What's new
  • ICMag with help from Phlizon, Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest for Christmas! You can check it here. Prizes are: full spectrum led light, seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!

Luigi Mangione

Captain Red Eye

Captain Red Eye

Active member
Eltitoguay said:
Ha ha... So much chatter to answer the question with a NO.

I don't need any more to definitively end the conversation with you.
And don't be confused or attribute false statements to me: I don't believe that lowering the sidewalks in certain areas to facilitate the mobility of wheelchairs is charity.
And I consider that the need for charity is a failure of society (although the fact that charity emerges and spreads in society in the face of need speaks very much in favor of that society)

Best regards.
Click to expand...

I have no objection to people that own a road from making accommodations as long as they use peaceful means.

My objections are against crony capitalists and other people that won't use peaceful means to force others to pay for their ideas. You only object to crony capitalists but not the other, because you are the other.
 
Captain Red Eye

Captain Red Eye

Active member
Cannavore said:
Click to expand...



Silly video, and ironic too.

if you like the underlying premise of the video, "charity must be forced , you can't really be for democracy .


“Ah,” say the democrats, “but without being forced to pay for X, no one will surrender the money to voluntarily fund X”

Well, this is only an admission that democracy is a complete and total lie – whatever X is, does not represent the will of the majority, but rather the whims of a violent minority.

Thus votes do not matter at all, and are not counted, and do not influence public policy in the least, and thus we should get rid of this ridiculous overhead of democracy and get right back to a good old Platonic system of minority dictatorship.

This proposal, of course, is greeted with outright horror, and protestations that democracy must be kept because it is the best system, because public policy does reflect the will of the majority.

In which case we need have no fear that the poor will not be educated in a free society, since the majority of people very much want that to happen anyway.

No person reading the above will rebut what I just said.


Oh yeah, why is the video ironic? The host, has a show called "majority report" and doesn't even realize he's pushing "non democratic" ideas as I pointed out above.

Oh the horror.
 
Last edited:
H

Hiddenjems

Well-known member
Captain Red Eye said:
It is not unreasonable to assume some human forms of organizing can run parallel to what exists now, rather than "everyone shifts all at once".

Things which we didn't have earlier in my lifetime are common place now. When I was a kid, cell phones didn't exist except as Star trek communicators. Computers with less brains than your toaster took up space the size of a room. Technology has periods of rapid advances, what keeps human from having rapid advances in how they organize?

The only thing that prevents that now is the existence of the present "giant warlord" system we are presently held captive in. They don't want to lose their position of lord and master over everything, so they threaten any efforts for humans to organize along more peaceful ideas. They don't want to lose their "subjects", much like parasites need a host.

A more just way of organizing can be accomplished by Panarchy, which is the idea that individual people can self-select their governmental alliances (if any) without physically moving. This ends a lot of political bickering and the uni-party lock on nearly everything which is held in place via coercion, deception and threats of punishment for failure to obey any number of victimless crimes which are really just revenue generation for State parasites.

"Borders" then might be private property borders arrived at by using just means rather than Nation state borders held in place by unjust means. New and more just Property norms and ways property claims are verified might (should) emerge.

With that said, humans like the surety of knowing their homes and neighborhoods are safe and efficient, so the actual residents of an area, might join together for a multitude of temporary alliances to build a bridge, hydro dam or enact neighborhood security patrols or other necessary things they can all benefit from. Even if their other alliances or beliefs vary, they can still agree to cooperate on any given projects for the mutual benefit of themselves and their neighbors while maintaining peaceful independence in other ways. It already happens now, lots of charities have people from different denominations all participate for a given disaster relief effort etc.

Much like in a present day grocery store you can peacefully shop amongst atheists, Christians of many denominations, Muslims, Hindus etc. The grocer doesn't care what your personal or political beliefs are as long as you conduct your business with respect to the grocer's policies and respect other shoppers who may or may not have the same belief system as you. That's how most private small business already operate today. They don't exist to mold your belief system or to prevent you from having your own, they just want to offer a service, get paid and have you cart your stuff home and hopefully come back next week if you liked their particular service. Giant Corporations which only exist today because they are aligned with and exist largely due to government fuckery won't have a special relationship with government to herd people anymore. That's a good thing.

Also, it's not fair to compare or call a proposed new way of human organizing a UTOPIA. or futuristic. That's not the proper perspective to view the possibilities in ...
(see below)

Statist error: The Nirvana Fallacy.​

Fallacy:​

Anarchy is bad because there will still be criminals (generalization).

How would anarchy prevent crime, poverty, asteroids from hitting the earth, ...?

