What's new

Luigi Mangione

Hiddenjems

Well-known member
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!
Slavery has been allowed in many democracies. That tells you all you need to know about government.

It tends to be cities that promote pro government thinking. Those people have been so dependent their entire lives, they can’t picture a world without their provider/protector/enslaver.
 

Captain Red Eye

Active member
if you live in the woods i'd imagine growing poppies would be the least of your concerns

once again you are free to go live in the woods.


opting out of government doesn't mean anything.


To opt out of something, implies a person did one of two things, opted in or not, in the first place.

If they opted in and there was zero duress, that would be one circumstance, except there is duress and there's no real evidence people have a choice if they don't want to opt in.

"Opting in" is assumed, like when a slave woman has a child, the child is automatically a slave.

They don't say "slave" anymore, because even a low intelligence population might figure that out.

So now you're automatically a "citizen / subject" and they take a smaller portion of each "citizen/subject/slaves" labor than old fashioned slavery.

Except it works out better for them. because even though they don't take all of the product of your labor, they take about 30% from everybody. So they extended a few more privileges, but now get more slaves to extract from. Masterful, figuratively and literally. Hooray!!

If a person did not opt in, and they are enveloped by systemic force, to call them "free" in any way shape or form is absurd. Slaves and citizen / subjects all share the inability to opt out. I'm sure that's just a coincidence. :rolleyes:

If you can't show anyone the opt in or opt agreement, it's because it doesn't really exist despite what your indoctrination has lead you to believe in some invisible "social contract".
You have a foot in both sides of your mouth and don't even realize it. Your ability to form a coherent argument that isn't self-contradicting is abysmal and you should be ashamed. Instead you post a Sam Seder video where he contradicts the premise of his own show and proves my point. Too funny.

Do you even know what a right is and where it might come from?

Statist claim: Rights come from the State​

Fallacy:​

"Rights come from society" (or "Rights are granted by the state").

Response:​

Rights are not tokens handed out by countries. You always have rights. The state has no more authority to hand out rights than a clown at the circus. — Hugh Diedrichs
That's a great quote, but by itself it's only a counter-assertion, so let us continue to the argument. The claim is that rights come (or are granted by) either "society" or "the state". First, let's understand that the two assertions are the same: in a democracy the state is controlled by majoritan tyranny (see The State is Us), and in other types of state, presumably the "society" version of the assertion would not be made. We can consider the case that it is meant that society actually means everyone, but that does not hold up to scrutiny: if I withdraw my consent for someone to be free, they do not become bound.


The fallacy implies that rights may either be withdrawn or not granted, leading to a reductio ad absurdum wherein it is implied that since the state promoted and supported slavery at various times and places in history, at those times the right to liberty was not granted to those slaves. That is, they had no right to liberty unless and until it was granted. A right is a legitimate claim on something (not the power to do something; right and power are often confused; see Might Makes Right). When it is correctly understood that rights are innate (see Natural Law), one can distinguish between a right to be free, which always exists, and the power to exercise that right, which does not always exist, as in the case of a slave. The right is infringed but not taken away.

Under the "rights from the state" theory, even if a slave has the opportunity to escape, or is freed by another person, they still do not have the right to be free unless the state decides to grant it; it is thus a moral wrong for them to escape their master.

It is not enough for some that their theory declares slavery right if majorities want it, however (sad though that is). But more fundamentally, an individual's claim to control their own body (self-ownership), and hence their production, liberty, and legitimately acquired property exists outside of the approval of others. Others may be able to restrict the ability of a person to exercise the right; but the legitimacy of the claim exists outside of approval or violent infringement.

Power is not right; one may have the power to harm someone, but not the right, or the right to harm someone, even (e.g., in self-defense), but not the power; or both or neither; they exist independently.
 

Captain Red Eye

Active member
Slavery has been allowed in many democracies. That tells you all you need to know about government.

It tends to be cities that promote pro government thinking. Those people have been so dependent their entire lives, they can’t picture a world without their provider/protector/enslaver.

I contend that any democracy which doesn't allow an opt out for peaceful people is only inches from slavery and exists in a kind of semi-slavery state with more modern conveniences.

That will cause some eyerolls from some people, but if argued honestly and fairly none will be able to refute it.

Slavery after all is when you can't do the things you'd like to do and other people can forcibly dictate the terms of your life even if you aren't doing the same to them.


1736965567936.png
 

armedoldhippy

Well-known member
Veteran
where tf do you suggest, then?

i thought we'd already ruled out petoria
there are still some areas in Canada & Alaska where land is available to homestead on, and sink or swim according to your own capabilities. but, both places have tax codes, rules and regulations that folks who live there are expected to go by... so he aint gonna be happy there, either. :dunno: Maybe Muskrat will pick him for the trip to Mars... Atlantis, perhaps ?
 

Captain Red Eye

Active member
where tf do you suggest, then?

i thought we'd already ruled out petoria


The problem isn't necessarily solved by finding the best geographical location, although that could be helpful if escape is the goal, the problem is what is located between the ears of the general population wherever you are.

