Jump to content

2+2=4 and some misunderstandings


KINGnoob

Recommended Posts

I want everyone to understand something. Everyone here seems to have this idea that I am trying to convert people to An Cap. That is simply not the case. There is true false, fact and opinion.

 

Basically if I was to say 2+2=4 and you say stop trying to convince us that 2+2=4 then you are incapable of comprehending truths. Im not trying to convince you that 2+2=4, thats just the ****ing case. It would be silly for me to try and convince people of that.

 

So lets talk more truths, shall we?

 

If the use of force is immoral in day to day transactions, say stealing from your neighbor or raping an innocent peaceful person on the street, then it is always immoral. It doesn’t ever become moral. Its either moral or it isn’t. So when you defend governments immoral monopoly on force you are indeed defending it in all circumstances.

 

Because if its a truth it can not be modified on a case by case basis. Its either true or false. And if its false, stand the **** up and say it. Stand up and say rape is ok, theft is ok, murder is ok, infringement on property is ok. Stop being a **** and stand by your principles.

 

So when you guys say, oh anarchy is not practical, its not possible, its not X, its not Y. Thats all irrelevant to truth. Thats why when you say, how does X get solved in An Cap, I give ideas. Not absolutes. There could be dozens of solutions. I just throw out a few. But the first thing to understand is truths. And that truth is that government is immoral. 2+2=4 and rape is always immoral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 440
  • Created
  • Last Reply
this-is-gonna-be-good-gif.14807

 

No it's not.

 

This guys a terrible troll and a babbling moron, only other morons will seriously respond to him.

 

Ok lets discuss the moron thing. Is there an argument I put forth that you would like to counter? Am I troll because you cant comprehend the discussion? Attacks are silly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this-is-gonna-be-good-gif.14807

 

No it's not.

 

This guys a terrible troll and a babbling moron, only other morons will seriously respond to him.

 

Ok lets discuss the moron thing. Is there an argument I put forth that you would like to counter? Am I troll because you cant comprehend the discussion? Attacks are silly.

 

The point of a debate is not the merits of such petty arguments based on opinions claiming to be facts. You can walk to the store on foot, or you can drive in a vehicle, but the same outcome will occur either way: you will arrive at the store. The journey does not have an impact on the final destination as long as time is not a factor, and energy expended is not a concern.

 

 

See I can say a bunch of words that have no meaning as well. And I sound smarter doing it then your peebrain lame ****.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this-is-gonna-be-good-gif.14807

 

No it's not.

 

This guys a terrible troll and a babbling moron, only other morons will seriously respond to him.

 

Ok lets discuss the moron thing. Is there an argument I put forth that you would like to counter? Am I troll because you cant comprehend the discussion? Attacks are silly.

 

The point of a debate is not the merits of such petty arguments based on opinions claiming to be facts. You can walk to the store on foot, or you can drive in a vehicle, but the same outcome will occur either way: you will arrive at the store. The journey does not have an impact on the final destination as long as time is not a factor, and energy expended is not a concern.

 

 

See I can say a bunch of words that have no meaning as well. And I sound smarter doing it then your peebrain lame ****.

 

So that wasn't a counter argument. Nice try though. lol

 

Honestly though, how old are you? I only ask because if you are younger than say 20, then sure. You got time to be immature. Anything older, and well, you are just proof that democracy is a joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're correct! AnCap offers no absolutes, but you present it as if it does. It's not a pragmatic approach to modern day politics. No one system trumps any other. Pundits of any political affiliation can do the same as Rothbard or Chomsky. That seems to be where your argument loses momentum. That and the fact that your approach in these discussion comes off as patronizing, rude, and tunnel visioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're correct! AnCap offers no absolutes, but you present it as if it does. It's not a pragmatic approach to modern day politics. No one system trumps any other. Pundits of any political affiliation can do the same as Rothbard or Chomsky. That seems to be where your argument loses momentum. That and the fact that your approach in these discussion comes off as patronizing, rude, and tunnel visioned.

 

dis+gonna+be+good.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So when you defend governments immoral monopoly on force you are indeed defending it in all circumstances.

please expand what you mean by this.

 

What "force" are you talking about.

 

Which government as well?

 

I don't think many people here are defending their government's actions of late.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're correct! AnCap offers no absolutes, but you present it as if it does. It's not a pragmatic approach to modern day politics.

