commies

[nepalnt21]

View attachment 19170711

so he lives like an average upper middle class american? not a robber baron?

good to know.

i mean, it would be cooler if he lived in like... a cardboard box or a giant toppled-over clay pot, AND still did what he did, but i'll take whatever bernie i get

 

[Captain Red Eye]

so he lives like an average upper middle class american? not a robber baron?

good to know.

i mean, it would be cooler if he lived in like... a cardboard box or a giant toppled-over clay pot, AND still did what he did, but i'll take whatever bernie i get

I don't care what Bernie has. I do care how he got it. Most of "his" money didn't come from honest work, it came from funds extracted from others under threat of force.

Bernie will take whatever he can get too, and has.

 

[nepalnt21]

and yet you aren't EVEN ANGRIER at those in the white house that ACTUALLY ARE robbing us???

 

[Cannavore]

"if communism so good why does it never work?"

 

[Cannavore]

 

[Cannavore]

 

[Captain Red Eye]

and yet you aren't EVEN ANGRIER at those in the white house that ACTUALLY ARE robbing us???

How can you be being robbed? You consented to having masters.

 

[nepalnt21]

How can you be being robbed? You consented to having masters.

View attachment 19171516

if you give a dude five bucks, that means you've constented to have him loot your bank account?

 

[Captain Red Eye]

if you give a dude five bucks, that means you've constented to have him loot your bank account?

Poor analogy.

When you consented to this government, you knew the rate they could take from you was out of your hands and in their hands. Subjects obey...or else. Now get to work. Trump needs your money!

Also you don't give government anything, they take it. You should stop using government speak and use the right words to describe things more in line with reality.

If you never consented you'd have a right to complain, but you wanted to be governed. Oh well.

 

[nepalnt21]

Poor analogy.

When you consented to this government, you knew the rate they could take from you was out of your hands and in their hands. Subjects obey...or else. Now get to work. Trump needs your money!

Also you don't give government anything, they take it. You should stop using government speak and use the right words to describe things more in line with reality.

If you never consented you'd have a right to complain, but you wanted to be governed. Oh well.

sell it, bro sell it. waitin on that diamond platinum sales pitch

 

[Captain Red Eye]

sell it, bro sell it. waitin on that diamond platinum sales pitch

My platinum sales pitch is only for those that want to respect other people but aren't sure how to do that.

There are only us humans and those who are peaceful should be free from coercion from others. That's a root level binary concept, it's either true or not. I think peaceful people should self-determine as a default. THAT, needs to be a societal norm.

If you accept the lines above, it's contradictory to embrace systems which are based in coercion, you would be dishonoring yourself and your own beliefs then. Governments are undeniably based in coercion since their members ALWAYS include peaceful dissenters.

If you don't accept that, there is nothing that will satisfy you, since you will want to carve out exceptions to be able to force other people to go along with your preferences and use the political process to do it.
Don't be surprised when that belief and practice is used against you, because it's only a matter of time until it will. That's not a bug of politics, it's an intended feature, to keep the system going while allowing people to talk about who should be the head of the shitshow. That way voters think they have some say, but it's a useful lie.

That's why you and others spend hours a day being pissed off at Trump. He's a symptom, he'll be dead soon and then you can whine about a different douche bag or be happy for a period of time if your preferred douche bag forces his ideas you share with him/her onto other people.

You aren't quite ready to discuss Voluntaryism or Panarchy. You need to let go of the idea that trading back and forth which douche bag rules over others is the way for humans to interact. I am patient and will wait.

People can cooperate in ways that aren't allowed in the present paradigm and still have ways to arbitrate disputes, protect innocents from bad guys and inhibit fraud and other fuckery. There are ways to do that.

 

[nepalnt21]

preferences

like how i prefer to have a biome for my grandkids?

like how i prefer to have potable water and prefer to not have psychopaths dump toxic waste in my yard?

 

[Captain Red Eye]

like how i prefer to have a biome for my grandkids?

like how i prefer to have potable water and prefer to not have psychopaths dump toxic waste in my yard?

If a psychopath dumps toxic waste in your yard you should have the means to correct that and prevent it.

What if it's a government that dumped the waste or is bought off by the waste person, what would your recourse be in the present paradigm?

Cough cough Flint Michigan water department holding on line one sir.

Cough cough Agent orange.

 

[nepalnt21]

you should have the means

ableism bruh

 

[Captain Red Eye]

ableism bruh

Not sure I understand your response.

