 |
|
Here you go hokie:
Posted on: March 29, 2021 at 18:00:33 CT
ummmm MU
Posts:
44902
Member For:
13.46 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
A response to your all over the place post from earlier, of which you wanted a response to all of your "points".
Most of this has been stated on this Board near-daily for the past decade. But since you did not take it in before, I'm providing it again.
http://www.tigerboard.com/boards/view.php?message=17514193
The communists could also describe their philosophy as one that values the individual over evil corporations and aspires to equality and fairness.
This has been addressed in numerous places today, but no, this is patently untrue. Communism may be sold as being best for the "people" and may even suggest that corporations are the enemies of the "people", but communism on paper and in practice is antithetical to "the individual" and individualism.
Moreover, central aspirations of "equality and fairness" are also antithetical to "the individual" and individualism. Any central entity/ism that seeks equality and fairness among people will necessarily assassinate individualism in the process.
So, your comment is 100% inaccurate here.
Kind of like the democrat party.
The Democratic Party, like the Republican Party, is an enemy of individualism in the United States. Though ironically to your earlier comment, the Democratic Party is in bed with big corporations today more than ever, and arguably, more than the Republican Party. It has become the party of interconnected elitists.
Lenin's people just wanted Peace, Land and Bread. That's all. Doesn't sound too bad.
Yeah, but it also doesn't sound like a theory that espouses individualism as the central tenet (like pickle's philosophy). Pickle wouldn't entitle anyone to anything, other than a recognition of their negative natural rights to their own life, liberty, and property.
Just because they both sound good doesn't mean they are alike. By the way, I presume you have paid enough attention to not suggest that pickle and Lenin are alike in thought?
The Idiot and his cult want no borders, no laws, no government "interference" in their daily existence. You forgot to mention that.
Correct on borders, as it relates to big nation-state borders. But not to borders of privately-owned property, also known as "property lines".
I posted earlier on the "no laws" comment. Go back and read that.
As for "government interference" in daily life, yes, he does advocate for the elimination of that. And for good reason. The free market and voluntary exchange are better at organizing daily affairs, and they do it organically and without the possibility that a demagogue will take the central reins and exert power in an unworkable way.
And they proclaim anyone who disagrees to be immoral.
Incorrect. They proclaim that any action that contravenes the natural law and infringes upon the natural rights of another is immoral.
Disagreement is not immoral and neither is the person who asserts the disagreement. Immorality comes into play with infringements on rights.
They hate the country, they hate the military and they believe that human nature can be changed to wring out all the evil in all men if we would just let everyone know that, "...individuals should not infringe upon that superior right of others to their own life, property, and liberty".
They don't hate the country. Pickle has posted numerous times on this board that he really loves America, the country. But country does not equal government. Maybe you have been conditioned to see it that way, but there are about a billion great things about America that have zero to do with its government.
They do hate the military, especially in its present form. It is bloated, aggressive, bureaucratic agency of the State. It's hard to like anything about it, if you are also a supporter of limited government.
They do not think that evil can be wringed out of man. Again, and as discussed earlier today, the fact that pickle talks about private dispute resolution implies that disputes/disagreements/infringements would continue in a voluntary society. Pickle doesn't believe that evil traits will disappear in a voluntary society, only that they will be better mitigated. For one, disputes would be resolved not through a govt monopoly. Second, those with sociopathic tendencies wouldn't be able to obtain political power over people by winning central elections or appointments. Third, a voluntary society is one in which elevates a dominant cultural deference to respect for private property rights (voluntarism and private property go hand in hand, but people have to want this and if people were to want it, then we should expect far less infringements on private property in the first place).
And we would face no dangers from hordes of illiterate criminals from mexico, no threat from the peace loving communists in china or russia or north korea, no threats from the diaper heads in arabia, if we just dissolve our government and let people do whatever the hell they want.