 

You pretty much ignored my entire post except for the last piece. For one, I'm not concerned with you perception of my presentation. Two, pragmatic is way to vague a concept for this discussion. So again, to you and everyone else. Offer counters to the post. Which btw has little to do with solutions to problems... yet. Right now we are simply talking about the morality of government and the use of force. It does us no good to start talking about the flavors of ice cream without first agreeing on ice cream.

 

No one system trumps any other. Pundits of any political affiliation can do the same as Rothbard or Chomsky. That seems to be where your argument loses momentum. That and the fact that your approach in these discussion comes off as patronizing, rude, and tunnel visioned.

 

Course they do. If one system encourages murder and another encourages peace, I think we can agree which one trumps which.

 

Thats not where it loses momentum. Thats not even a real ****ing argument.

 

And again your last point means nothing.

 

Sweet so nothing new from Kevbo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So when you defend governments immoral monopoly on force you are indeed defending it in all circumstances.

please expand what you mean by this.

 

What "force" are you talking about.

 

Will do.

 

Government has a monopoly on force. Basically, they can steal from you where as I can not steal from you. They can tell you what you can or cant consume, where I can not tell you what to consume. etc etc. Thats a monopoly on the use of force.

 

Now if you defend say, taxation, then you defend theft period. You cant say its moral for government to steal your money, but that its immoral for me to steal your money. Its one or the other.

 

That clear it up?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So when you defend governments immoral monopoly on force you are indeed defending it in all circumstances.

please expand what you mean by this.

 

What "force" are you talking about.

 

Which government as well?

 

I don't think many people here are defending their government's actions of late.

 

The argument is against government itself. The only way it survives is with the use of force. So all governments are considered, regardless of how people feel toward theirs at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're correct! AnCap offers no absolutes, but you present it as if it does. It's not a pragmatic approach to modern day politics.

 

You pretty much ignored my entire post except for the last piece. For one, I'm not concerned with you perception of my presentation. Two, pragmatic is way to vague a concept for this discussion. So again, to you and everyone else. Offer counters to the post. Which btw has little to do with solutions to problems... yet. Right now we are simply talking about the morality of government and the use of force. It does us no good to start talking about the flavors of ice cream without first agreeing on ice cream in the first place.

 

No one system trumps any other. Pundits of any political affiliation can do the same as Rothbard or Chomsky. That seems to be where your argument loses momentum. That and the fact that your approach in these discussion comes off as patronizing, rude, and tunnel visioned.

 

Course they do. If one system encourages murder and another encourages peace, I think we can agree which one trumps which.

 

Thats not where it loses momentum. Thats not even a real ****ing argument.

 

And again your last point means nothing.

 

Sweet so nothing new from Kevbo.

 

You have clearly ignored every single post that counters the philosophy because they've been offered up... Now, answer the question you've constantly dodged in every one of these discussions. Will you please tell all of us one instance where anarchy or any form within has actually been successfully implemented?

 

Also, once again... It is not the government's job to legislate morality! It's their job to conduct their business in an ethical manner. Your version of ethical probably differs from theirs. Seeing as you're incredibly self centered, it doesn't surprise me one bit that you confuse ethics and morality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're correct! AnCap offers no absolutes, but you present it as if it does. It's not a pragmatic approach to modern day politics.

 

You pretty much ignored my entire post except for the last piece. For one, I'm not concerned with you perception of my presentation. Two, pragmatic is way to vague a concept for this discussion. So again, to you and everyone else. Offer counters to the post. Which btw has little to do with solutions to problems... yet. Right now we are simply talking about the morality of government and the use of force. It does us no good to start talking about the flavors of ice cream without first agreeing on ice cream in the first place.

 

No one system trumps any other. Pundits of any political affiliation can do the same as Rothbard or Chomsky. That seems to be where your argument loses momentum. That and the fact that your approach in these discussion comes off as patronizing, rude, and tunnel visioned.

 

Course they do. If one system encourages murder and another encourages peace, I think we can agree which one trumps which.

 

Thats not where it loses momentum. Thats not even a real ****ing argument.

 

And again your last point means nothing.

 

Sweet so nothing new from Kevbo.

 

You have clearly ignored every single post that counters the philosophy because they've been offered up... Now, answer the question you've constantly dodged in every one of these discussions. Will you please tell all of us one instance where anarchy or any form within has actually been successfully implemented?

 

lol. I haven't ignored any post that counters my philosophy. No ones countered it. Please for ****s sake counter it yourself.

 

I'll answer your question because I actually have intellectual integrity and dont just pick at the tiny parts that I can comprehend but rather your full opinion.