What I meant was there should be ways to hold others accountable if they cause harm to you or your justly acquired property. In the present that way is almost always a government controlled court system.

It's possible to have similar structures exist, even 2 or more to adjudicate disputes. Binding arbitration services don't have to exist only within a single forcible monopoly. Arbitration services that exist in a single forcible monopoly are not the best sources to arbitrate disputes involving consent violations, since those kinds of organizations are systems which are based in violations themselves.

Much of what they do isn't about making victims whole or coming up with just solutions. Also when an entity has a forcible monopoly over a service, consumer feedback becomes less important. When consumer feedback is a low consideration, there is no incentive for the service supplier to improve their product. Captive consumers enable service supplier sloth. If you knew your customer couldn't go to another service supplier how motivated would you be to improve or consistently provide good service? Competiton amongst service suppliers can drive innovation, lower costs and sort out bad actors.

 

[nepalnt21]

Not sure I understand your response.

What I meant was there should be ways to hold others accountable if they cause harm to you or your justly acquired property. In the present that way is almost always a government controlled court system.

It's possible to have similar structures exist, even 2 or more to adjudicate disputes. Binding arbitration services don't have to exist only within a single forcible monopoly. Arbitration services that exist in a single forcible monopoly are not the best sources to arbitrate disputes involving consent violations, since those kinds of organizations are systems which are based in violations themselves.

Much of what they do isn't about making victims whole or coming up with just solutions. Also when an entity has a forcible monopoly over a service, consumer feedback becomes less important. When consumer feedback is a low consideration, there is no incentive for the service supplier to improve their product. Captive consumers enable service supplier sloth. If you knew your customer couldn't go to another service supplier how motivated would you be to improve or consistently provide good service? Competiton amongst service suppliers can drive innovation, lower costs and sort out bad actors.

what you're describing is so out of the realm of normalcy, and i remain unconvinced that it won't be usurped by the same weak bitches - robberbarons, that kinda type... they're a type, maybe it's a control thing? inadequacy thing? idk, but how can you be sure that the system you tout won't be subverted by the very same losers?

 

[Captain Red Eye]

what you're describing is so out of the realm of normalcy, and i remain unconvinced that it won't be usurped by the same weak bitches - robberbarons, that kinda type... they're a type, maybe it's a control thing? inadequacy thing? idk, but how can you be sure that the system you tout won't be subverted by the very same losers?

In the present setup, that capture has already happened. If you're afraid of a robber baron limiting your choices why would you NOT want to increase choices ? Do you think government holds robber barons in check? I don't think they do, I think they work together to reduce / funnel people away from choices.

Also I don't tout a particular system, I unchain competition. The consumers will show in due time who they trust and who they want to continue to use.

Do you think food choices should be limited to one grocery store or one restaurant? How incentivized to improve would they be under that setup? "My food is spoiled, can I get a rebate'? No, fuck off, buy it here or starve.

If you as a consumer have the freedom to use or become a different supplier that has a track record of good performance, that sends a market signal to other lower performing suppliers to make adjustments or risk going out of business. No such market signals exist or matter under the present court system. Tough shit, if you don't like the "service" you get from a sole supplier, you're stuck with them.
If service suppliers know they can lose customers they innovate. If they know they have a captive customer base, they stagnate. That is observable in the real world.

I can see at some point a thread discussing how these things might work would be helpful. There are a lot of assumptions people have been trained to hold, that aren't necessarily justifiable or reflective of reality.

 

[nepalnt21]

increase choices ?

how does one do that?

Do you think food choices should be limited to one grocery store or one restaurant?

living in the sticks, sometimes that's all we get anyway, IF we're lucky... although there's never a bigger town THAT far away.

Do you think government holds robber barons in check? I don't think they do, I think they work together to reduce / funnel people away from choices.

quite accurate.

 

[Captain Red Eye]

how does one do that?

Allow. propose, discuss or create alternatives. Don't default to the idea that things can never change. History shows mankind can improve, but mankind can also backslide. Be on the side of improvement and make sure the means you use is consistent with the end you seek.

If the present monopoly holder "disallows" that, expose the flaws and lies the present monopoly holders have. Sometimes shifting normal happens all at once and sometimes it happens painfully slow.

Most people are stuck in what is, rather than reaching for what ought to be. Ignore those people or engage them and expose the flaws in their arguments with better arguments. Foment consent as a worthwhile norm and accept there will resistance. At one time "everyone knew" slavery would always exist.

 

[Cannavore]