lichess.org
Donate

Bitcoin

>expend extra effort to contribute in steering it in a good direction

https://i.imgur.com/B7bZGlK.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/eiv5Q6s.jpg
>As a matter of fact, it is not the only existing one, and it is not mine.

There aren't different moralities, there is only one. It's not subjective. Since listing out the facts and implications was not enough, let me use an example to make it clear: rape. This is inherently an immoral act, if you disagree it doesn't mean that morality is subjective it means you are a fucktard who doesn't understand right from wrong. There is no context, social, cultural or anywhere on earth at any time or place where it is a moral act. It is ALWAYS immoral as defined by the objective criteria I have already belabored. Clearly you don't have the attention span to read, watch or digest, much less actually address and make an intelligent response to anything I have posted. That makes you willfully ignorant.

>Saying that whoever don't share your conception is a piece of shit is
>not a great argument, and I'm (mildly) surprised you don't see it as .
>you seem keen on spotting fallacies and being the rational type.

It's not my conception. I didn't just decide to make up arbitrarily that rape and murder are immoral. I OBSERVED it and learned that this is the immutable, obvious, empirically factual truth of the matter. If you "disagree" about these things being immoral then, yes, you are a piece of shit, by definition.

>Of course I didn't say I embrace violence in general nor state
> violence in general. I said I embrace my political community
>including what you call its violence, namely the constraints it
>exerts on individuals (mostly compulsory military service and
>taxation) which are integral to every political community.

You admit to consenting to and supporting state violence. You are ignorant about the immorality of order following and refuse to acknowledge the violence and immorality of taxation despite the fact that it is violent in nature, carrying the threat not only of property confiscation but of kidnapping, imprisonment and death if resisted. That makes you an immoral fucktard. I don't take pleasure in stating this, but I feel it must be said and I have determined to say it to everyone who I determine it needs to be said to.

So producing just one decent country is enough to refute you. Most European states are very decent.

There is no decent claim of authority any more than one slave master is more "decent" because he beats his slaves less or with a lighter whip. Any claim of authority by one adult human over another adult human, which violates the principle of mutual respect for human rights, is immoral and should not be supported, consented to, condoned, or funded in any way. End of story. And this includes every "government" on the face of the earth.

>In the end your main problem is that the human tradition doesn't agree with you. <snip blah blah more about you this, you that>

You have explained nothing to justify statism, just made a bunch of presumptuous and irrelevant remarks about my person.

>"This is no way of arguing, you need to do a synthesis and reply on key points,
>not write a 50-page rambling comment
>reacting to individual sentences."

>This.

Low attention span much? This is why everyone is so damn ignorant, they can't be bothered to spend some time reading never-mind actually thinking about what was written or said with any depth.
>I said I embrace my political community
>including what you call its violence, namely the constraints it
>exerts on individuals (mostly compulsory military service and
>taxation) which are integral to every political community.

This is utterly disgraceful and cowardly.

"Complusory service" is authoritarianism and in fact *the definition* of slavery. Regardless of whether you call it "political community", "democracy", or any other euphemism.

If any statist goons ever tried to forcefully put a gun in my hand and order me about, to go about and violate innocent families in other countries, murdering them, their children and destroying their homes and infrastructure, I'll let you guess who I would shoot at. And at that point whatever happened to me as a result would be a price willingly paid.

https://i.imgur.com/jjNeQT4.jpg

I guess all the Nazi war criminals should have gotten off on "just following orders" then. After all their government was commanding them.
People evading their responsibilites as you do, whether they are ashamed of themselves as they should be or claiming that it shows their higher morality, are a burden to societies. In good times they are tolerated and only mildly repressed. In harsher times they are kicked out and left to enjoy their individual sovereignty elsewhere.