 

So.... basically... your question is irrelevant. Theres lots of reasons anarchy hasn't be implemented. People for one. And with that, power, printing money, religion, violence, bribery, etc. All kinds of reasons why. Thats like asking a question, "Why do people want power?" Or "How do people get power?" Or, "Why do people want to print money?".

 

Which is why arguing this part is almost useless. Until people can understand morality, and how the government itself is immoral, then there is no safe guard against central government. For if they think taxation is moral, then why the **** not right? Everyone likes free ****.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Also, once again... It is not the government's job to legislate morality! It's their job to conduct their business in an ethical manner. Your version of ethical probably differs from theirs. Seeing as you're incredibly self centered, it doesn't surprise me one bit that you confuse ethics and morality.

 

There is no government legislating anything. You are the one thats vehemently confused on the matter. Replace ethics with morality anywhere I have stated it. I dont give a ****. My argument still holds. I can not believe you still grasp onto this nothing concept.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, it looks like our ideal way of life is nearly the same, the only difference I'd choose to do away with money as well. I don't believe this is at all possible now, and only slightly in the future. It's Utopian either way, are you willing to admit to this dirty word? :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, it looks like our ideal way of life is nearly the same, the only difference I'd choose to do away with money as well. I don't believe this is at all possible now, and only slightly in the future. It's Utopian either way, are you willing to admit to this dirty word? :P

 

The day we stop beating and verbally abusing our children is the day we will start getting closer to AnCap. For its going to be very hard to get people to understand the language of violence when they were never taught it as kids.

 

Because thats all government is after all. Violence.

 

So no, I wouldn't agree its utopian. I think utopian gets thrown around too much. But it is very very far away.

 

And again, I like the idea of no money, I just think money is really convenient. And its not necessarily important to be rid of. Especially when in a free market you would have many currencies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anarchy is certainly possible and happened before & i'm sure it's practical in some ways and many other ways not so much. I believe there are plenty of shades of gray and it's not just a simple black or white absolute math problem with few variables.

 

No matter what system is in place it's going to have some major flaws. Any method or form is going to have some kind of structure and while it will be functional in some areas it will have inherent weakness in others meaning it lacks some flexibility and balance in some way in those weak areas it's too rigid to adapt to change.

 

There are going to be trade offs and contradictions no matter what. The real question is how many are there compared to the pro's and can you accept the trade offs and contradictions being worth it more than other systems without knowing if it will even work as intended. What is the most acceptable model that has a structure that is the most flexible, balanced and can adapt to change. In my humble opinion Ancap is too extreme and relies on the ideal of good will ( which i believe is naive as i think humans are mostly lazy and or selfish ) to function and has a lot of holes in that the creme will definitely rise to the top and reap the benefits creating an unfair balance. Kinda like our current system with the wealthy, powerful & ruthless dominating but much more wild west and a lot more scary.

 

The way i look at it is An Cap sounds nice in theory but would probably be a disaster but i suppose it could work out....perhaps, maybe, kinda sorta. =))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, it looks like our ideal way of life is nearly the same, the only difference I'd choose to do away with money as well. I don't believe this is at all possible now, and only slightly in the future. It's Utopian either way, are you willing to admit to this dirty word? :P

 

The day we stop beating and verbally abusing our children is the day we will start getting closer to AnCap. For its going to be very hard to get people to understand the language of violence when they were never taught it as kids.

 

Because thats all government is after all. Violence.

 

So no, I wouldn't agree its utopian. I think utopian gets thrown around too much. But it is very very far away.

 

And again, I like the idea of no money, I just think money is really convenient. And its not necessarily important to be rid of. Especially when in a free market you would have many currencies.

 

It shouldn't be about convenience, it should be about necessity. Would money be necessary with infinite resources?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my humble opinion Ancap is too extreme and relies on the ideal of good will ( which i believe is naive as i think humans are mostly lazy and or selfish ) to function and has a lot of holes in that the creme will definitely rise to the top and reap the benefits creating an unfair balance. Kinda like our current system with the wealthy, powerful & ruthless dominating but much more wild west and a lot more scary.

 

Lets talk morals **cough** **** I MEAN ETHICS, sorry kevbo. Ill get that straightened out eventually. 8-}

 

Anyways, back to the meat of the topic Stomp.

 

Do you believe that government is immoral?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, it looks like our ideal way of life is nearly the same, the only difference I'd choose to do away with money as well. I don't believe this is at all possible now, and only slightly in the future. It's Utopian either way, are you willing to admit to this dirty word? :P

 

The day we stop beating and verbally abusing our children is the day we will start getting closer to AnCap. For its going to be very hard to get people to understand the language of violence when they were never taught it as kids.