Much of these dangers exist because the US govt's military seeks out the danger abroad. A voluntary society could exist in one part of the globe, irrespective of brutal govt regimes. Also, defense and security are pretty darn high on the hierarchy of needs, so it's unreasonable to believe that those in a voluntary society wouldn't devote their resources to it (and remember, this is a world where 33-40% of your annual production isn't stolen by a govt to provide things like "security").
Communist china, the hell's angels and the bloods and crips would certainly not violate your sacred property rights or your natural rights. Would they?
You may not realize this, but your recognition of these groups as "bad" is an implicit recognition of natural rights. The hell's angels, bloods, and crips are maligned because they steal, rob, assault, rape, and murder. Those malum per se acts are in line with natural rights. A voluntary society organizes in line with those.
That's so sweet.
Okay.
Because once the idiots take over, not biden's idiots, The Idiot's idiots, there will be no crime. Everyone will love everyone.
Again, this is an utter strawman. You could not find 1 post out pickle's 200,000+ that states that "crime" would not exist in a voluntary society. He also doesn't suggest that "everyone will love everyone", and in fact, notes constantly that people should mind their own business and not force associations between people. Pickle supports the rights of organizations/businesses to exclude whoever they want for whatever reason they want. Does that sound like "everyone will love everyone" to you?
On the contrary, you talk about the dream of a "united country" and the importance of this goal. That is far more like "everyone will love everyone" than anything pickle has ever stated.
There will be no need for borders because The Idiot has stated (right off a bumper sticker) that "no human being is illegal".
I think I've seen that bumper sticker in the same section as the "Build the Wall" and "Close the Borders" ones. You'd have to have a lot of faith in the efficiency and efficacy of government to think it can adequately close a 2,000 mile border. I guess I just don't share the faith you have in that.
As far as "no human being is illegal", under the natural law, that is of course true. All human beings have a superior right to their life, liberty, and property. Their existence alone is not a crime. Only actions can be crimes.
You want to, "...elevates free trade/exchange as one of the highest human virtues". And you believe you can do this just by saying it over and over and over and over and over.
Yes, of course. Free trade/exchange is paramount to a prosperous human existence. I certainly want to elevate it over central govt solutions.
And yes, I will keep saying it over and over and over again, because I consider it so important. My hope is that other people will be convinced, and then they will convince their friends and their families, and so on.
Ultimately, if the Overton Window can be moved from where it is today (which is nothing but big govt solutions) toward liberty or even complete voluntary society, then the govt will actually shrink. But right now, there are two major parties that take turns growing the govt and raiding the treasury, and while their governance is generally the same, their adherents are sadly digging in marketing differences and families and friendships are being ruined in the process.
And what of the people who disagree? Clearly you are against "forcing your opinions on others" so what would happen to dissenters in your utopian world?
Dissent in which way? If they simply disagree, but go about their life in a way that doesn't infringe on others' rights (i.e. how 99% of people go about their lives anyways), then there is no problem with their verbal/philosophical disagreement.
If they dissent by acting and infringing on others' rights, then they should be ready to be held accountable for that. If they don't want to voluntarily participate in the accountability process, then they may have trouble functioning and persisting within the voluntary society because producers will refuse to contract with them. So, general civility will be rewarded and the opposite will not.
But again, try not to get caught up in the specifics of how it would work, and instead focus on the philosophy and why it makes rational sense. The practical goal should be to move the Overton Window and actually shrink govt today. If the Overton Window isn't moved, govt will not shrink until it implodes. I repeat, it will not shrink.
And i have inquired many times as to what happens to criminals, assuming they still exist is a world with no laws, and who decides what if any punishment is handed out for oh, murder?
And you've had your question answered many times. It's impossible to know how it would work out, because a voluntary society is not centrally planned.
What you wrote is so sweet.
Okay.
So sweet that no one over 14 or with a triple digit IQ or with any real world life experience could believe it.
Okay.
But it makes you feel good to espouse it, so please continue.
It does, and I will.
Reality is not meant for everyone.
I operate 100% in reality. You don't even know the basics of communism, so you shouldn't be lobbing any insults about inhabiting reality.
Ask someone who supported the socialists in venezuela.
