18-08-2014 03:03 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Assuming a rational, intelligent, well informed consumer bases with access to many alternative options that they can afford.
Do you imply that the consumer base isn't what you describe?
May I ask, who was in charge of educating the consumer base for the last 50 years or so?

I'm a realist, and you are a naive child. Apparently your public and private education has failed you greatly. Is there any evidence that the entire consumer base is intelligent, rational, well informed, with access to many options they can afford? Fuck no, and there is no reason (once again, magic and feels don't count) to assume that they will in your wet-dream unregulated utopia.

People are not rational, see religion (and your own woo-woo bullshit). Will your anarchic-capitalist utopia outlaw religion while you're at it? Of course not. Will there be regulations and mandates for at least a minimum level of competence? Of fucking course not, that would not only be regulation and interference in the free-market, and an impediment of your free will to remains as ignorant as you can get away with. Will people be well informed? Without regulation for things like mandatory disclosure and fairness in advertising, what makes you think the information available will be at all comprehensive or reliable, even if one can get access to it (because even access to information isn't guaranteed either). Even if they can, there are no guarantees that there will be any feasible competition, or that it will be affordable? None whatsoever.

You can't promise anything more than magical thinking, and that's not good enough Lumi.



(18-08-2014 04:34 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(18-08-2014 03:03 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  All of that is assumed, but none of it is guaranteed, in your anarcho-capitalist wet dream. The rest of us can see just how easily it falls apart once you take reality into account and stop glossing over human behavior, historical precedence, geography, and many other factors that you just assume rather than prove.

See point above. You are so naive about the nature of humans and reality that it hurts to read the shit you type. It is so infantile, so naive, so divorced from reality, that it literally hurts to read.
I'm going to skip the rampant financial sector wealth and CEOs, so far I saw all such things tracked to a government regulation. Free market makes common sense, shitty practices lead to shitty results.

Magical thinking doesn't count Lumi. What would prevent CEO abuse? Nothing. No regulation, no standards, no laws, no ethics. Nothing would prevent a smart successful company from subsuming it's competition, gaining a monopoly, then becoming lazy and unresponsive. They might fail, but there is no guarantee. Others might compete, but they will be able to throw around massive clout to stomp out new competition aggressively; then again other's might not see the profit to be made in taking on the only competition in a head on pissing match. What is to stop the formation of price fixing cartels? "LOL the consumers and magic" are not sufficient answers.

(18-08-2014 04:34 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I'm going to skip Bitcoin too, you can look up the difference to fiat currency by yourself.

A currency not backed by a physical commodity? Yep, that's fiat. Yep, that's Bitcoin.

Go directly to Jail. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.



(18-08-2014 04:34 PM)Luminon Wrote:  But this is getting very interesting, i think I see some kind of discourse in what you say.

Can you please define me what is a "guarantee"? Especially in economic and social sense. Not political, that was already said. For example, what guarantee is there that people will come to work regularly or that there will be food in the shops every morning, that sort of thing.

You often say, "who is going to prevent people from" and "who is going to prevent corporations from"...
Can you sum up the motivations and goals of people that they need to be prevented from? Who can prevent them and what about the preventor's or regulator's motivation?

What is this reality and human behavior? Can you flat-out describe the model of human behavior you work with? Can people be trusted to do their job? Is there a moral difference between people doing business and people in public sector?

People are generally good, but there are always going to be ignorant assholes at the ends of the bell curve (like you). You pass laws and regulations to take these outliers into account. It's why we outlaw murder, not because everyone is expected to kill one another at the drop of the hat save for the prohibition against it; but because those of us that make up the majority of the non-murdering bell curve what protection from and recourse against those who do murder. I'm embarrassed that I actually have to explain this shit to you.

This is why we need to guard against unbridled greed, something your wet-dream can't account for outside of magic and feels; but it is something that can be regulated with laws and standards. Without regulations, there is no recourse for the majority against the outliers that adversely affect everyone else. We have seen this before, and inevitable it ends with people taking 'the law' into their own hands. There is no guarantees on human behavior, no guarantee that this utopia will all be made out of well educated pacifist that will never resort to violence. I live in the United States, where we are prudes about sexuality; but boy do we love violence. Go and try to tell a gun-toting Texan that he doesn't have any legal recourse or protections, but that he's also somehow expected to never resort to violence if someone ever fuck him over. He's next question would be "without police or government, who's going to stop me?". Bam, and we're back int he Wild West with vigilante justice; and there is nothing your magical thinking, feels, and assumptions can do to prevent that very likely outcome.



(18-08-2014 04:34 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(18-08-2014 03:03 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  When left to their own devices, companies can and will do whatever they can get away with; and your magical thinking will do fuck all to stop them.
Can you tell me what do you think of the following video, Edgar the Exploiter? Please watch it whole, it talks about outlawing unfair business practices.



Wow, really? You're that stupid?