Response:​

There are criminals today; there is slavery and a sex trade even in "free" countries. When a free society (even a hypothetical one) is compared to a statist one, the comparison should be to what is (or, in the hypothetical, what is likely, which is arguable—and frequently argued). While we expect that a voluntaryist society will be better than a statist one in many ways, it does not fail merely because it falls short of someone's utopia. (DBR)

In my limited experience, a meta-fallacy of all critiques of anarchy (and indeed, any aspect of individualism or "alternative") is inconsistent bar setting—of attempting to hold the alternative up to a standard the incumbent cannot meet. (ME)

To expand on DBR's point, there are laws in statist societies against murder, but that does not prevent people from murdering. In fact, since the people in the government are above their own laws, they are often paid to murder (war, for example, death sentences, botched raids, etc). State actors also regularly rob and extort from productive citizens, yet there are laws against "normal" people doing these same things. So the state is not only not a guarantee against harm to innocents, but actually engages in the very behavior the statist is worried about. The absense of government will therefore be preferable (DV).

The difference is, in a free society, there is no organization like the state who regularly engages in slavery, theft, and murder, and not only gets away with it (because they are above their own law), but is also respected and expected to stop all of those actions in its subjects!

In other words, the state is no cure for those actions we find immoral.

A free society is not a panacea where all problems between people are magically solved. (DV)

Though anarchy does not compare well with Nirvana, it does
compare quite favorably to statism, the actual alternative.​
Click to expand...
Order that imposes itself due to non centralized natural decisions is superior to top down order by threat of violence.
 
Captain Red Eye

Captain Red Eye

Active member
mean mr.mustard said:
You are as entertaining as Frosty!
Click to expand...

Thanks! You're entertaining sometimes too.

Care to tell me why what I said about the "undemocratic video" is inaccurate or are you gonna focus on little old weirdo me and let my bold assertion go unchallenged?



1735519364153.png
 
mean mr.mustard

mean mr.mustard

I Pass Satellites
Veteran
And, say what you will about the likelihood of its implementation, he's been selling this system in every active thread nonstop.

I'm having sovereign citizen flashbacks.

However, don't take my amusement for enthusiasm.

I hope this crap hasn't killed anyone like qanon or sovcit shit has.
 
Cannavore

Cannavore

Well-known member
Veteran
in an ideal scenario, all that has to happen to stop policy is for one dude to say i do not consent, and then apparently the entire policy will get scrapped because every one has to consent.

in other words quite literally nothing will get done that will ever have positive benefits on the welfare of americans. all it'll take is a billionaire to pay someone to say they don't consent and that's it party's over.

all of these fake libertarian ideologies only exist to serve the interests of the elite.
 
Captain Red Eye

Captain Red Eye

Active member
Cannavore said:
in an ideal scenario, all that has to happen to stop policy is for one dude to say i do not consent, and then apparently the entire policy will get scrapped because every one has to consent.

in other words quite literally nothing will get done that will ever have positive benefits on the welfare of americans. all it'll take is a billionaire to pay someone to say they don't consent and that's it party's over.

all of these fake libertarian ideologies only exist to serve the interests of the elite.
Click to expand...

Previously you've attempted to use "democratic majority" as a rationale for trampling on the rights of a minority. (It's not a good rationale, but you tried to use it)

Then in the video you posted with State violence cheer leader Sam Seder, it was accurately pointed out he's willing to cast "democracy" aside, while probably not even realizing he's doing it. (You guys love to talk out of both sides of your mouth). Seder's show even says "Majority Report". Talk about a hypocrite.

If your ideology derives justification from "democracy", as you've claimed, but then you and Sam Seder cheerlead against "democracy", would it be safe to say you have a flexible talk out of both sides of your mouth fake ideology?

Would it be safe to say you should check at least one of your opposing view points, before casting stones?

Why not have the honesty to admit you just want to use government to control people to make them do the things you like and you really don't have an ideology based in anything rightful or consistent ? You look at the end result you want and don't care about the means you use to get there.

Sam Seder, is a fraud. He's smart enough to trap a few neophyte Libertarians with some gotcha questions, but not smart enough to see his own hypocrisy.

Also, which fake libertarian ideology serves the interests of the elite?


1735560936594.png
 
Microbeman

Microbeman

The Logical Gardener
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Captain Red Eye said:
Nice!

That's quite a rise. Is it the photo or is it steep?

I've sometimes had to pretend I'm a carpenter and built a low rise but long run ramp for a lady a few years back. Had to keep the rise gradual to meet some code specs.
Click to expand...
It's a joke of course. I build ramps 1:12 usually. We just built a concrete one 1:15 (one inch rise in 15 inches)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top