 

Because thats all government is after all. Violence.

 

So no, I wouldn't agree its utopian. I think utopian gets thrown around too much. But it is very very far away.

 

And again, I like the idea of no money, I just think money is really convenient. And its not necessarily important to be rid of. Especially when in a free market you would have many currencies.

 

It shouldn't be about convenience, it should be about necessity. Would money be necessary with infinite resources?

 

I guess not? But I still dont see an efficient way of trading **** without it. I mean it could work. It just seems annoying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, it looks like our ideal way of life is nearly the same, the only difference I'd choose to do away with money as well. I don't believe this is at all possible now, and only slightly in the future. It's Utopian either way, are you willing to admit to this dirty word? :P

 

The day we stop beating and verbally abusing our children is the day we will start getting closer to AnCap. For its going to be very hard to get people to understand the language of violence when they were never taught it as kids.

 

Because thats all government is after all. Violence.

 

So no, I wouldn't agree its utopian. I think utopian gets thrown around too much. But it is very very far away.

 

And again, I like the idea of no money, I just think money is really convenient. And its not necessarily important to be rid of. Especially when in a free market you would have many currencies.

 

It shouldn't be about convenience, it should be about necessity. Would money be necessary with infinite resources?

 

I guess not? But I still dont see an efficient way of trading **** without it. I mean it could work. It just seems annoying.

 

Why would trade even be necessary with infinite resources?

 

At the heart of the meat of the topic, IMO, ownership, especially of land is immoral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, it looks like our ideal way of life is nearly the same, the only difference I'd choose to do away with money as well. I don't believe this is at all possible now, and only slightly in the future. It's Utopian either way, are you willing to admit to this dirty word? :P

 

The day we stop beating and verbally abusing our children is the day we will start getting closer to AnCap. For its going to be very hard to get people to understand the language of violence when they were never taught it as kids.

 

Because thats all government is after all. Violence.

 

So no, I wouldn't agree its utopian. I think utopian gets thrown around too much. But it is very very far away.

 

And again, I like the idea of no money, I just think money is really convenient. And its not necessarily important to be rid of. Especially when in a free market you would have many currencies.

 

It shouldn't be about convenience, it should be about necessity. Would money be necessary with infinite resources?

 

I guess not? But I still dont see an efficient way of trading **** without it. I mean it could work. It just seems annoying.

 

Why would trade even be necessary with infinite resources?

 

At the heart of the meat of the topic, IMO, ownership, especially of land is immoral.

 

I guess it wouldn't be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, it looks like our ideal way of life is nearly the same, the only difference I'd choose to do away with money as well. I don't believe this is at all possible now, and only slightly in the future. It's Utopian either way, are you willing to admit to this dirty word? :P

 

The day we stop beating and verbally abusing our children is the day we will start getting closer to AnCap. For its going to be very hard to get people to understand the language of violence when they were never taught it as kids.

 

Because thats all government is after all. Violence.

 

So no, I wouldn't agree its utopian. I think utopian gets thrown around too much. But it is very very far away.

 

And again, I like the idea of no money, I just think money is really convenient. And its not necessarily important to be rid of. Especially when in a free market you would have many currencies.

 

It shouldn't be about convenience, it should be about necessity. Would money be necessary with infinite resources?

 

I guess not? But I still dont see an efficient way of trading **** without it. I mean it could work. It just seems annoying.

 

Why would trade even be necessary with infinite resources?

 

At the heart of the meat of the topic, IMO, ownership, especially of land is immoral.

 

I guess it wouldn't be.

 

It's my belief that we are very close to having infinite resources, perhaps within the next 50 years, maybe even sooner.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, it looks like our ideal way of life is nearly the same, the only difference I'd choose to do away with money as well. I don't believe this is at all possible now, and only slightly in the future. It's Utopian either way, are you willing to admit to this dirty word? :P

 

The day we stop beating and verbally abusing our children is the day we will start getting closer to AnCap. For its going to be very hard to get people to understand the language of violence when they were never taught it as kids.

 

Because thats all government is after all. Violence.

 

So no, I wouldn't agree its utopian. I think utopian gets thrown around too much. But it is very very far away.

 

And again, I like the idea of no money, I just think money is really convenient. And its not necessarily important to be rid of. Especially when in a free market you would have many currencies.

 

It shouldn't be about convenience, it should be about necessity. Would money be necessary with infinite resources?