Edgar still needs to have those floors cleaned. How much is it worth to Edgar to keep those floors clean? You paint the false dilemma that all workers are only hired and retained for the exact cost/benefit, and as soon as one outweighs the other, they are immediately fired. The floors still need to be cleaned. How much does having a clean environment help everyone else do their jobs better and more effectively? How much more money does that floor sweeper help everyone else make, that simply isn't being accounted for in your childishly simple example? Also, sometimes companies lose money on the things they require to operate their business. Is Edgar going to shut his factory down because he can't afford floor cleaners? Even if he loses money on the cleaner itself (which he might, on a narrow enough look), it's a cost of doing business if we wants to maintain a clean factory.

McDonald's can afford to pay all of it's hourly employees $15 dollars and hour, and even if they put all of that back onto the consumer (instead of taking it out of their monstrous profits), it would increase the cost of their food by a few cents. Walmart could do the same thing, raising average consumer cost by $12 annually for the typical American family that uses Walmart on a regular basis; once again, assuming they put all of the costs back onto consumers instead of cutting into the obscene profits of the Walton family.

The minimum wage is meant to ensure that someone who puts in enough time per week, regardless of whatever the job may be, will be able to afford a certain standard of living. This is because the society decided that this was important, more important than unfettered capitalism; and so used the government to enforce their will. Corporate America can quite clearly afford to pay their workers better wages, but they will not. The first rule of capitalism is to never pay more for labor than you have to. Minimum wage forces them to pay more, because they clearly aren't being motivated to do so on their own; and the studies show that this would barely affect their current profit margins. Even if McDonalds absorbed entirely the cost of paying all of their workers $15 an hour, they would not suddenly fire everyone or close down; there is still plenty of profit to be made. It's just that shareholders and CEO's would get a fraction less of it. Now the consensus of society is that this is the right thing to do, good luck convincing them we need even less corporate regulations and abolishing the few consumer and worker protections we have left. Corporate America has been waging a propaganda war against Unions for decades, and sadly they've been winning. So it turns out people can be that stupid and swayed by misinformation (which is a callback to the previous point about human gullibility, in case you didn't get that point).



(18-08-2014 04:34 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Are people able to react to consequences of their actions?
You seemed to imply that this is not the case and that people need to be regulations to ensure that people have insurance, implying they can not be relied upon go and get one from their own will.

What is a "licensed legitimate (insurance) company"? How does it differ from an unlicensed illegitimate one, which provides the same or better service? Are customers unable to tell a difference?

It's called 'insurance fraud' you dumbass. When someone poses as an insurance company, takes payment, but never makes good on legitimate claims. Likewise even legitimate insurance company can have particular cases of fraud within them. We have regulations and rules to attempt to prevent this from happening, and we have licensing agencies to ensure that the companies are legitimate businesses and have met the minimum regulator standards required of them. This is all meant to prevent and reduce fraud, to protect consumers. I fail to see how this system would be improved by removing all of the regulator framework.

When looking to get vehicle insurance, I can check company X against a publicly accessible database of licensed insurance providers. If company X is not on that list, that is not a good sign. If they claim to be but are not, that is fraud. If they are on the list, then that means that they are a legitimate insurance agency, and my trust in them increases. Not that I shouldn't be wary, but the chances of them being an obvious scam drop dramatically. Not only that, but I know that I do have legal recourse against them if they do fail to uphold their contractual obligations. There are option for civil litigation if they are found to have committed fraud or negligence, which can be handled in court of they are found or accused of being in violation of laws and regulations. This greatly increases public trust, because now I know that if they fuck me over, I have options and recourse available to me.



(18-08-2014 04:34 PM)Luminon Wrote:  What is public trust? Why can't it just be fixed by offering lower prices?

Do you even know what 'trust' means? Clearly you do not. Lowering prices does not instill trust, it just incentives a purchase. But how well would that work for insurance, where it's you giving them money on the promise that they'll keep their obligations; and there is no regulations or laws ensuring that they will uphold their end, or legal recourse should they fail to uphold their end. Try selling insurance in that environment. Good fucking luck with that...


(18-08-2014 04:34 PM)Luminon Wrote:  What is fairness and standards?

Like not allowing people to lie about their products, to protect consumers from fraud?


(18-08-2014 04:34 PM)Luminon Wrote:  What motivates people to break them?

In a capitalistic economy, profit is usually the go-to reason.


(18-08-2014 04:34 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Why do they need to be enforced? By whom? What about the enforcers' fairness and standards?

Enforced to prevent fraud and protect consumers. Enforced by the government (regulators, attorneys, police). Government is regulated by the law, and should be watched by the citizens, who ironically enough are also the very consumers that are being protected by the government.


(18-08-2014 04:34 PM)Luminon Wrote:  What do you think that a higher risk stops the business altogether instead of just increasing the prices?

Zero regulation means that risk rises exponentially. Given that you're okay with huge wealth disparity and vastly unequal wealth distribution, then only the wealthiest will be able to afford insurance; and even then there may not be enough of them in that risk pool to lower the price enough to make it worthwhile to themselves.

A counter example is the government run healthcare systems on Europe, where everyone gets insurance; and by the nature of everyone being in the risk pool, it helps to spread and minimize risk and keeps costs lower for everyone. Not only that, but they can also use their government to pass other regulations and laws that can encourage healthier lifestyles, thus helping to lower the costs even further. The government has a vested interest in protecting their citizens, provided the citizens are keeping a close eye on their government.

