What's new

Luigi Mangione

buzzmobile

Well-known member
Premium user
Veteran
A free market trade is simply one where all parties agree to the trade. I combine that with my philosophy of it being wrong to use offensive force and proceed from there. Curious if you find that to be a reasonable way to proceed in life?
I find the above scenario more than a reasonable way to proceed in life. Small scale examples abound. I have reservations about non-violent consent between parties on a large scale. Those reservations are evident from the range of replies in this and other threads in Speakers Corner.
 

Captain Red Eye

Active member
I find the above scenario more than a reasonable way to proceed in life. Small scale examples abound. I have reservations about non-violent consent between parties on a large scale. Those reservations are evident from the range of replies in this and other threads in Speakers Corner.

I appreciate your answer very much.
 

Microbeman

The Logical Gardener
ICMag Donor
Veteran
There are 3 farms drawing from the same creek, each with their own self-built catchments. There is no regulatory body in place allocating volume based water rights. The water supply is adequate for their present crops. Farmer 1 who is highest upstream decides to cultivate another 100 acres and his irrigation needs increase considerably. Without consulting his two downstream neighbors, he builds a rudimentary dam to increase his irrigation needs but in doing so reduces the downstream flow to a trickle. Farmers 3 & 2 find their catchments almost empty and have insufficient irrigation water.

Farmers 3 & 2 demand that farmer 1 dismantles his dam. He refuses, stating that there is no regulation and the creek flows through his land first. Farmers 3 & 2 blow up the dam and threaten farmer 1 with violence if he retaliates in any way. Farmers 3 & 2 have their water back but farmer 1 has insufficient water for his new area of cultivation.

Along comes farmer 4, a bloke homesteading only 10 acres downstream from farmer 3. He needs much less water than the others. He has an engineering mind and suggests to farmers 2 & 3 that they pool the resources of all 4 individuals and build a more substantial dam further up the creek from farmer 1, backed by an aquifer well, with 4 outlets sized and valved according to the individual needs. They take this idea to farmer 1, who likes the idea in principle but does not trust the others. He suggests they find a group of 5 people down the valley who can hold the works in a trust and mediate any disputes that could arise over water volume allocations and division of ongoing responsibilities. The group (committee) would be given authority to regulate water flow, ensure fairness of maintenance between the parties and levy any payments necessary.

Thus government is formed.

Was the blowing up of the dam offensive or defensive violence?
Is the threat of violence to farmer 1 if he retaliates offensive or defensive?
Does the water committee hold the power of offensive or defensive violence?

FYI - At one time I lived in a small community with a similar domestic water supply. There was a small catchment a mile up the creek and a wooden water line buried up to 5 feet in places as it came down the hill, splitting off to supply 6 homes; ours first. Everyone participated, of need, in the maintenance of the line, sometimes requiring digging down 5 feet and repairing, even once in winter when it froze. Our water pressure was marvelous.
 

Microbeman

The Logical Gardener
ICMag Donor
Veteran
I find the above scenario more than a reasonable way to proceed in life. Small scale examples abound. I have reservations about non-violent consent between parties on a large scale. Those reservations are evident from the range of replies in this and other threads in Speakers Corner.
(y)
 

Captain Red Eye

Active member
Thus government is formed.

Is it a permanent "government" having the power to intervene into other aspects of everyone and anyone's life is the question I now have.

Was the "government" in your example using defensive force or offensive force?

Once a "government" is formed to rectify an unjust situation should it then metastasize into a self protective entity and assume consent of everyone in other matters is my concern. That's usually the path a micro government follows.

Also, if the parties that got rid of the dam were acting together in a voluntary way and weren't trying to force people to help them blow up the dam, was it really a government and not just a group of people cooperating to bring justice as they saw it?
 

Microbeman

The Logical Gardener
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Is it a permanent "government" having the power to intervene into other aspects of everyone and anyone's life is the question I now have.
I don't know. That may or may not be up to the committee and potential requests or problems in the community - maybe equal access.
Was the "government" in your example using defensive force or offensive force?