Most people have been taught by repeating what they've been told by "authority" that's what makes their utterances true, rather than critically examining what they've been told to see if it really is true. Bluntly most people are indoctrinated and for any significant advances to happen that has to change.

The purpose of the indoctrination is to teach people the way to solve government created problems is to replace the people running the circus. Then they are given "two choices", this clown or that clown. Never considering it might be the circus itself that needs to be changed.

Start there, knowing it's a big task to unwash brains and some will remain dirty despite any mental soap you can offer them.



 

Captain Red Eye

Active member
if only we deregulated more and gave private companies & the market more power!!!!!



^^ shit like this is why capitalists hate Lina Khan, as well

I like it when you imply, nobody should be given power over other's rights, even when your proposed solution is wrong.

I'd appreciate it if you described what you think the difference between a crony capitalist market and an actual free market is. I'd even be willing to stop busting your balls for a while about your silly Sam Seder video.

One thing a crony capitalist and a democratically derived "Universal healthcare system" would have in common, is both rely on the same thing to make them happen. Both take away at least some peoples choices...and will fuck you up if you don't obey.

What if both of those ideas is wrong, because they both use the same wrongful means to effectuate the idea?

What if a free market was the solution because it doesn't use power over others and respects rights? Would you back it then?
 

nepalnt21

FRRRRRResh!
Veteran
That's a bold assertion.

You and I making a consensual trade using things we both were born with or rightfully acquired violates other's rights how?
there's no true consentual trade possible without regulation.

with or without regulation, you (the seller) WILL commit acts of violence against me and my family (the consumers and the innocent bystanders)... the regulation helps ensure the least amount of rights- stepping.

if you disagree, can you ask your billionaire uncle if i can borrow some money?
 

Captain Red Eye

Active member
there's no true consentual trade possible without regulation.

with or without regulation, you (the seller) WILL commit acts of violence against me and my family (the consumers and the innocent bystanders)... the regulation helps ensure the least amount of rights- stepping.

if you disagree, can you ask your billionaire uncle if i can borrow some money?

So, you're my neighbor and need a lawn mower, the one you stole from your other neighbor broke and you've had a pang of conscience and don't want to steal mine.

I don't know you're a mower thief and I trade my spare mower to you for two bicycles you actually paid for.
We both agreed to it and we both got we wanted. No billionaires involved.

How is that free market trade stepping on anyone's toes? Should we have checked with local government to make sure they got a cut of the deal?

Also, you shouldn't have stolen the other neighbor's mower. ;)
 

nepalnt21

FRRRRRResh!
Veteran
surely can't you do that very same trade right now? afterall, we don't live in a free market...

nobody can trade unless it's a free market, obviously.
 

Captain Red Eye

Active member
surely can't you do that very same trade right now? afterall, we don't live in a free market...

nobody can trade unless it's a free market, obviously.

I could only do the hypothetical trade between us if both of us agree. If we do and there's no outside uninvited 3rd party, we did a micro free market trade.

There are lots of free market actions we could try to make where there would be an uninvited 3rd party intervening, so no, there isn't a reigning free market, it exists in the background, since most of what people are "allowed" to do requires some kind of permission or is outright disallowed etc.

Not sure about your last two posts they don't seem congruent if I'm catching your meaning or maybe you're goofing on me and I'm missing that? Genuinely puzzled.

I'm wondering what your definition of a free market is ?
 

Eltitoguay

Well-known member
Ha, ha...
We are missing the  pseudoanarcho-Capitalism Without Limits or Limitations "unappealable mathematical formulations" of the Captain and his chorus of barking dogs, who deduce from "NATURAL LAW", their defense, justification and promotion of these rights (and others even more inhuman, according to many of the leaders behind that ideology) ..:

- 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 no matter how much you try to transform the truth by salivating, chewing, digesting and excreting it... the truth has no remedy.
 
Last edited:

Eltitoguay

Well-known member
But what can we expect when someone follows the interpretation of "NATURAL LAW" tailored to the multimillionaires, and links us to sources from authors who, in addition to all this...

- 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."


...they can even add the "right to be/have slaves" and the "free trade of "free" human beings under the age of majority"... (thank goodness that, at least in this, our Captain does not agree).

And so, thanks to the "art of Doublethink and Newspeak", their "natural law" defends and deduces things contrary to what many others have deduced as "Human Rights"...

As I said, what happens when, in order to talk about "NATURAL LAW,", we ignore Plato, Aristotle, Zeno, Cicero, Sophocles, Thomas Aquinas, Jaime Balmes, Francisco Suarez, Hugo Grotius, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Kant, Krausser, Francisco Ginés de los Ríos, John Finnis... and we links to, and base ourselves, on the pamphlets of people like Murray Rothbard, a inmoral, a racist, misogynist and homophobe, Nazi sympathizer, opposed to egalitarianism and Civil Rights and the Welfare State and women's right to vote, and who also "deduces" from "natural law" :
...the legality of child labor, the treatment of parental authority and the rights of parents over children as a form of property (they can be sold, bought, or rented, freely, with minor children), the legality of blackmail, right to "voluntary slavery or slavery under lawful economic coercion",
among others...
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top