Because sometimes Lumi, making a profit is not the most important thing. Sometimes groups of people and the government that represent them agree that it's in everyone's best interest to have healthcare because it's the humane and empathetic thing to do.

Greed and profit motives do not engender empathy.



(18-08-2014 04:34 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Have you read the article about Wild West?
https://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

Fuck you, I'm not reading a 21 page PDF of Austrian apologetics. You suck at defending all of your shit here, I'm not wasting more of my time reading more of your second hand bullshit. I imagine that given the option between the Wild West and FDR's New Deal, most people in the developed west would opt for the New Deal.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like EvolutionKills's post
19-08-2014, 02:12 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(18-08-2014 05:31 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(18-08-2014 04:48 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Can we just take a moment to appreciate the full head-up-ass intransigence of ol' Lumi here?

I mean, first he makes a point contingent on contrasting fiat currency on one hand with Bitcoins on the other. Then it's pointed out that Bitcoins could not possibly be more fiat. And then, of course, he drops the subject as completely as if he'd never mentioned it.

Now that's what I call some top-flight discussion.

The flawless logic of the True Believer: there are no such things as facts. There are only Correct Thought and Incorrect Thought, and so-called facts exist to serve them.

of course on the other hand, Bitcoins are not fiat currency by virtue of not technically being currency in the first place, but that was hardly the point
These objections are so stupid that it hurts and yet you join in them. Bitcoin is not fiat currency, because it has built-in limited emission and it is not a national currency forced into use by taxation. In case someone broke the code and started mass-producing it, everyone would abandon it freely. And if someone had enough computing power to crack the Bitcoin protocol, he would be probably so rich already that this would not be profitable to him, considering people would just stop using it.
And someone here claimed it is not a currency at all, it is a commodity!
Currency is not a natural phenomenon, although societies naturally create it to fit their needs. It is an artificial instrument that needs to be created. A created currency can not equal fiat currency, or all money would be fiat and the word would be meaningless, it wouldn't exist to begin with.
Decide which is it, prove it and until then don't feed your fellow trolls. Facepalm

Without government corporations wouldn't exist. Without government it would be much more difficult to raise the capital necessary for companies to make large r&d investmens. You are obviously oblivious to these two facts. Some regulations are good for business. Some regulations are bad for business. In the west, despite all the bitching, regulations are much more advantageous for business's than they are harmful. If you don't realise this fact, than you have no business trying to pass yourself off as an expert in economics.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like PKJoe's post
19-08-2014, 03:10 AM (This post was last modified: 19-08-2014 03:15 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(19-08-2014 02:12 AM)PKJoe Wrote:  Without government corporations wouldn't exist. Without government it would be much more difficult to raise the capital necessary for companies to make large r&d investmens. You are obviously oblivious to these two facts. Some regulations are good for business. Some regulations are bad for business. In the west, despite all the bitching, regulations are much more advantageous for business's than they are harmful. If you don't realise this fact, than you have no business trying to pass yourself off as an expert in economics.
These two statements are not precise. Without government people would still unite themselves into corporations, only they would still carry full personal liability. Government guarantees limited liability in courts.
Without government it would be harder to raise the capital on large projects, such as Olympic villages or weapons research. But AFAIK, the computer industry is raising much capital without government and it seems very little regulated.


EK: Cool story. You showed how good regulations are. But if they are so good, why there's so little? I want more guarantees or I want at least a good justification why it's not happening.
There are some very greedy people in society who hoard things. Not everyone has access to various kinds of food, clothes or computers or women. Everyone should have some of these and only government can guarantee that they will. Who drew the red line so inconveniently? Why do regulations stop so woefully short of a total guarantee of well-being of us all?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2014, 03:20 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(19-08-2014 03:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(19-08-2014 02:12 AM)PKJoe Wrote:  Without government corporations wouldn't exist. Without government it would be much more difficult to raise the capital necessary for companies to make large r&d investmens. You are obviously oblivious to these two facts. Some regulations are good for business. Some regulations are bad for business. In the west, despite all the bitching, regulations are much more advantageous for business's than they are harmful. If you don't realise this fact, than you have no business trying to pass yourself off as an expert in economics.
These two statements are not precise. Without government people would still unite themselves into corporations, only they would still carry full personal liability. Government guarantees limited liability in courts.

Without government it would be harder to raise the capital on bullshit overpriced projects that nobody really wants.


EK: Cool story. You showed how good regulations are. But if they are so good, why there's so little? I want more guarantees or I want at least a good justification why it's not happening.
There are some very greedy people in society who hoard things. Not everyone has access to various kinds of food, clothes or computers or women. Everyone should have some of these and only government can guarantee that they will. Who drew the red line so inconveniently? Why do regulations stop so woefully short of a total guarantee of well-being of us all?

You completely failed with this post. A corporation is a legal entity. No laws, no legal entities. Without r&d there is no new technology, no new products. Capital markets operate on the bais of the legal protections that are offered corporations.

You have completely failed to demonstrate that you have a fucking clue about anything.