 

I guess not? But I still dont see an efficient way of trading **** without it. I mean it could work. It just seems annoying.

 

Why would trade even be necessary with infinite resources?

 

At the heart of the meat of the topic, IMO, ownership, especially of land is immoral.

 

I guess it wouldn't be.

 

It's my belief that we are very close to having infinite resources, perhaps within the next 50 years, maybe even sooner.

 

I would be down. Then basically we could all become doctors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my humble opinion Ancap is too extreme and relies on the ideal of good will ( which i believe is naive as i think humans are mostly lazy and or selfish ) to function and has a lot of holes in that the creme will definitely rise to the top and reap the benefits creating an unfair balance. Kinda like our current system with the wealthy, powerful & ruthless dominating but much more wild west and a lot more scary.

 

Lets talk morals **cough** **** I MEAN ETHICS, sorry kevbo. Ill get that straightened out eventually. 8-}

 

Anyways, back to the meat of the topic Stomp.

 

Do you believe that government is immoral?

 

Humans are immoral and any system they come up with will have some form of immorality. It's unavoidable. There will be trade offs and contradictions no matter what.

 

Do you believe Anarchy allows for total freedom?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, it looks like our ideal way of life is nearly the same, the only difference I'd choose to do away with money as well. I don't believe this is at all possible now, and only slightly in the future. It's Utopian either way, are you willing to admit to this dirty word? :P

 

The day we stop beating and verbally abusing our children is the day we will start getting closer to AnCap. For its going to be very hard to get people to understand the language of violence when they were never taught it as kids.

 

Because thats all government is after all. Violence.

 

So no, I wouldn't agree its utopian. I think utopian gets thrown around too much. But it is very very far away.

 

And again, I like the idea of no money, I just think money is really convenient. And its not necessarily important to be rid of. Especially when in a free market you would have many currencies.

 

It shouldn't be about convenience, it should be about necessity. Would money be necessary with infinite resources?

 

I guess not? But I still dont see an efficient way of trading **** without it. I mean it could work. It just seems annoying.

 

Why would trade even be necessary with infinite resources?

 

At the heart of the meat of the topic, IMO, ownership, especially of land is immoral.

 

I guess it wouldn't be.

 

It's my belief that we are very close to having infinite resources, perhaps within the next 50 years, maybe even sooner.

 

I would be down. Then basically we could all become doctors.

 

We could all be whatever we want, that's the beauty of it. Mining in space is going to be the game changer.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, it looks like our ideal way of life is nearly the same, the only difference I'd choose to do away with money as well. I don't believe this is at all possible now, and only slightly in the future. It's Utopian either way, are you willing to admit to this dirty word? :P

 

The day we stop beating and verbally abusing our children is the day we will start getting closer to AnCap. For its going to be very hard to get people to understand the language of violence when they were never taught it as kids.

 

Because thats all government is after all. Violence.

 

So no, I wouldn't agree its utopian. I think utopian gets thrown around too much. But it is very very far away.

 

And again, I like the idea of no money, I just think money is really convenient. And its not necessarily important to be rid of. Especially when in a free market you would have many currencies.

 

It shouldn't be about convenience, it should be about necessity. Would money be necessary with infinite resources?

 

I guess not? But I still dont see an efficient way of trading **** without it. I mean it could work. It just seems annoying.

 

Why would trade even be necessary with infinite resources?

 

At the heart of the meat of the topic, IMO, ownership, especially of land is immoral.

 

I guess it wouldn't be.

 

It's my belief that we are very close to having infinite resources, perhaps within the next 50 years, maybe even sooner.

 

Care to elaborate on this a bit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Humans are immoral and any system they come up with will have some form of immorality. It's unavoidable. There will be trade offs and contradictions no matter what.

 

You didnt really answer my question. All you did was make more questions for yourself. Now...

 

If I never use force against another being, am I immoral?

 

Is government as an institution immoral?

 

Do you believe Anarchy allows for total freedom?

 

Freedom isn't the goal. Morality is the goal. There would be more freedom than now for sure. But not totally freedom, no. Theres no rulers in Anarchy, but that doesnt mean no rules.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, it looks like our ideal way of life is nearly the same, the only difference I'd choose to do away with money as well. I don't believe this is at all possible now, and only slightly in the future. It's Utopian either way, are you willing to admit to this dirty word? :P

 

The day we stop beating and verbally abusing our children is the day we will start getting closer to AnCap. For its going to be very hard to get people to understand the language of violence when they were never taught it as kids.