Once a "government" is formed to rectify an unjust situation should it then metastasize into a self protective entity and assume consent of everyone in other matters is my concern. That's usually the path a micro government follows.
That is beyond the scope of the question. Which one?
Also, if the parties that got rid of the dam were acting together in a voluntary way and weren't trying to force people to help them blow up the dam, was it really a government and not just a group of people cooperating to bring justice as they saw it?
This was not government at all but revolt or exercise of power. Offensive or defensive?
 

Eltitoguay

Well-known member
More projection on your part. I understand general principles very well. I shout them out in nearly every post. You ignore them, and only see the end result, while pretending the means you use is not part of the whole. That's sort of the basic difference we have.

For example, I've only mentioned about a thousand times, it's wrong for individuals to use offensive force,
You should have known from that I'm against strapping people down, harvesting their organs and selling their organs etc., kidnapping people and forcing them into work situations they can't escape etc.

Anyhow back to the thing you ignore

Since it's wrong for individuals to use offensive force, they can't all combine their zero right to do so and form a government which is based in using offensive force and be rightful.
I can easily prove that using math, not that it isn't already self-evident anyway.

That means two things.

I'm proceeding logically, with the idea that human cooperation should be based in voluntary concepts, ie based in consent. That's how you foment peace and respect individual choice.

You are proceeding illogically and involuntarily, you don't think being in accord with consent is the best way for humans to cooperate. You think offensive force is a fine tool to use to get your way. So do rapists, warlords, thieves et al.

You're fine with enveloping people in your idea by using offensive force, even if the other person is disinterested and behaving in an otherwise peaceful manner. You make them "automatically" a subject within your scheme.
That will never lead to peace, since the means you use isn't peaceful, it inescapably becomes part of your scheme.

The problem is you have been brainwashed to think a democracy is somehow a great exception to logic and involuntary inclusion in a democracy somehow is able to defy logic, (and math) and magically any force a democracy uses is nonexistent or if you're not ignorant of that, it's even worse.

It's worse if you know a democracy violates human consent and then say, but we need the democracy, so we can have a society to protect us from people that might violate consent. Which is poor illogical circular nonsensical reasoning.

You will not be able to refute what I said, nor will you address it in any significant way. I'm willing to continue having a conversation, but not until you tell me why you think your democracy can use offensive force, while every other person is wrong when they do it.


I appreciate that you want to lift people out of despair, so do I. I'll continue to operate my life as best I can in accordance with my more peaceful means than you find acceptable.

1 - ) "I've only mentioned about a thousand times, it's wrong for individuals to use offensive force,
You should have known from that I'm against strapping people down, harvesting their organs and selling their organs etc., kidnapping people and forcing them into work situations they can't escape etc." :

Yes, I am clear that you are not in favor of "offensive physical force" or physical coercion... As much as you know that we are talking about what anarcho-capitalists and similar people call "lawful economic blackmail" and for me it is usury and/or economic coercion (which can range from "simple" usury to Offensive Economic Volition).
...Once again the famous economic paradox of water and diamonds, rethought with a kidney... : Is it "at least" usury not allowable, ...or is it a legitimate free market?

Remember:
"(...) My hope is to correct the bold part of my assumptions/accusations as false (to be an advocate and promoter of) :

-Free market of human organs , (even if are from poor people still alive, under "legitimate and legal economic blackmail")...
-"Legitimate and legal economic blackmail"
-Child labour.
(....)"


..........................................

2 - ) "Since it's wrong for individuals to use offensive force, they can't all combine their zero right to do so and form a government which is based in using offensive force and be rightful.
I can easily prove that using math, not that it isn't already self-evident anyway."
(...)
"
You think offensive force is a fine tool to use to get your way. So do rapists, warlords, thieves et al." :

Hehehe...
...Yes, I'm sure that by the way, you also deduce with your mathematics that the child labor that you defend (and everything that it entails) ...was what we needed to unite the 4 Forces of the Universe.

You know very well that "offensive force" and "defensive force" are not the same...
For example, to defend against the appearance and exponential growth of theft, murder, sexual abuse/rape, etc..., which was triggered by the establishment of your ideals by acquaintances of yours, in some small town.