You don't understand psychology. You don't understand philosophy. You don't understand history. You don't understand business. You don't understand economics. Hell, you don't even understand some of the words you use. I have a hard time believing you ever went to University. In fact, I have a hard time believing you're older than 16.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like PKJoe's post
19-08-2014, 03:56 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(19-08-2014 03:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  EK: Cool story. You showed how good regulations are. But if they are so good, why there's so little? I want more guarantees or I want at least a good justification why it's not happening.
There are some very greedy people in society who hoard things. Not everyone has access to various kinds of food, clothes or computers or women. Everyone should have some of these and only government can guarantee that they will. Who drew the red line so inconveniently? Why do regulations stop so woefully short of a total guarantee of well-being of us all?

Because you're a stupid little shit that needs his greens turned into paste and force fed like a baby? Consider

People form governments to moderated and enforce the consensus. If the consensus only cares to a certain degree, or for whatever reason cannot enforce it's desires, then so be it. That doesn't negate the whole concept of government in favor of a state-lees unregulated free market.

The governments of Europe have a much stronger socialist bent than the United State. So? At one time Germany was also far more fascist too. Governments should reflect the will of the people, but the will of any sufficient group of people will be different from place to place given all of the possible variable at play. I'm not going to act with such hubris and delegate to them what they should value, so I'm sure as shit not going to tell them that they can't have a government either because of my feels and a personal penchant for Molyneux and Rand.

Fuck, let Hong Kong be Hong Kong if they can get away with it and that is what their people desire. If how they operate represents the will of the people of Hong Kong, so be it. I've only ever argued for the consensus, while you've always been pushing your unsubstantiated bullshit onto everyone in the name of 'freedom'; while entirely ignoring the fact that we like government because they work and serve important functions. Even given all of your (terribly implausible, if not impossible) assumption, there's nothing to prevent people from inevitably forming governments anyways. So the rest of us don't see any point in enacting policies based on your feels, and we can clearly see and demonstrate how they would fail and cause great harm if implemented.

Go form your own Libertarian Commune out in the fucking Canadian Rockies, but don't get butt-hurt and plead 'non aggression principle' if their Mounties start giving you shit for being on public property. Drinking Beverage

You want a world wide libertarian free-market paradise built upon non-aggression and exemplars of human knowledge (you know, magic and feels)? Good luck convincing everyone else to go along with you.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
19-08-2014, 02:17 PM (This post was last modified: 19-08-2014 03:00 PM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(19-08-2014 03:56 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Because you're a stupid little shit that needs his greens turned into paste and force fed like a baby? Consider
You may think that, if you answer.

(19-08-2014 03:56 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  People form governments to moderated and enforce the consensus. If the consensus only cares to a certain degree, or for whatever reason cannot enforce it's desires, then so be it. That doesn't negate the whole concept of government in favor of a state-lees unregulated free market.
If there is a consensus, then why does it need to be enforced? Consider I thought consensus is something that people want.
It's like salvation, you're supposed to want it, but if you don't, you end up in hell.
If the consensus only cares to a certain degree - what degree? When does consensus stop being consensus? It is the difference between 49 and 51 %?
If you can have less than 100 % consensus, when it's still consensus and when it's not?
If a person wants something, he can just go and buy it. If he can't afford it, then he should go earn some money. That's 100% consensus. When there's less than 100 %, people are getting screwed over, getting thrown on bandwagon to go along with something that they don't want.
Is consensus the degree to which the people are willing to get screwed over even if they don't win in a voting? I think so - only it doesn't sound as good when I put it that way.

(19-08-2014 03:56 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  The governments of Europe have a much stronger socialist bent than the United State. So? At one time Germany was also far more fascist too. Governments should reflect the will of the people, but the will of any sufficient group of people will be different from place to place given all of the possible variable at play. I'm not going to act with such hubris and delegate to them what they should value, so I'm sure as shit not going to tell them that they can't have a government either because of my feels and a personal penchant for Molyneux and Rand.
I don't know what that means, because the consensus isn't all that clear to me. I'd define political consensus as "the willingness to get screwed over by mob rule in case my party doesn't win, so it damn better not happen".

(19-08-2014 03:56 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I've only ever argued for the consensus, while you've always been pushing your unsubstantiated bullshit onto everyone in the name of 'freedom'; while entirely ignoring the fact that we like government because they work and serve important functions. Even given all of your (terribly implausible, if not impossible) assumption, there's nothing to prevent people from inevitably forming governments anyways. So the rest of us don't see any point in enacting policies based on your feels, and we can clearly see and demonstrate how they would fail and cause great harm if implemented.
So, you say that I argued for enacting policies? How do you call it when someone argues for not enacting policies and for not pushing things on people? Do you understand the concept of liberty? 100 % consensus is required. Nobody should be governed against their will. If some people disagree, let's not enforce anything. There are many other ways to solve problems than enforcing. But government knows only one way that destroys all the others.
[Image: tumblr_lzo6o0vpay1qk9b9zo1_500.jpg]

Also, this. Governments killed quarter a billion people in the 20th century alone and not in during wars. I'd pass, if I had a choice. I'd give up on the idea of involuntary association and enforced consensus altogether. But it seems it doesn't want to give up on me. You may not believe in God, but God believes in you!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2014, 10:50 PM (This post was last modified: 19-08-2014 10:57 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(19-08-2014 02:17 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(19-08-2014 03:56 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Because you're a stupid little shit that needs his greens turned into paste and force fed like a baby? Consider
You may think that, if you answer.