 

Because thats all government is after all. Violence.

 

So no, I wouldn't agree its utopian. I think utopian gets thrown around too much. But it is very very far away.

 

And again, I like the idea of no money, I just think money is really convenient. And its not necessarily important to be rid of. Especially when in a free market you would have many currencies.

 

It shouldn't be about convenience, it should be about necessity. Would money be necessary with infinite resources?

 

I guess not? But I still dont see an efficient way of trading **** without it. I mean it could work. It just seems annoying.

 

Why would trade even be necessary with infinite resources?

 

At the heart of the meat of the topic, IMO, ownership, especially of land is immoral.

 

I guess it wouldn't be.

 

It's my belief that we are very close to having infinite resources, perhaps within the next 50 years, maybe even sooner.

 

Care to elaborate on this a bit?

 

The post above yours already elaborated.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, it looks like our ideal way of life is nearly the same, the only difference I'd choose to do away with money as well. I don't believe this is at all possible now, and only slightly in the future. It's Utopian either way, are you willing to admit to this dirty word? :P

 

The day we stop beating and verbally abusing our children is the day we will start getting closer to AnCap. For its going to be very hard to get people to understand the language of violence when they were never taught it as kids.

 

Because thats all government is after all. Violence.

 

So no, I wouldn't agree its utopian. I think utopian gets thrown around too much. But it is very very far away.

 

And again, I like the idea of no money, I just think money is really convenient. And its not necessarily important to be rid of. Especially when in a free market you would have many currencies.

 

It shouldn't be about convenience, it should be about necessity. Would money be necessary with infinite resources?

 

I guess not? But I still dont see an efficient way of trading **** without it. I mean it could work. It just seems annoying.

 

Why would trade even be necessary with infinite resources?

 

At the heart of the meat of the topic, IMO, ownership, especially of land is immoral.

 

I guess it wouldn't be.

 

It's my belief that we are very close to having infinite resources, perhaps within the next 50 years, maybe even sooner.

 

Care to elaborate on this a bit?

 

The post above yours already elaborated.

 

 

Saw that afterward. Where will this mining take place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, it looks like our ideal way of life is nearly the same, the only difference I'd choose to do away with money as well. I don't believe this is at all possible now, and only slightly in the future. It's Utopian either way, are you willing to admit to this dirty word? :P

 

The day we stop beating and verbally abusing our children is the day we will start getting closer to AnCap. For its going to be very hard to get people to understand the language of violence when they were never taught it as kids.

 

Because thats all government is after all. Violence.

 

So no, I wouldn't agree its utopian. I think utopian gets thrown around too much. But it is very very far away.

 

And again, I like the idea of no money, I just think money is really convenient. And its not necessarily important to be rid of. Especially when in a free market you would have many currencies.

 

It shouldn't be about convenience, it should be about necessity. Would money be necessary with infinite resources?

 

I guess not? But I still dont see an efficient way of trading **** without it. I mean it could work. It just seems annoying.

 

Why would trade even be necessary with infinite resources?

 

At the heart of the meat of the topic, IMO, ownership, especially of land is immoral.

 

I guess it wouldn't be.

 

It's my belief that we are very close to having infinite resources, perhaps within the next 50 years, maybe even sooner.

 

Care to elaborate on this a bit?

 

The post above yours already elaborated.

 

 

Saw that afterward. Where will this mining take place?

 

I guess mining in space would take place in space. :P

 

The moon and asteroids are a start and already in the planning.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, it looks like our ideal way of life is nearly the same, the only difference I'd choose to do away with money as well. I don't believe this is at all possible now, and only slightly in the future. It's Utopian either way, are you willing to admit to this dirty word? :P

 

The day we stop beating and verbally abusing our children is the day we will start getting closer to AnCap. For its going to be very hard to get people to understand the language of violence when they were never taught it as kids.

 

Because thats all government is after all. Violence.

 

So no, I wouldn't agree its utopian. I think utopian gets thrown around too much. But it is very very far away.

 

And again, I like the idea of no money, I just think money is really convenient. And its not necessarily important to be rid of. Especially when in a free market you would have many currencies.

 

It shouldn't be about convenience, it should be about necessity. Would money be necessary with infinite resources?

 

I guess not? But I still dont see an efficient way of trading **** without it. I mean it could work. It just seems annoying.

 

Why would trade even be necessary with infinite resources?

 

At the heart of the meat of the topic, IMO, ownership, especially of land is immoral.

 

I guess it wouldn't be.