Only a completely idiotical pacifist can fail to differentiate between an imperialistic army and a defensive one, like the one in which I served. A close parent of mine enrolled voluntarily in the Allies' forces to fight nazi Germany (since Switzerland remained uninvolved), and was killed in his early twenties. Good people don't evade their duties, but instead do more for the community than what is required from them. Countries where many people do that thrive, while countries where many people defect to only serve themselves as you do turn into shitholes. Most people understand this which is why your type is not generally much appreciated.

Most people also understand that an army is a crucial tool for protecting what we hold dear (including our liberties), and also that making it completely voluntary doesn't work as we can't leave the decent persons do all the work and take all the risk while the vile, lazy and delusional like you freeride, i.e. benefit without contributing.

Is it true that the political community is a bit of a challenge for pure reason, since it is not completely voluntary and yet exerts strong constraints. But it addresses the real condition of human beings rather than some rationalist fairyland. It is in particular adapted to the reality of descent and families, by which people are per force born into it without choosing it. The political community however doesn't constrain in an arbitrary manner, except when it has become dysfunctional. It constrains in the context of a common organization aiming at shared goals. Of course the goals are not always shared 100%, which may lead your tax money to also be used on some goals that you have not chosen to pursue. But the greater the constraint, the more shared the goal, or else the internal tension would become too great.

Serving in the military for example is the highest constraint, as you may end up giving your life, but it serves a crucial goal that is assumed to be shared by all, namely to preserve one's life and freedom, and the life and freedom of the ones we love, thereby avoiding as much as possible what is shown on your picture with the crying orphan. By the way why was the father not serving in the army and thereby contributing to defend against the invasion? Maybe he was a pacifist like you? Well, everything is fine then, "at least he was moral which is the only thing that matter", right?

Finally regarding attention span, I have found it depends on what I read. When years ago I read the complete works of Nietzsche for example I could read for weeks almost non-stop without losing track. Even when I read things more difficult to read like Aristotle's Politics, with the messy text and poor translation forcing me to check the Greek text for every other sentence, I found that my interest was enough that I could read the 500 pages without too much effort. After I have read two page-equivalents of your repetitive and simple-minded anarchist drivel however I do find that I have attention problems.
>People evading their responsibilites as you do,

Because I refuse to pay taxes and join the military? How can you fail to address the aggressive atrocities and corruption that government perpetrates (are you completely ignorant of them, do you need me post a very long and ugly list?) or acknowledge that it is valid to NOT participate or support them? So much easier to just write me off as a freeloader, who cares only about myself, but completely intellectually dishonest, as per your usual.

>whether they are ashamed of themselves as they should be or claiming
>that it shows their higher morality, are a burden to societies.

Criticizing someone for riding a high horse for pointing out heinous violence and injustice and calling out those who support it means exactly squat. Self aggrandizement or derision of others is not at all my intention, though on the other hand I don't really give two squirts whether anyone thinks that about me.

>In good times
> they are tolerated and only mildly repressed. In harsher times they are kicked
>out and left to enjoy their individual sovereignty elsewhere.

Better to die alone, brutally, than live with a bunch of fucktards who feel they have the right to force you into "compulsory service" of any kind. Just my opinion.

>Only a completely idiotical pacifist can fail to differentiate
>between an imperialistic army and a defensive one,

Agreed. I'm not a pacifist, and I challenge you to quote anything I have said that indicates that. I have specifically advocated for the defense principle numerous times. It sounds to me like you are so emotionally attached to the righteousness of your "defensive" army, that you fail to recognize or address the atrocities committed by it. Just because I recognize the immorality of conscription and order following doesn't mean I'm a pacifist. I live in the USA, and the military is the most brutally offensive and murderous that the world has ever seen, I would sooner die than support any of its agendas, and I would be happy to provide a very long post detailing evidence to support this statement.

>like the one in which I served. A close parent of mine enrolled voluntarily
>in the Allies' forces to fight nazi Germany (since Switzerland remained uninvolved),
>and was killed in his early twenties.