Don't worry, I'm sure you're going to prove me right with the rest of this post... Drinking Beverage


(19-08-2014 02:17 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(19-08-2014 03:56 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  People form governments to moderated and enforce the consensus. If the consensus only cares to a certain degree, or for whatever reason cannot enforce it's desires, then so be it. That doesn't negate the whole concept of government in favor of a state-lees unregulated free market.
If there is a consensus, then why does it need to be enforced? Consider I thought consensus is something that people want.

[Image: 41d.png]

Consensus is not universal agreement you stupid fuckstick.

Have you seen a bell curve? The consensus is the hump of the curve. Not everyone will agree perfectly on all things at all times, we are individuals not a hive mind or the fucking Borg. There will always be outliers. If everyone universally believed in pacifism and the immorality of murder under any circumstances, the world would be a hell of a lot more peaceful. But this is nuance, and as a True Believer™, you don't deal in nuance.


(19-08-2014 02:17 PM)Luminon Wrote:  It's like salvation, you're supposed to want it, but if you don't, you end up in hell.

Not even close, but it's fun to watch you grasp at straws with such hyperbole.


(19-08-2014 02:17 PM)Luminon Wrote:  If the consensus only cares to a certain degree - what degree? When does consensus stop being consensus? It is the difference between 49 and 51 %?
If you can have less than 100 % consensus, when it's still consensus and when it's not?

Now here, you almost ask an intelligent question. The short answer is, "however that government has determined it gauges the consensus". In the United States, it's first-past-the-post elections, and a certain amount of majority agreement in our elected bodies.


(19-08-2014 02:17 PM)Luminon Wrote:  If a person wants something, he can just go and buy it. If he can't afford it, then he should go earn some money. That's 100% consensus.

We now have private citizens with wealth more than capable of buy nuclear weapons. I doubt their neighbors would consent to them having one.


(19-08-2014 02:17 PM)Luminon Wrote:  When there's less than 100 %, people are getting screwed over, getting thrown on bandwagon to go along with something that they don't want.

We have almost 100% consensus here that you're an idiot, and that hasn't seemed to stop you... Drinking Beverage

There will always be people getting the short end of the stick. Reality is not fair or perfect. While we prefer a system of governance that can recognize this and strive for better equality, you prefer magical thinking in the name of absolute freedom; showing that you have a very poor grasp on what either of those mean in context.

But no, go ahead and tell the homeless man living in the park how great it is that he has so much economic freedom. I'd rather give the guy a sandwich and a jacket.


(19-08-2014 02:17 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Is consensus the degree to which the people are willing to get screwed over even if they don't win in a voting? I think so - only it doesn't sound as good when I put it that way.

Because you're a disingenuous little shit?

It's funny how you can't fathom the conceit that, when people come together to make decisions that affect the whole, some people won't always get what they want. The fact that you find this an unconscionable encroachment on your freedom, puts you on par with a petulant spoiled child that never learned how to share.

Because sharing is caring, and sharing a toy means you might not always have it exactly whenever you want it (the horror of not having absolute freedom I'm sure, but stick with me here). But that's offset by the other children sharing their toys too. And if you want, you can play together with all of the toys!

Fuck, Barney and Friends have a better grasp on the reality of social interaction than you and Molyneux do... Facepalm


(19-08-2014 02:17 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(19-08-2014 03:56 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  The governments of Europe have a much stronger socialist bent than the United State. So? At one time Germany was also far more fascist too. Governments should reflect the will of the people, but the will of any sufficient group of people will be different from place to place given all of the possible variable at play. I'm not going to act with such hubris and delegate to them what they should value, so I'm sure as shit not going to tell them that they can't have a government either because of my feels and a personal penchant for Molyneux and Rand.
I don't know what that means, because the consensus isn't all that clear to me. I'd define political consensus as "the willingness to get screwed over by mob rule in case my party doesn't win, so it damn better not happen".

Of course you would, because you're a True Believer™ unable to deal with nuance and facts that don't conform to your preferred presupposed world view. Drinking Beverage


(19-08-2014 02:17 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(19-08-2014 03:56 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I've only ever argued for the consensus, while you've always been pushing your unsubstantiated bullshit onto everyone in the name of 'freedom'; while entirely ignoring the fact that we like government because they work and serve important functions. Even given all of your (terribly implausible, if not impossible) assumption, there's nothing to prevent people from inevitably forming governments anyways. So the rest of us don't see any point in enacting policies based on your feels, and we can clearly see and demonstrate how they would fail and cause great harm if implemented.
So, you say that I argued for enacting policies? How do you call it when someone argues for not enacting policies and for not pushing things on people?

In the same way that god's inaction, is still an action. Not doing anything still has consequences. Abolishing the framework of government effects everyone you dumbass. So unilaterally imposing that on everyone, without the consensus agreeing with you, is far more autocratic and authoritarian than anything you've attempted to even accuse me of. Medicare and Medicaid in the United States have a 97% popular approval rating, so if you came in and abolished the government and all of it's social safety net programs, you'd be pissing off 97% of the population on that one.