 

It's my belief that we are very close to having infinite resources, perhaps within the next 50 years, maybe even sooner.

 

Care to elaborate on this a bit?

 

The post above yours already elaborated.

 

 

Saw that afterward. Where will this mining take place?

 

I guess mining in space would take place in space. :P

 

The moon and asteroids are a start and already in the planning.

 

Interesting. I'll have to look into this further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So when you defend governments immoral monopoly on force you are indeed defending it in all circumstances.

please expand what you mean by this.

 

What "force" are you talking about.

 

Will do.

 

Government has a monopoly on force. Basically, they can steal from you where as I can not steal from you. They can tell you what you can or cant consume, where I can not tell you what to consume. etc etc. Thats a monopoly on the use of force.

 

Now if you defend say, taxation, then you defend theft period. You cant say its moral for government to steal your money, but that its immoral for me to steal your money. Its one or the other.

 

That clear it up?

 

 

i figured thats what you were talking about but i didn't want to assume.

 

 

with that said, none of that is immoral. By being a citizen you're essentially agreeing to these terms. Nobody is forcing you to continue to be a citizen under that said government. Nobody is forcing you to stay where you are.

 

just because you don't agree with a system doesn't make it immoral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2+2=4, thats just the ****ing case.

 

2+2 can reasonably be interpreted to be 22, 2+2 can also be used to describe a car body style etc..

 

 

Because if its a truth it can not be modified on a case by case basis.

 

Stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving children in a time of war when food is scarce? My great grandfather did that and I'm glad that he did.

 

The problem with people like you is that you've never been tested in your beliefs. You enjoy the luxury of being wrong and getting away with it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, it looks like our ideal way of life is nearly the same, the only difference I'd choose to do away with money as well. I don't believe this is at all possible now, and only slightly in the future. It's Utopian either way, are you willing to admit to this dirty word? :P

 

The day we stop beating and verbally abusing our children is the day we will start getting closer to AnCap. For its going to be very hard to get people to understand the language of violence when they were never taught it as kids.

 

Because thats all government is after all. Violence.

 

So no, I wouldn't agree its utopian. I think utopian gets thrown around too much. But it is very very far away.

 

And again, I like the idea of no money, I just think money is really convenient. And its not necessarily important to be rid of. Especially when in a free market you would have many currencies.

 

It shouldn't be about convenience, it should be about necessity. Would money be necessary with infinite resources?

 

I guess not? But I still dont see an efficient way of trading **** without it. I mean it could work. It just seems annoying.

 

Why would trade even be necessary with infinite resources?

 

At the heart of the meat of the topic, IMO, ownership, especially of land is immoral.

 

I guess it wouldn't be.

 

It's my belief that we are very close to having infinite resources, perhaps within the next 50 years, maybe even sooner.

 

Care to elaborate on this a bit?

 

The post above yours already elaborated.

 

 

Saw that afterward. Where will this mining take place?

 

I guess mining in space would take place in space. :P

 

The moon and asteroids are a start and already in the planning.

 

Once humans are capable of such a thing, you can bet your **** that it will be illegal for an Average Joe to take off into space and go mining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, it looks like our ideal way of life is nearly the same, the only difference I'd choose to do away with money as well. I don't believe this is at all possible now, and only slightly in the future. It's Utopian either way, are you willing to admit to this dirty word? :P

 

The day we stop beating and verbally abusing our children is the day we will start getting closer to AnCap. For its going to be very hard to get people to understand the language of violence when they were never taught it as kids.

 

Because thats all government is after all. Violence.

 

So no, I wouldn't agree its utopian. I think utopian gets thrown around too much. But it is very very far away.

 

And again, I like the idea of no money, I just think money is really convenient. And its not necessarily important to be rid of. Especially when in a free market you would have many currencies.

 

It shouldn't be about convenience, it should be about necessity. Would money be necessary with infinite resources?

 

I guess not? But I still dont see an efficient way of trading **** without it. I mean it could work. It just seems annoying.

 

Why would trade even be necessary with infinite resources?

 

At the heart of the meat of the topic, IMO, ownership, especially of land is immoral.

 

I guess it wouldn't be.

 

It's my belief that we are very close to having infinite resources, perhaps within the next 50 years, maybe even sooner.

 

Care to elaborate on this a bit?

 

The post above yours already elaborated.

 

 

Saw that afterward. Where will this mining take place?

 

I guess mining in space would take place in space. :P

 

The moon and asteroids are a start and already in the planning.

 

Once humans are capable of such a thing, you can bet your **** that it will be illegal for an Average Joe to take off into space and go mining.