Case in point.
Edited by ummmm at 18:01:50 on 03/29/21
Most of this has been stated on this Board near-daily for the past decade. But since you did not take it in before, I'm providing it again.
http://www.tigerboard.com/boards/view.php?message=17514193
The communists could also describe their philosophy as one that values the individual over evil corporations and aspires to equality and fairness.
This has been addressed in numerous places today, but no, this is patently untrue. Communism may be sold as being best for the "people" and may even suggest that corporations are the enemies of the "people", but communism on paper and in practice is antithetical to "the individual" and individualism.
Moreover, central aspirations of "equality and fairness" are also antithetical to "the individual" and individualism. Any central entity/ism that seeks equality and fairness among people will necessarily assassinate individualism in the process.
So, your comment is 100% inaccurate here.
Kind of like the democrat party.
The Democratic Party, like the Republican Party, is an enemy of individualism in the United States. Though ironically to your earlier comment, the Democratic Party is in bed with big corporations today more than ever, and arguably, more than the Republican Party. It has become the party of interconnected elitists.
Lenin's people just wanted Peace, Land and Bread. That's all. Doesn't sound too bad.
Yeah, but it also doesn't sound like a theory that espouses individualism as the central tenet (like pickle's philosophy). Pickle wouldn't entitle anyone to anything, other than a recognition of their negative natural rights to their own life, liberty, and property.
Just because they both sound good doesn't mean they are alike. By the way, I presume you have paid enough attention to not suggest that pickle and Lenin are alike in thought?
The Idiot and his cult want no borders, no laws, no government "interference" in their daily existence. You forgot to mention that.
Correct on borders, as it relates to big nation-state borders. But not to borders of privately-owned property, also known as "property lines".
I posted earlier on the "no laws" comment. Go back and read that.
As for "government interference" in daily life, yes, he does advocate for the elimination of that. And for good reason. The free market and voluntary exchange are better at organizing daily affairs, and they do it organically and without the possibility that a demagogue will take the central reins and exert power in an unworkable way.
And they proclaim anyone who disagrees to be immoral.
Incorrect. They proclaim that any action that contravenes the natural law and infringes upon the natural rights of another is immoral.
Disagreement is not immoral and neither is the person who asserts the disagreement. Immorality comes into play with infringements on rights.
They hate the country, they hate the military and they believe that human nature can be changed to wring out all the evil in all men if we would just let everyone know that, "...individuals should not infringe upon that superior right of others to their own life, property, and liberty".
They don't hate the country. Pickle has posted numerous times on this board that he really loves America, the country. But country does not equal government. Maybe you have been conditioned to see it that way, but there are about a billion great things about America that have zero to do with its government.
They do hate the military, especially in its present form. It is bloated, aggressive, bureaucratic agency of the State. It's hard to like anything about it, if you are also a supporter of limited government.
They do not think that evil can be wringed out of man. Again, and as discussed earlier today, the fact that pickle talks about private dispute resolution implies that disputes/disagreements/infringements would continue in a voluntary society. Pickle doesn't believe that evil traits will disappear in a voluntary society, only that they will be better mitigated. For one, disputes would be resolved not through a govt monopoly. Second, those with sociopathic tendencies wouldn't be able to obtain political power over people by winning central elections or appointments. Third, a voluntary society is one in which elevates a dominant cultural deference to respect for private property rights (voluntarism and private property go hand in hand, but people have to want this and if people were to want it, then we should expect far less infringements on private property in the first place).
And we would face no dangers from hordes of illiterate criminals from mexico, no threat from the peace loving communists in china or russia or north korea, no threats from the diaper heads in arabia, if we just dissolve our government and let people do whatever the hell they want.
Much of these dangers exist because the US govt's military seeks out the danger abroad. A voluntary society could exist in one part of the globe, irrespective of brutal govt regimes. Also, defense and security are pretty darn high on the hierarchy of needs, so it's unreasonable to believe that those in a voluntary society wouldn't devote their resources to it (and remember, this is a world where 33-40% of your annual production isn't stolen by a govt to provide things like "security").