Fucking moron...


(19-08-2014 02:17 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Do you understand the concept of liberty? 100 % consensus is required. Nobody should be governed against their will. If some people disagree, let's not enforce anything. There are many other ways to solve problems than enforcing. But government knows only one way that destroys all the others.
[Image: tumblr_lzo6o0vpay1qk9b9zo1_500.jpg]

Absolutes are pipe-dreams that only work in your delusions and theoretical models; that's why they rely on so much magical thinking and the complete disregard for any and all facts about reality and the world that disagree with them.


(19-08-2014 02:17 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Also, this. Governments killed quarter a billion people in the 20th century alone and not in during wars. I'd pass, if I had a choice. I'd give up on the idea of involuntary association and enforced consensus altogether. But it seems it doesn't want to give up on me. You may not believe in God, but God believes in you!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

Governments are made up of people, people can be genocidal assholes. Therefore their governments can be genocidal assholes.

I fail to see the contradiction.

But no, I'm sure Somalia is much better with all of their vigilante killing as opposed to state-sanctioned killing... Facepalm


No, go cry some more. Instead of engaging your fellow citizens, and trying to convince them of the correctness and soundness of you position in an effort to change the consensus; you're just going to sit there and bitch about it instead, while masturbating to the mental fantasy of a Randian free-market utopia. We have zero sympathy for you. You don't like the consensus? Then convince people to change it! Or you can stay at home being a whiny bitch, how's that for freedom of choice?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
20-08-2014, 06:43 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(19-08-2014 10:50 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Consensus is not universal agreement you stupid fuckstick.

Have you seen a bell curve? The consensus is the hump of the curve. Not everyone will agree perfectly on all things at all times, we are individuals not a hive mind or the fucking Borg. There will always be outliers. If everyone universally believed in pacifism and the immorality of murder under any circumstances, the world would be a hell of a lot more peaceful. But this is nuance, and as a True Believer™, you don't deal in nuance.
Yes, that's exactly what I want. 90 % of everything is shit. The middle of the bell curve are the assholes. Every asshole has a butt. Taking someone's private property is stealing, butt we need taxation to finance politics and all the public good.
"Don't take my stuff" is a small truth. Theft is immoral, that's the great truth. But in the middle of the bell curve, between the ass cheeks of humanity, is the middle truth that "taxation is good because it pays for good works".
I don't believe in buts and their middle truths and nuances. The assholes are liars. Look for me to the right of the curve.

(19-08-2014 10:50 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Now here, you almost ask an intelligent question. The short answer is, "however that government has determined it gauges the consensus". In the United States, it's first-past-the-post elections, and a certain amount of majority agreement in our elected bodies.
In other words, we make up this shit as we go. This napkin is true because it says so right here on the napkin.

(19-08-2014 10:50 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  We now have private citizens with wealth more than capable of buy nuclear weapons. I doubt their neighbors would consent to them having one.
That's none of their neighbour's business. Nukes are just pieces of uranium. But I'd donate to a public fundraising to pay for a therapy for all nuke-owners. I'd really want to make sure that the neighbor is a sane and happy person. I've got no such guarantees with Mr Obama.

(19-08-2014 10:50 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  We have almost 100% consensus here that you're an idiot, and that hasn't seemed to stop you... Drinking Beverage

There will always be people getting the short end of the stick. Reality is not fair or perfect. While we prefer a system of governance that can recognize this and strive for better equality, you prefer magical thinking in the name of absolute freedom; showing that you have a very poor grasp on what either of those mean in context.
Equality? Equality in what?
People are not equal, except in rights and dignity, everything else is quite unequal.
If there is any Bill Gates or Nikola Tesla around, I don't want them to be equal, I want them to be vastly superior in terms of capital, because they will make the world better. The way to do that is to let people have their stuff, so they can make up their mind about who needs it. I don't want government to have the money, because it is way too easy to convince the government. Don't put all the eggs in one basket.
Rights and dignity are based on principles. Such as the right to private property. But government considers people just livestock that can be taxed at will.

(19-08-2014 10:50 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  But no, go ahead and tell the homeless man living in the park how great it is that he has so much economic freedom. I'd rather give the guy a sandwich and a jacket.
Economic freedom? All the Obamacare, vouchers, welfare and so on are paid for by economic slavery. Poor are given a little money at a time just like addicts are given a little heroin at a time. We are all captives, only some have upper racks in a cage, some lower.


(19-08-2014 10:50 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Because you're a disingenuous little shit?

It's funny how you can't fathom the conceit that, when people come together to make decisions that affect the whole, some people won't always get what they want. The fact that you find this an unconscionable encroachment on your freedom, puts you on par with a petulant spoiled child that never learned how to share.

Because sharing is caring, and sharing a toy means you might not always have it exactly whenever you want it (the horror of not having absolute freedom I'm sure, but stick with me here). But that's offset by the other children sharing their toys too. And if you want, you can play together with all of the toys!

Fuck, Barney and Friends have a better grasp on the reality of social interaction than you and Molyneux do... Facepalm
Yes, I think it's a huge conceit to make decisions about people who aren't even personally present. On the market, everyone gets what they want if they work for it.