 

Sad, but most likely true.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So when you defend governments immoral monopoly on force you are indeed defending it in all circumstances.

please expand what you mean by this.

 

What "force" are you talking about.

 

Will do.

 

Government has a monopoly on force. Basically, they can steal from you where as I can not steal from you. They can tell you what you can or cant consume, where I can not tell you what to consume. etc etc. Thats a monopoly on the use of force.

 

Now if you defend say, taxation, then you defend theft period. You cant say its moral for government to steal your money, but that its immoral for me to steal your money. Its one or the other.

 

That clear it up?

 

 

i figured thats what you were talking about but i didn't want to assume.

 

 

with that said, none of that is immoral. By being a citizen you're essentially agreeing to these terms. Nobody is forcing you to continue to be a citizen under that said government. Nobody is forcing you to stay where you are.

 

just because you don't agree with a system doesn't make it immoral.

 

also, this is a pretty asinine statement :

 

"Now if you defend say, taxation, then you defend theft period. You cant say its moral for government to steal your money, but that its immoral for me to steal your money. Its one or the other. "

 

 

you're using your opinion on taxes and presenting it as fact. you should take your own advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So when you defend governments immoral monopoly on force you are indeed defending it in all circumstances.

please expand what you mean by this.

 

What "force" are you talking about.

 

Will do.

 

Government has a monopoly on force. Basically, they can steal from you where as I can not steal from you. They can tell you what you can or cant consume, where I can not tell you what to consume. etc etc. Thats a monopoly on the use of force.

 

Now if you defend say, taxation, then you defend theft period. You cant say its moral for government to steal your money, but that its immoral for me to steal your money. Its one or the other.

 

That clear it up?

 

 

i figured thats what you were talking about but i didn't want to assume.

 

 

with that said, none of that is immoral. By being a citizen you're essentially agreeing to these terms. Nobody is forcing you to continue to be a citizen under that said government. Nobody is forcing you to stay where you are.

 

just because you don't agree with a system doesn't make it immoral.

 

He can't simply leave the system to one that's closer to his philosophy because frankly, it doesn't exist. We may as well have a conversation about the possible benefits of having a unicorn population because it would hold the same amount of weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're correct! AnCap offers no absolutes, but you present it as if it does. It's not a pragmatic approach to modern day politics.

 

You pretty much ignored my entire post except for the last piece. For one, I'm not concerned with you perception of my presentation. Two, pragmatic is way to vague a concept for this discussion. So again, to you and everyone else. Offer counters to the post. Which btw has little to do with solutions to problems... yet. Right now we are simply talking about the morality of government and the use of force. It does us no good to start talking about the flavors of ice cream without first agreeing on ice cream.

 

No one system trumps any other. Pundits of any political affiliation can do the same as Rothbard or Chomsky. That seems to be where your argument loses momentum. That and the fact that your approach in these discussion comes off as patronizing, rude, and tunnel visioned.

 

Course they do. If one system encourages murder and another encourages peace, I think we can agree which one trumps which.

 

Thats not where it loses momentum. Thats not even a real ****ing argument.

 

And again your last point means nothing.

 

Sweet so nothing new from Kevbo.

 

First of all, pragmatic isn't a vague term.

 

prag·mat·ic

pragˈmatik/

adjective

dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.

"a pragmatic approach to politics"

 

Just because you don't understand the word, doesn't mean it's vague... Next, the morality of the government is irrelevant. They don't deal in morals because everyone has different sets of morals and finding a common ground between the government and the citizenry is impossible. To make ethical compromises is not because they're an agreed upon solution with everyone's opinions in mind. Yet again, here you are blatantly misunderstanding the definition of high school level vocabulary. Thirdly, it does lose momentum because it's pundits pushing philosophy that you consume as gospel with no real world examples, as displayed in your refusal of my question. Next up, your examples are insane and unbalanced. You're citing extremes just to feel validated. That's not intellectual integrity. That's lazy. In conclusion, you're still preaching the same garbage and passing it as truth. Its not...

 

P.S. Intellectual Integrity = Recognition of the need to be true to one's own thinking(you actually do this); to hold one's self to the same rigorous standards of evidence and proof to which one holds one's antagonist(you do not do this which is why I wrote this post); to practice what one advocates for others(you may very well be doing this, however you still participate in said immoral system, even with your disagreement); to honestly admit discrepancies and inconsistencies in one's own thoughts and actions(which you have yet to do in this or any other similar discussions).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...