Communist china, the hell's angels and the bloods and crips would certainly not violate your sacred property rights or your natural rights. Would they?
You may not realize this, but your recognition of these groups as "bad" is an implicit recognition of natural rights. The hell's angels, bloods, and crips are maligned because they steal, rob, assault, rape, and murder. Those malum per se acts are in line with natural rights. A voluntary society organizes in line with those.
That's so sweet.
Okay.
Because once the idiots take over, not biden's idiots, The Idiot's idiots, there will be no crime. Everyone will love everyone.
Again, this is an utter strawman. You could not find 1 post out pickle's 200,000+ that states that "crime" would not exist in a voluntary society. He also doesn't suggest that "everyone will love everyone", and in fact, notes constantly that people should mind their own business and not force associations between people. Pickle supports the rights of organizations/businesses to exclude whoever they want for whatever reason they want. Does that sound like "everyone will love everyone" to you?
On the contrary, you talk about the dream of a "united country" and the importance of this goal. That is far more like "everyone will love everyone" than anything pickle has ever stated.
There will be no need for borders because The Idiot has stated (right off a bumper sticker) that "no human being is illegal".
I think I've seen that bumper sticker in the same section as the "Build the Wall" and "Close the Borders" ones. You'd have to have a lot of faith in the efficiency and efficacy of government to think it can adequately close a 2,000 mile border. I guess I just don't share the faith you have in that.
As far as "no human being is illegal", under the natural law, that is of course true. All human beings have a superior right to their life, liberty, and property. Their existence alone is not a crime. Only actions can be crimes.
You want to, "...elevates free trade/exchange as one of the highest human virtues". And you believe you can do this just by saying it over and over and over and over and over.
Yes, of course. Free trade/exchange is paramount to a prosperous human existence. I certainly want to elevate it over central govt solutions.
And yes, I will keep saying it over and over and over again, because I consider it so important. My hope is that other people will be convinced, and then they will convince their friends and their families, and so on.
Ultimately, if the Overton Window can be moved from where it is today (which is nothing but big govt solutions) toward liberty or even complete voluntary society, then the govt will actually shrink. But right now, there are two major parties that take turns growing the govt and raiding the treasury, and while their governance is generally the same, their adherents are sadly digging in marketing differences and families and friendships are being ruined in the process.
And what of the people who disagree? Clearly you are against "forcing your opinions on others" so what would happen to dissenters in your utopian world?
Dissent in which way? If they simply disagree, but go about their life in a way that doesn't infringe on others' rights (i.e. how 99% of people go about their lives anyways), then there is no problem with their verbal/philosophical disagreement.
If they dissent by acting and infringing on others' rights, then they should be ready to be held accountable for that. If they don't want to voluntarily participate in the accountability process, then they may have trouble functioning and persisting within the voluntary society because producers will refuse to contract with them. So, general civility will be rewarded and the opposite will not.
But again, try not to get caught up in the specifics of how it would work, and instead focus on the philosophy and why it makes rational sense. The practical goal should be to move the Overton Window and actually shrink govt today. If the Overton Window isn't moved, govt will not shrink until it implodes. I repeat, it will not shrink.
And i have inquired many times as to what happens to criminals, assuming they still exist is a world with no laws, and who decides what if any punishment is handed out for oh, murder?
And you've had your question answered many times. It's impossible to know how it would work out, because a voluntary society is not centrally planned.
What you wrote is so sweet.
Okay.
So sweet that no one over 14 or with a triple digit IQ or with any real world life experience could believe it.
Okay.
But it makes you feel good to espouse it, so please continue.
It does, and I will.
Reality is not meant for everyone.
I operate 100% in reality. You don't even know the basics of communism, so you shouldn't be lobbing any insults about inhabiting reality.
Ask someone who supported the socialists in venezuela.
Case in point.
Edited by ummmm at 18:01:50 on 03/29/21
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
Here you go hokie: - ummmm MU - 3/29 18:00:33
-