Meaningless and senseless death. I'm guessing you can't be bothered to read All Wars Are Bankers Wars or research any of the war history it contains. People who fight in these wars are idiots, (unless they are fighting in genuine defense on their own or in voluntary militia of some kind) regardless of which side they are fighting on, pawns in a scheme that means little more than making bankers rich and giving them control of resources, land, people, and nations. Additional suggested reading: War is a Racket, General Smedley Butler

archive.org/details/ButlerMajorGeneralSmedleyWarIsARacket1935/page/n13

>Good people don't evade their duties,

Good people don't imagine themselves to have the authority to assign others the duty of "compulsory service" or in other words, good people don't imagine that they have the right to enslave others.

>but instead do more for the community than what is required from them.

The measure of what someone contributes is not the measure of their obedience to you or any other would be dictator(s). Good people don't cause violence and are mindful not to feed violent agendas with their productive energy.

>Countries where many people do that thrive, while countries where many
>people defect to only serve themselves as you do turn into shitholes. Most
>people understand this which is why your type is not generally much appreciated.

From what I can see, shitholes are caused by imperialistic invasions and pillaging, performed exclusively (at any scale) by nation state governments and the corporations they serve. But I'm sure it's far more comfortable and superior to blame it on "those lazy deadbeats who only care about themselves".

>Most people also understand that an army is a crucial tool for protecting
>what we hold dear (including our liberties),

Most people are also dumber than a bag of rocks, brainwashed by propaganda in academia and media, conditioned to look the other way from the atrocities of government and military, or even glorify them.

>and also that making it completely
>voluntary doesn't work as we can't leave the decent persons do all the work and
>take all the risk while the vile, lazy and delusional like you freeride, i.e. benefit
>without contributing.

What freeride? I never asked to be protected by any army or military, and in fact wish not to be. You have no right to force your government protection or any other service on me when I don't want it just because I was born here, then claim I'm "lazy" when I don't want to pay you for it and have me thrown in jail if I don't pay up. Don't you see how retarded, violent, and immoral that is?

"There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want, merely because you think it would be good for him." - Robert A. Heinlein

>Is it true that the political community is a bit of a challenge for pure reason,
>since it is not completely voluntary and yet exerts strong constraints. But it
>addresses the real condition of human beings rather than some rationalist
>fairyland.

What an extremely vague lie you tell yourself to justify your own participation in violence, that completely ignores the objective analysis of the aggression inevitably and demonstrably funded by any money that is collected coercively. All that aggression and violation of human rights perpetrated by the government that you would just prefer to ignore or pretend is somehow justified so that cognitive dissonance doesn't melt your brain.

> It [the political community] constrains in the context of a common organization aiming at shared goals.

What if I don't share those goals, and just prefer to be left alone? Oh that's right, you feel you have the right to assume that I share your goals without asking me and to throw me in a cage if I don't support "our" shared goals.

>Of course the goals are not always shared 100%, which may lead
>your tax money to also be used on some goals that you have not chosen to pursue.

In other words, yes we're going to take your money and spend it on what we want, not what you want, sucker.

>But the greater the constraint, the more shared the goal,
>or else the internal tension would become too great.

The goals are NOT shared by everyone forced to participate. And no one (not even a body of voters) has a right to steal from others to fund their own agenda, or force others to pay for services.

https://i.imgur.com/1BQMKKf.jpg

"Through taxation, pacifists are forced at gunpoint to pay for killing machines; vegetarians are forced at gunpoint to subsidize grazing land for cattle; non-smokers are forced at gunpoint to support both the production of tobacco and the research to counter its impact on health." - Dr. Mary Ruwart, Healing Our World

archive.org/details/HealingOurWorldTheCompassionOfLibertarianismHowToEnrichThePoorProtectTheEnvironm/page/n7

>Serving in the military for example is the highest constraint,
>as you may end up giving your life, but it serves a crucial goal
>that is assumed to be shared by all, namely to preserve one's life
>and freedom, and the life and freedom of the ones we love,

It's a valid assumption that we all want to preserve life and freedom, but what's not valid is the assumption that a particular group somehow has the right to force their protection services on everyone, and to coercively collect their paychecks from those not wishing to engage or benefit from that group's protection.