What is sharing? Coughing up taxes and fines at government gunpoint isn't sharing. Politicians never share. That's not sharing, that's theft. I'll believe it's sharing when people refuse and will only be called greedy assholes, but they will not be arrested and put in jail or there will be no government order on their bank account to take it off their salary. I will believe when people won't get shot when they resist arrest for not paying taxes.
The punishment for not paying taxes is terrible. It doesn't make people good or empathetic to pay their "fair share", it only makes them avoid the punishment. And it makes them less charitable. Higher taxes mean less charity. Fuck off, I pay my taxes, go ask government for help!
Charity is like a scalpel. It must go exactly where you know it will help. Dumping money at people like government does is like dusting them with a cloud of heroin and DDT. It supports the worst and the mediocre in us and gives good people no leverage to pull others out of poverty.

(19-08-2014 10:50 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  In the same way that god's inaction, is still an action. Not doing anything still has consequences. Abolishing the framework of government effects everyone you dumbass. So unilaterally imposing that on everyone, without the consensus agreeing with you, is far more autocratic and authoritarian than anything you've attempted to even accuse me of. Medicare and Medicaid in the United States have a 97% popular approval rating, so if you came in and abolished the government and all of it's social safety net programs, you'd be pissing off 97% of the population on that one.

Fucking moron...
What about allowing people to keep their money, without imposing the money-keeping on everyone? What about a preliminary 100% tax refund for those who choose it? No strings attached. Just show there are open doors out of the system without leaving the continent. Show there's a choice.

Market is reality too! There are so many choices on the market, and then I go to the government, and suddenly, no choice at all, nothing. Isn't that a little weird? There can't be two different realities. One of these isn't real, it must be a lie.


(19-08-2014 10:50 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Governments are made up of people, people can be genocidal assholes. Therefore their governments can be genocidal assholes.

I fail to see the contradiction.

But no, I'm sure Somalia is much better with all of their vigilante killing as opposed to state-sanctioned killing... Facepalm
Somalia is just a multiple governments competing for dominance. More of the bad thing.
I have never seen a genocidal asshole, ever. Not in history book, not on TV, nowhere. Yes, there were some assholes with mustaches who said words and some other assholes who killed people. But that's the government. Without the government, there would be just mustaches and words. I could live with that, I'm not afraid of mustaches and guns. I'm afraid of the hierarchical machinery that goes all the way from words to guns held by obedient conformist idiots. Words are cheap and so I am really afraid of things that organize people in this obedient genocidal machine pattern. Government is the people-pattern to be feared.

(19-08-2014 10:50 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  No, go cry some more. Instead of engaging your fellow citizens, and trying to convince them of the correctness and soundness of you position in an effort to change the consensus; you're just going to sit there and bitch about it instead, while masturbating to the mental fantasy of a Randian free-market utopia. We have zero sympathy for you. You don't like the consensus? Then convince people to change it! Or you can stay at home being a whiny bitch, how's that for freedom of choice?
Would you want to be controlled by someone who has zero sympathy for you?
I have a consensus about myself. I don't understand why do I need to convince third party strangers that I own myself and can do my thing with people who also agree.
I refuse to understand. I used to go along with that, but I don't anymore, I unlearned that. I used to understand everything you say, but now I don't.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2014, 07:14 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(20-08-2014 06:43 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(19-08-2014 10:50 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Consensus is not universal agreement you stupid fuckstick.

Have you seen a bell curve? The consensus is the hump of the curve. Not everyone will agree perfectly on all things at all times, we are individuals not a hive mind or the fucking Borg. There will always be outliers. If everyone universally believed in pacifism and the immorality of murder under any circumstances, the world would be a hell of a lot more peaceful. But this is nuance, and as a True Believer™, you don't deal in nuance.
Yes, that's exactly what I want. 90 % of everything is shit. The middle of the bell curve are the assholes. Every asshole has a butt. Taking someone's private property is stealing, butt we need taxation to finance politics and all the public good.
"Don't take my stuff" is a small truth. Theft is immoral, that's the great truth. But in the middle of the bell curve, between the ass cheeks of humanity, is the middle truth that "taxation is good because it pays for good works".
I don't believe in buts and their middle truths and nuances. The assholes are liars. Look for me to the right of the curve.

(19-08-2014 10:50 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Now here, you almost ask an intelligent question. The short answer is, "however that government has determined it gauges the consensus". In the United States, it's first-past-the-post elections, and a certain amount of majority agreement in our elected bodies.
In other words, we make up this shit as we go. This napkin is true because it says so right here on the napkin.

(19-08-2014 10:50 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  We now have private citizens with wealth more than capable of buy nuclear weapons. I doubt their neighbors would consent to them having one.
That's none of their neighbour's business. Nukes are just pieces of uranium. But I'd donate to a public fundraising to pay for a therapy for all nuke-owners. I'd really want to make sure that the neighbor is a sane and happy person. I've got no such guarantees with Mr Obama.