But surely, what for me is "defensive force", for you is offensive:
If following your ideology
(which radiates good and mathematical truth, hehe...), you hire minors in your mines, (and without laws or labor rights to supervise you, of course!!), "my/our society, with or without the State" we will act to prevent it.
And our force used
(whether it be closing your factory and financial fines or even jail time, depending on the facts), WILL BE DEFENSIVE.
 
Last edited:

Eltitoguay

Well-known member
...And now more clearly:

Your model has no more mathematics than NOT applying all the criticisms and questions that you apply to a society that delegates power to a Democracy, TO delegates to THE POWER OF CAPITAL.

I do not criticize your ideology as your individual choice
(some have told you to see it without objections, even on a small scale), but rather as an extended option for society.
And less, with:
- Free market of human organ,
(even if are from poor people still alive, under "legitimate and legal economic blackmail")...
- "Legitimate and legal economic blackmail"
- Child labour.
(Note : The part in italics is not clear...yet)

We would go from delegated power in a democracy to automatically converting multimillionaires into Emperors, Kings and Neofeudal Lords.
And the lower and working classes, and the urban middle classes, to the exploitation of the Industrial Revolution and further back...
 
Last edited:

Captain Red Eye

Active member
Hehehe...
...Yes, I'm sure that by the way, you also deduce with your mathematics that the child labor that you defend (and everything that it entails) ...was what we needed to unite the 4 Forces of the Universe.

You know very well that "offensive force" and "defensive force" are not the same...
For example, to defend against the appearance and exponential growth of theft, murder, sexual abuse/rape, etc..., which was triggered by the establishment of your ideals by acquaintances of yours, in some small town.

But surely, what for me is "defensive force", for you is offensive:
If following your ideology
(which radiates good and mathematical truth, hehe...), you hire minors in your mines, (and without laws or labor rights to supervise you, of course!!), "my/our society, with or without the State" we will act to prevent it.
And our force used
(whether it be closing your factory and financial fines or even jail time, depending on the facts), WILL BE DEFENSIVE.

This isn't productive for you to continue to make false innuendo or to reframe the circumstances as different than they are to benefit your position. It's also a little lame.

To clarify, a democracy which automatically envelopes a person(s) that is disinterested but otherwise peaceful couldn't be using anything but offensive force, since the disinterested but otherwise peaceful person is by definition not using offensive force.

Besides, Democracies more often violate individual rights than protect them. Consensus and / or voluntary participation and democracy are not the same thing.

I am opposed to "universal healthcare" not on the merits of any system, rather on the idea that anything "universal" that isn't fully voluntary participation, has elements of involuntary participation, backed by offensive force. You don't want to acknowledge that, painfully obvious too.

That's where you guys go off the rails. When you force a person to pay for your idea if they are disinterested, you are no longer interested in healthcare, you are interested in control. You then lose any moral high ground to bitch about the other things you're bitching about.


You should proceed with any arguments recognizing the above, not because I said it , but because it's true. If it weren't true, you would be able to provide evidence it's false, but you haven't done that, nor can you.

My ideals don't trigger exponential theft, murder or anything like that, that's complete bullshit. In fact, they foment the opposite.

My ideals honor voluntary human interactions as the default. Yours do not, that's inescapable, since you are a proponent of democracy which is simply a ruling class. alleged to be based in a majority and even then, most democracies don't really follow through on what the leaders of it promised to the boneheads that voted them in. Everybody knows this.

Plus if a democracy is promising to take from some to deliver to others, it's a democracy based in theft. No thanks. all yours.

As far as "child labor", no I don't think it's a great idea to put kids in mines or stuff like that.
I do think as kids mature they ought to be given chores and some responsibility. I leave that to the parents and what you decide for your kids may not be the same as me.

I started working early as a kid, mowed lawns, shoveled driveways, sold kool aid, fixed other kids bikes, all kinds of things. Many kids today should get off their fat asses and go climb a tree or something, the dumbed down little spoiled shits! (just seeing if you were still reading. :D )




Factories ? I don't have a factory, but if I did and people that wanted to work there, made a mutual agreement with me at terms we entered into on a consensual basis, what business would it be of your "revolutionaries" to stop us from doing that?
 