>thereby avoiding as much as possible what is shown on your picture
>with the crying orphan.

It's when you join the military that you are ordered to commit these atrocities (which any moral person would absolutely refuse to do). Private individuals don't hold a candle when it comes to this kind of violence.

>By the way why was the father not serving in the army and thereby
>contributing to defend against the invasion?

Probably because he didn't want to be enlisted to follow immoral orders that serves corporate agenda under the guise of protecting his country. I will criticize him for not being personally prepared with his own arms, not voluntarily organizing for defense within his community, and not fighting back according to the dictates of his own conscience, if that was the case.

>Maybe he was a pacifist like you? Well, everything is fine then,
>"at least he was moral which is the only thing that matter", right?

The moral thing to do would have been to kill the piece of shit soldier threatening his family.

>After I have read two page-equivalents of your repetitive and simple-minded
>anarchist drivel however I do find that I have attention problems.

You'll have to pardon me if I take this as a cheap excuse for intellectual laziness and a convenient way to avoid addressing my points.
Hi. nameruse is the name.
My friends call me Lord of Entropy.
This may tell you that I have a rather quaint relationship to the concept of order, @orderly.
And you would be correct in assuming so.

I was wondering the following. It must be clear to you that individuals such as xochinla will never be prepared
to accept your particular portfolio of existential compromises as being optimal for humanity as a whole.

How will you deal with people that pose a direct threat to your crystal garden?
It can't elude a sharp mind such as your own that they will start burping through your Bach concerto.
We need practical solutions here. Rise out of the mire that's human collective pseudo-intelligence, as I'm sure you would agree.

So how do you plan to deal with ingrates such as xochinla?
Surely you've noticed he isn't exactly a retard himself.
What are we to do with him? Put him on a reservation?
A place where people like him can do whatever it might be that they do?
That's to say, all the earth's land has already been taken by nation states', so where will we put them?
Maybe we might be able to spare a bit of Antarctica?
Like a sort of ghetto so to speak? Just spewing ideas here.
They call this technique "brainstorming".
It's supposed to be very good.

People like xochinla suffer from the system you are defending.
Is this a "necessary evil" in your opinion?
Is he simply an inferior type of being and to be declared a pest?
Or will you choose to call him delusional and subscribe a pill that
will cure him of his wayward ways?
And if so, what authority would you care to invoke to justify any of these?

Please don't be afraid to be highly original in your response.
Preferrably with something that wasn't covered by Socrates and friends 2500 years ago.
Or Nietzsche for that matter. He was good wasn't he? A true verbal samurai.

But I'm sure I must have read an entirely different Nietzsche from yours.
I'm not surprised that he went mad, but I am surprised that he apparently managed to inspire you.
I can already imagine Zaratustra leading swiss parliament to untold heights.
Serving in the army, helping at the yearly village cheese fondue, blowing the old waldhorn and digging in them communal sewer pipes.
Uneigenzeitliche Betrachtungen indeed:D
>I was wondering the following. It must be clear to you that individuals
>such as xochinla will never be prepared to accept your particular portfolio
>of existential compromises

Existential compromises? More like moral compromises and the pathetic delusions and excuses serving as justification.

>So how do you plan to deal with ingrates such as xochinla?

Keeping in mind of course that when you come to "deal" with me, it will very likely hazard being shot at.
>whether they are ashamed of themselves as they should be or claiming
>that it shows their higher morality, are a burden to societies.

What burden? Explain exactly how I am a "burden to society" because I refuse to participate in or support government, and while you're at it, please address the unparalleled genocide and destruction of wars and other government activities, the burden on society that is, and the moral implications of funding said genocide and destruction, as I have noticed that you repeatedly fail to do so.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.