Captain Red Eye
Active member
Are you into Buddhism?
I like much of what he is purported to have said, they can engender thinking.
Are you into Buddhism?
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.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.
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.
Thus government is formed.
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.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.
That is beyond the scope of the question. Which one?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.
This was not government at all but revolt or exercise of power. Offensive or defensive?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?
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.
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.
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...
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.(...)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
(...)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.
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
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:
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.