Eltitoguay

Well-known member
...So, we are still on the same page:

- Free market of human organ, (even if are from poor people still alive, under "legitimate and legal economic blackmail")...

- "Legitimate and legal economic blackmail"

- Free Child labour.

- All within a framework of a capitalist free market without limits.

And all the consequences, both for individuals and for society, of that "freedom."
 

Captain Red Eye

Active member
We would go from delegated power in a democracy to automatically converting multimillionaires into Emperors, Kings and Neofeudal Lords.
And the lower and working classes, and the urban middle classes, to the exploitation of the Industrial Revolution and further back...

Voluntary free trade between two consenting individuals where both feel they profit is not the same as crony capitalism.

I don't need to defend crony capitalism because I'm not a proponent of it.

I shouldn't have to defend free trade, because any trade which isn't free, is unfree, by definition.

Trade which is unfree, is akin to slavery, since it dictates where the product of another persons labor etc. will be applied against their will. That's also self-evident.

Also, I care more HOW a person made their money than how much money they have.

I recognize most billionaires and millionaires used democratic government and the offensive force that protects them to make their money. So while I am skeptical of people that have a ton of money, I need to know the context of how they made their money before I can malign them.

The means used is important to me. but not to a person stuck on using a democracy.


I was born the Emperor of me and only me just as you are the Emperor of you and only you.

If you decide to give that up and listen to people that want to own you, that's your business, just don't include me in your plan if I politely decline. I can do that, can you?
 

Eltitoguay

Well-known member
(...)My ideals don't trigger exponential theft, murder or anything like that, that's complete bullshit. In fact, they foment the opposite.
(...)
As for the fact that you are now back to denying what your coreligionists and acquaintances from Grafton have done... In your last comments on the matter, you at least acknowledged it (but it cost 3 or 4 articles in the international press). But as you well know, with your coreligionists came/appeared murders, sexual crimes, physical force crimes derived from drug trafficking..., and their rates grew to the point of attracting the attention of the media on all continents. Don't worry, there are also articles and essays that are less generic about "the libertarian experiment" and more focused on its irresponsible management and responsibility in the matter of crime.

But the thing is, what we have is enough:
- Free market of human organ, (even if are from poor people still alive, under "legitimate and legal economic blackmail")...

 - "Legitimate and legal economic blackmail"

- Free Child labour.

- All within a framework of a capitalist free market without limits.

And all the consequences, both for individuals and for society, of that "freedom."


...And as I told you, not even a madman full of rage, fury, theories of everything and nothing, explanations with twisted parables and examples with racist black prostitutes and Chineses men, can cover it up.

 

Captain Red Eye

Active member
As for the fact that you are now back to denying what your coreligionists

Since you brought up "coreligionists", it's only fair you explain what your coreligionists have done and how your comrades won't devolve into this, and why you think a "democracy" can't go bad.

Also, the chart is incomplete, (deaths are too low) it doesn't include all of the USA Empire deaths

1736896163700.png
 

Eltitoguay

Well-known member
(...)I recognize most billionaires and millionaires used democratic government and the offensive force that protects them to make their money. So while I am skeptical of people that have a ton of money, I need to know the context of how they made their money before I can malign them.

Fuck with the "mathematically demonstrable truths", your social responsibility, the ability to deduce consequences from ideals, and your unwavering coherence... :

The staunch enemy of the "offensive force", defender of an ideology that would leave all the power in the world to them...
And yes, from the start, for being so nice, we grant them these "freedoms", which are not freedoms, but POWERS GIFTED WITHOUT A LEGITIMATE BASIS:

- Free market of human organ, (even if are from poor people still alive, under "legitimate and legal economic blackmail")...

 - "Legitimate and legal economic blackmail"

- Free Child labour.

- All within a framework of a capitalist free market without limits.

And all the consequences, both for individuals and for society, of that "freedom."


Orwellian Doublethink is not exclusive to Stalinism and Fascism...
 

Hiddenjems

Well-known member
Poor guy... as if he were part of the "anarcho-capitalist or pan-archist or libertarian Capitalist" gang from Grafton, who burned himself alive in the fire at the local church, without the Captain's "willing volunteer" colleague being able to put it out or do anything beyond pissing in the fire, or getting high on methamphetamine to forget his criminal incompetence for following the same ideology as the Captain...

...and that heart could still be traded on your ultra-neoliberal free market...

But I also say that, for me, all the defenders of:
Free market of human organs ESPECIALLY
IF THE ORGANS HAVE TO BE SOLD BY POOR PEOPLE STILL ALIVE, UNDER ECONOMIC BLACKMAIL, "legal blackmail", child labor, and the free market of minors humans...


...they could set themselves on fire (without harming others and their surroundings).
And if they lack the last bit of courage, I am ready to help by lighting the match...
View attachment 19130534





Rage on behalf of the machine was quick to join the totalitarians during Covid. They lost all credibility for being anti-establishment. They’re now firmly pro establishment.
 

Captain Red Eye

Active member
uck with the "mathematically demonstrable truths", your social responsibility, the ability to deduce consequences from ideals, and your unwavering coherence... :

The staunch enemy of the "offensive force", defender of an ideology that would leave all the power in the world to them...
And yes, from the start, for being so nice, we grant them these "freedoms", which are not freedoms, but POWERS GIFTED WITHOUT A LEGITIMATE BASIS:

You brought up a good point, power without a legitimate basis is a problem. I wish you were consistent in how you approach that belief.

For instance, I'm against imposed rulers, whether it's a solo ruler, a duopoly or a ruler by democracy, which might be the worst kind, since most people have been tricked into thinking that's not a system that brings a set of rulers with it. It always does.

I've identified why that's so, but you never address that. I've given you charts with the number of bodies, (numbers are actually too low) you ignore that too.

Thank you for helping my argument by pointing out illegitimate power is bad. Except you only half believe that.

You later disagree with your own point, when you seek to create a democracy, that arises from removal of consent OF AT LEAST SOME PEOPLE, even if they are peaceul. This is a point you have persistently ignored, It's the Achilles heel of your argument.

My "social responsibility" can never include using offensive force against other peaceful people, even if it's to create a democracy. It would be social irresponsibility if it did, unless every person has agreed to be part of the democracy at the onset. Not "social contract" fake agreement, actual explicit consent.

I, nor you, have any right to vote a ruler or set of rulers over others, if they don't want to be ruled. This is another thing you ignore. Violating consent doesn't become "not violating consent" by virtue of some magical government Democracy inclusion in the process. There's the brain washing.

Since your idea of "social responsibility" is that it's acceptable to use offensive force, (democracy based in coercion) you aren't much different than the crony capitalists you are rightfully maligning.

The only thing different is the crony capitalist uses power backed by an alliance with government to accumulate wealth.

You, at least believe your use of illegitimate power can somehow be a force for good (in your mind) and have convinced yourself your democracy is the thing to use to get there.

You don't understand or acknowledge that the means used doesn't simply disappear, it's part of the entire process. If you use unjust means to try to fight injustice, you are only playing musical chairs with illegitimate power. You might learn that one day, maybe not.

It's like you're getting ready to go out on a date and the first thing you do is shit in your favorite pants you're planning on wearing on the date. That's the forcible ILLEGITIMATE POWER democracy part.

Then you imagine the wonderful time you'll show your date and all the nice things you'll impress her with.
Except you forget you're wearing a pair of pants that has a large shit stain in the seat of the pants and imagine she won't notice. If she's indoctrinated like you to ignore things, she might not notice, she might be hoping you don't notice the giant stain in her democratic pants or not even know she's sporting shit stained pants.

Democracy, if it forces disinterested but otherwise peaceful people into it is a very pungent use of illegitimate power.

You can't violate the consent of a disinterested but otherwise peaceful person and claim the result is legitimate, without having the smell of tyranny emanating from your pants.

1736947235643.png
 

Captain Red Eye

Active member
The problem with government is that the people that don’t want it, can’t opt out. They get forced to be a part of, physically.

That's concise and true.

It's even worse when indoctrinated people go thru verbal and mental contortions to spout the platitudes the people that control them have given them to use as justifications.

Akin to slave on slave violence. They even use a form of "slave talk" and tell you if you don't like it here, you should try one of those other plantations, (or political countries) where THOSE masters are really mean!
 
Top