(19-08-2014 10:50 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  We have almost 100% consensus here that you're an idiot, and that hasn't seemed to stop you... Drinking Beverage

There will always be people getting the short end of the stick. Reality is not fair or perfect. While we prefer a system of governance that can recognize this and strive for better equality, you prefer magical thinking in the name of absolute freedom; showing that you have a very poor grasp on what either of those mean in context.
Equality? Equality in what?
People are not equal, except in rights and dignity, everything else is quite unequal.
If there is any Bill Gates or Nikola Tesla around, I don't want them to be equal, I want them to be vastly superior in terms of capital, because they will make the world better. The way to do that is to let people have their stuff, so they can make up their mind about who needs it. I don't want government to have the money, because it is way too easy to convince the government. Don't put all the eggs in one basket.
Rights and dignity are based on principles. Such as the right to private property. But government considers people just livestock that can be taxed at will.

(19-08-2014 10:50 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  But no, go ahead and tell the homeless man living in the park how great it is that he has so much economic freedom. I'd rather give the guy a sandwich and a jacket.
Economic freedom? All the Obamacare, vouchers, welfare and so on are paid for by economic slavery. Poor are given a little money at a time just like addicts are given a little heroin at a time. We are all captives, only some have upper racks in a cage, some lower.


(19-08-2014 10:50 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Because you're a disingenuous little shit?

It's funny how you can't fathom the conceit that, when people come together to make decisions that affect the whole, some people won't always get what they want. The fact that you find this an unconscionable encroachment on your freedom, puts you on par with a petulant spoiled child that never learned how to share.

Because sharing is caring, and sharing a toy means you might not always have it exactly whenever you want it (the horror of not having absolute freedom I'm sure, but stick with me here). But that's offset by the other children sharing their toys too. And if you want, you can play together with all of the toys!

Fuck, Barney and Friends have a better grasp on the reality of social interaction than you and Molyneux do... Facepalm
Yes, I think it's a huge conceit to make decisions about people who aren't even personally present. On the market, everyone gets what they want if they work for it.

What is sharing? Coughing up taxes and fines at government gunpoint isn't sharing. Politicians never share. That's not sharing, that's theft. I'll believe it's sharing when people refuse and will only be called greedy assholes, but they will not be arrested and put in jail or there will be no government order on their bank account to take it off their salary. I will believe when people won't get shot when they resist arrest for not paying taxes.
The punishment for not paying taxes is terrible. It doesn't make people good or empathetic to pay their "fair share", it only makes them avoid the punishment. And it makes them less charitable. Higher taxes mean less charity. Fuck off, I pay my taxes, go ask government for help!
Charity is like a scalpel. It must go exactly where you know it will help. Dumping money at people like government does is like dusting them with a cloud of heroin and DDT. It supports the worst and the mediocre in us and gives good people no leverage to pull others out of poverty.

(19-08-2014 10:50 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  In the same way that god's inaction, is still an action. Not doing anything still has consequences. Abolishing the framework of government effects everyone you dumbass. So unilaterally imposing that on everyone, without the consensus agreeing with you, is far more autocratic and authoritarian than anything you've attempted to even accuse me of. Medicare and Medicaid in the United States have a 97% popular approval rating, so if you came in and abolished the government and all of it's social safety net programs, you'd be pissing off 97% of the population on that one.

Fucking moron...
What about allowing people to keep their money, without imposing the money-keeping on everyone? What about a preliminary 100% tax refund for those who choose it? No strings attached. Just show there are open doors out of the system without leaving the continent. Show there's a choice.

Market is reality too! There are so many choices on the market, and then I go to the government, and suddenly, no choice at all, nothing. Isn't that a little weird? There can't be two different realities. One of these isn't real, it must be a lie.


(19-08-2014 10:50 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Governments are made up of people, people can be genocidal assholes. Therefore their governments can be genocidal assholes.

I fail to see the contradiction.

But no, I'm sure Somalia is much better with all of their vigilante killing as opposed to state-sanctioned killing... Facepalm
Somalia is just a multiple governments competing for dominance. More of the bad thing.
I have never seen a genocidal asshole, ever. Not in history book, not on TV, nowhere. Yes, there were some assholes with mustaches who said words and some other assholes who killed people. But that's the government. Without the government, there would be just mustaches and words. I could live with that, I'm not afraid of mustaches and guns. I'm afraid of the hierarchical machinery that goes all the way from words to guns held by obedient conformist idiots. Words are cheap and so I am really afraid of things that organize people in this obedient genocidal machine pattern. Government is the people-pattern to be feared.

(19-08-2014 10:50 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  No, go cry some more. Instead of engaging your fellow citizens, and trying to convince them of the correctness and soundness of you position in an effort to change the consensus; you're just going to sit there and bitch about it instead, while masturbating to the mental fantasy of a Randian free-market utopia. We have zero sympathy for you. You don't like the consensus? Then convince people to change it! Or you can stay at home being a whiny bitch, how's that for freedom of choice?
Would you want to be controlled by someone who has zero sympathy for you?
I have a consensus about myself. I don't understand why do I need to convince third party strangers that I own myself and can do my thing with people who also agree.
I refuse to understand. I used to go along with that, but I don't anymore, I unlearned that. I used to understand everything you say, but now I don't.

You are no longer worth talking to.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2014, 07:40 AM
No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
It's all just a piece of uranium until someone loses an eye!

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: