>Governments are not bad; they're just a construct.
Every claim of authority by one person over another, regardless of whether you call the construct 'slavery' or 'government', or anything else, it is immoral, i.e. bad. The etymology of the word government, broken down actually means to control the mind:
Government is just a mental construct, and rooted in the (false) belief in authority, as expounded upon so eloquently in Larken Rose's book The Most Dangerous Superstition:
www.mensenrechten.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/the-most-dangerous-superstition-larken-rose-20111.pdf"The essence of all slavery consists in taking the product of another's labor by force. It is immaterial whether this force be founded upon ownership of the slave or ownership of the money that he must get to live." - Leo Tolstoy
Government literally is slavery, it's just a euphemism to make it more psychologically palatable.
http://strike-the-root.com/government-is-not-civilization-it-is-slavery>Humans are the problem. We're fallible, but we think we aren't.
We don't want to admit it because we fear taking responsibility, some more than others.
>And we don't have an overpopulation problem, but a too-many-people-
>close-together-devoid-of-trees-and-flowers problem.
Spot on.
The overpopulation issue is just a scare tactic. Part of the agenda to create perceived artificial scarcity, and the other is to promote the global depopulation agenda. See agenda 21 and the Georgia Guidestones
www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDiEANGgVlYWhen you understand that brainwashing is necessary to control masses of people, as it is prohibitively expensive to do so with force, and that people have access to information and could wake up, you can imagine why they want to get the world down to a more manageable size (90%+ reduction). It's all about control, the obsession of the psychopathic cult that sits atop the pyramid.
This depopulation agenda is tied in to vaccinations, medical tyranny, gmo food, big pharma, transhumanism, abortion, promotion of homosexuality and all manner of sexual deviancy and gender confusion, cultural marxism and destruction of the family unit, sustainable development, etc.
www.corbettreport.com/episode-322-what-is-sustainable-development/www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ofmAGaMfkAwww.youtube.com/watch?v=043Vw6NEhwIhttp://www.overpopulationisamyth.com> I live in the USA
There you go. Libertarianism makes much more sense in the US. You don't have a nation, so it can't really work. A nation state needs to have a nation, as the name implies. A state without a nation is bound to be felt as tyranny.
Libertarianism is not just an ideology, it is also an attitude that responds to a particular situation in which you don't identify with your state, and therefore don't have shared goals and want to limit as much as possible the common enterprises and commitments, which may simply be because you don't have a nation. If that is the case then you have a pre-secession situation, or perhaps a somewhat durable social experiment at the fringe of what a political community is, the result of an historical accident (the late discovery of a whole "empty" continent which has been populated by people from many origins). The irony is that the US have been broadcasting this fake model to the whole world for decades, or rather that misguided people in Europe and elsewhere have thought it was a great model to emulate.
You have been trying to make a case which is too general, so you got an answer on that case. I happily defended the silent majority and the human tradition against the crazy anarchist. I don't need to discuss the atrocities that some states have commited, because you made the case about all states, not some states, even declining to say where you were as you said it was irrelevant to the discussion and your argument. Besides from the fact that some thing sometimes has bad consequences you can't derive that this thing is undesirable. Some parents beat, abuse and even kill their children. That doesn't mean parenthood is bad. It means however, and the same is true for the state, that there is the potential for harm. The state, or political community, is no joke, there is a tragical aspect to it. It's not guaranteed, and it can go wrong. Sometimes two entities consider that they are both defending themselves and end up being in war. That's life. Your solution to the problem is only in your head, like the messianic vision of ancient Jews. And while you preach that and oppose to the existing order, people can't help to notice that you dispense with the obligations that they fulfill.
>No conspiracy theories are necessary here because of Hanlon's razor:
>"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
The conspiracies I mention generally do not require attributed or assumed explanations, there is plenty of evidence. This is why many researchers have used the term "conspiracy fact", but this doesn't stop efforts to discredit actual events as "consipiracy theory" or "fake news".
>The way you talk is scary as well, regardless whether what you say is true or false.
The truth itself is the most belligerent and frightening thing you will ever encounter. I'm curious though what specifically do you find about the way I talk scary?
>Take a chill pill, relax, live your life the way you want to.
>That's the only way people will listen
Been there done that. For too long. And I'm done being relaxed about these issues. I get plenty of relaxation when I'm not busy chastising the moronic statists for their immorality and ignorance.
>Conversely, the more you force it down other's throats, the more you will convince them otherwise.
I'm not really concerned about persuasion, or being liked. It's not my job nor do I consider it authentic to try to convince. My interest is to speak the truth, and call out the bullshit according to fact and reason to the best of my ability to objectively do so. That is my duty. What people do with it is up to them. I remain open to changing any perspective I have if, by fact and reason it can be shown to be in error.
I watched the video, the gist I got out of it is that we all need to be a bit more on guard of our biases when forming conclusions, and especially when presented with information conflicting with current beliefs, and I agree with that. Regardless of how influenced by bias anyone may seem to be, whatever their argument is still must stand or fall on its own merit based on fact and reason. Usually the accusation that one is biased in an argument is just an ad hominem, unless accompanied by more substance.
@nameruseAs to what should be done with xochinla, you're taking the wrong approach as he does, asking the question in principle, in a sort of "if i were president" game, instead of understanding how reality works. And the way reality works is that such types are tolerated to some extent, depending on how liberal the society is, the particular period and if they don't push it too far. When some people in Rome who were Roman citizens suddenly started to say that they didn't want to have anything to do with the criminal and "pagan" organization of Rome as it was against their new religion, and that from then on they would not fulfill any more their civic obligations whatever pressure was exerted upon them, Romans were annoyed, tried to reason them, started with small fines, then threats, and in some cases threw them to the lions. I can't really blame them; it's not easy to deal with people so stubborn that they don't acknowledge the disproportion of power.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=RG1P8MQS1cU >There you go. Libertarianism makes much more sense in the US.
It's a principle. Morality applies at all times and places. Libertarianism is the expression of the moral principle (one of many).
>You don't have a nation, so it can't really work. A nation state needs
>to have a nation, as the name implies. A state without a nation is bound
> to be felt as tyranny.
I don't quite understand your meaning, but I agree it feels like tyranny. It not only feels like it, it is according to any objective analysis and reasonable definition.
>Libertarianism is not just an ideology, it is also an attitude that responds
>to a particular situation in which you don't identify with your state,
The attitude is not only a response to particular situations. It is a principle that applies and should be adhered to in any and all situations.
>and therefore don't have shared goals and want to limit as much
>as possible the common enterprises and commitments,
>which may simply be because you don't have a nation.
It don't care to have a nation, nor anything the state can provide, nor anything provided by any type of violence. Shared goals are not relevant, as they don't justify violence being conducted. I take my position not because of the poor quality of affairs for myself personally but because of MORALITY, and it is incorrect for you to suppose that it is merely personal interest when I have clearly specified otherwise.
>The irony is that the US have been broadcasting this fake model to the whole
>world for decades, or rather that misguided people in Europe and elsewhere
>have thought it was a great model to emulate.
I can't disagree with the characterization of western democracy as a fake model by any means, but you are really latching no to my location and trying to tie the cause of my attitude to the particular situation here, when the arguments I have been making, and the accuracy of them, has nothing to do with my location. All government that relies on using violence is immoral. It doesn't matter if the military does nothing but help poor starving children, it is still wrong to forcefully conscript people into any kind of service, regardless of how beneficial you believe that service to be, or whom you believe it to benefit.
>You have been trying to make a case which is too general, so you got an answer on that case.
I stand by the generalized argument that I am making, and the blanket statement that all government is slavery.
>I happily defended the silent majority and the human tradition against the crazy anarchist.
You try. And in any case I'm glad it makes you happy.
>I don't need to discuss the atrocities that some states have commited,
> because you made the case about all states, not some states,
Some are worse than others to be sure, I'll give you that. I can only speak from my own case, that to say it is my moral "duty" to support this violent terrorist organization known as the US Government is beyond ludicrous. And even if your government is not engaging in war, if it will cage you for not paying money to it, then it is engaging in violence. If it enforces immoral laws and penalties on people, it is engaging in violence. If it is using its power to monopolize the money supply and selling out land and resources from underneath people to predatory and parasitic corporations, it's engaging in violence. Tell me one government on the face of the earth that does none of these things.
>Besides from the fact that some thing sometimes has bad
>consequences you can't derive that this thing is undesirable.
You lost me again. Moral behavior has objective criteria. You either understand and live by it, and you're good, or you don't and you're a douche.
>Some parents beat, abuse and even kill their children. That
doesn't mean parenthood is bad. It means however, and the
>same is true for the state, that there is the potential for harm.
Violence isn't an inherent part of being a parent or the definition of it, nor does every single parent on the face of the earth engage in violence. The state absolutely is defined by its violence and you cannot name a government that is not guilty of it. So the comparison is not valid.
>The state, or political community, is no joke, there is a tragical aspect to it.
Damn straight.
>It's not guaranteed, and it can go wrong.
It is guaranteed. Guaranteed violence and wrongdoing.
>Sometimes two entities consider that they are both defending
>themselves and end up being in war. That's life.
More often than not one party is the clear aggressor.
>Your solution to the problem is only in your head,
No, yours is. See how meaningful that is? It's what they call a nothing-burger, or "not an argument".
>And while you preach that and oppose to the existing order,
>people can't help to notice that you dispense with the
>obligations that they fulfill.
Such as? I don't think you can name a single obligation I have dispensed with.
>As to what should be done with xochinla, you're taking the wrong approach
>as he does, asking the question in principle, in a sort of "if i were president"
>game, instead of understanding how reality works.
My position is not based on a hypothetical situation of any kind.
>And the way reality works is that such types are tolerated to some extent,
>depending on how liberal the society is, the particular period and if they
>don't push it too far. [...]and in some cases threw them to the lions. I can't
>really blame them
Whether society in general tolerates my "type" is not relevant unless you blatantly advocate group-think over reason... probably because you can find no logic with which to address the actual issue: violence of taxation and the morality of contribution to violence. The blatant authoritarianism is disgusting.
The thing about not caring to convince, yet preaching relentlessly, is also distinctive of religious zealots. It is something you can see with Jehovah's Witnesses for example. As the name implies, they come to your door to "witness" but don't actually care about what you think, as is quickly revealed if you engage with them. They do that because they believe it is their religious duty to do it, done under the watch of God. They were ordered by God to spread the "truth" and they do. That will help them please God and go to heaven.
In other words, as they speak to you, you think they are engaging with you. But in their mind they are really engaging with God, and the particulars about you, including what you think, don't matter. You could in fact be a rock, except that they were ordered to preach to humans, not rocks, so they couldn't add the rock as a notch on the report card they have to give back to their manager and it would not help them to remain in good standing with their group, please God and go to heaven.
Xochinla's views are a secularized version of these restaurationists' views (or possibly of Jewish views, it is close since restaurationists want to go back to early Christianity which was essentially Jewish). Note something interesting. The sense of duty of these religious zealots has something rational to it, as they believe they were given such an order by an omnipotent being that will reward them. It makes sense (if you believe in that being). However if you remove God, it stops making any sense. The same can be said about xochinla's belief in a "moral truth", i.e. "objective values". If you think about it, even the Jews and Christians do not have such a view, since they believe moral values and imperatives are *relative* to God instead. It is what God wants, if you will. Therefore only the "secularized Christians" have this very strange view of "objective values" -- which is really a contradiction in terms since value means preference --, and the reason for this weirdness is that they took something founded on God and thought they could get rid of God but keep it anyway. They can't.
Fundamentally monotheism is the fact of opposing God and the world. When you keep the attitude but remove God, of course what is left is a bit strange, namely a denunciation of the world without anything to compare it to, nor any change to be expected.
In the defense of xochinla, it is very difficult to go out of this situation, in which our modernity has basically been stuck for the last 5 centuries. It may well be that xochinla, like antispecists for example (which he may also be since he used the word "sentient" at some point), is only someone who is trying to make sense of the culture he received, and draw its logical consequences instead of staying in "compromises", as was (wrongly) reproached to me. It may be that most people looking at him as a weirdo are only people accepting such compromises, and unable or unwilling to draw the logical consequences of what they claim to accept. Xochinla may fundamentally have higher moral standards, be a more moral character, who can't accept some notion of morality without acting on it, since morality by definition says what you should do. If this is so, then I sympathize a lot with this, because I am exactly like that myself.
But there is another option. Instead of drawing the (crazy) conclusions of our (wrong) implicit concept of morality, such concept can be rejected and replaced by a sound one. That's the even more moral thing to do. I think I did this, but of course when I give xochinla a glimpse of it, I only get moral insults from him. This is because he remains within his frame of reference, from which I am immoral. He has not yet lost faith in such a frame, and conceived the desire to reach something sounder. And this, my dear xochinla, is a kind of compromise I must say. Though you are very moral and have high standards, if you were even more moral and had even higher standards you would be appalled at how unsound your theory (the "modern" theory of moral) is and reject it. You would fall into nihilism, at first. But then you might find something more solid which you could keep.
@Orderly"As to what should be done with xochinla, you're taking the wrong approach as he does, asking the question in principle, in a sort of "if i were president" game, instead of understanding how reality works".
I do ask the question in principle. I always will. I believe that taking matters to their logical extreme is vital, as it highlights the essence of an issue and dismisses countless half-assed attempts at "solving" moral matters such as the one discussed here. You continue by explaining to me how reality "works". I'll skip that.
Then you play the "if everybody did what they do" - card. It's the perennial trick of the orderly of the school, barracks or what have you, to tell that to all his pupils, treating them all alike. "What do you think would happen if we all started doing that?" From the perspective if what I consider to be reality this is a deaf dumb and blind question. Hypothetical, unfalsifiable, irrelevant.
And Mony Python? Wow.
Who are you in the clip?
Let me guess... The white dude with that crown on his head?
But where does a fully accomplished individual like you have to get to so urgently?
I thought you were all set and shit dude!?
>It's akin to religious fanaticism; completely convinced of one's
>own enlightenment and incapable of admitting fault or ignorance.
Just because I speak confidently doesn't mean I believe myself to be infallible, which I do not. Again if something I have said is in error, then use facts and reasoning to refute it. The position I am at today is the result of having to admit I was wrong countless times, and the result (from my perspective) of continually and ruthlessly questioning and challenging what I think I know, and making it habitual to do so. So while I hear what you are saying, I have to question the basis for your conclusion, and would ask you for quotes of mine that would lead you to it. I do my best to stay open minded and willing to revise my position if there is information that genuinely refutes it.
>All communication is persuasion to some degree. So if persuasion is not an
>objective then go speak to a rock or another inanimate object;
I seek not to persuade because it is not my rightful place to make up others' minds. Of course I genuinely believe what I say to be true, and I genuinely wish others to become aware of the truth, but persuasion is not the main point, the main objective is to articulate what I believe to be true, as best I can, and let others make up their own minds. The other benefit I get from this that I can't get from inanimate objects is feedback that may help me change or clarify my own position.
>you'll be speaking 'the truth' as well without creating a toxic environment.
>Granted, actual truth can be uncomfortable, but it needn't be toxic.
Is it really toxic? Or is it just uncomfortable to have one's false ideas challenged? Maybe you can elaborate on why you think it's one rather than the other, and why you consider what I say to be "toxic".