If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE

That a truely individualist free society may never exist.

edited 2011-05-31 03:28:29 in Politics
Inspired by my topic on Libertarianism it seems there will always be some sort of oppressive entity because people apperently want that for several different reasons mostly motivated by fear or religious dogma or whatever. That the Welfare-Warfare state may be an inevitable thing. That people are so scared tht they are willing to let this happen. If it's not the state it's some resource rich collective/organization/corporation. The notion that freedom is dead because of the fear that prevails in the hearts and minds of hte people.
«13

Comments

  • Ideally law exists because an individual has more opportunities in an environment where destructive behavior is discouraged. If you're too lax on regulation, the power shifts farther into the hands of the upper class and the immoral, to the detriment of others.
  • It is in the biology. Pre-programmed into the mind of the average human being. Select any bunch of random mundies and stick them in a biosphere together, and before long one of them will be ordering the rest around and any dissonants will be dead.  Normal humans cannot function individually on any level. They would sacrifice everything that makes them distinct in an instant for a shared group identity.

    The only option, therefore, is a 100% Aspergian society... if one could really call it a society. More like a bunch of persons sorta living in the same place and doing their utmost not to continue arguments with each other.

  • nevermind that the regulation also has negative side-effects that are entirely ignored. Just I think we're heading down a bad road. In this I like to quote Gerald Ford.
  • If you must eat a phoenix, boil it, do not roast it. This only encourages their mischievous habits.
    The side-effects are less detrimental than the other routes.
  • edited 2011-05-31 03:50:58
    Pony Sleuth
    No one is ignoring the side-effects of regulation. We hear people complaining about them all the time.

    In fact, for some people it seems to be all they talk about when the discussion turns to politics.

    Also this^.
  • and you trust that %100? why trust either side?
  • Yes, we're headed down a bad road.
    No, we can't do a single damned thing about it realistically.
    We are all going to die as slaves because most people prefer it that way, far too lazy and useless to exist without someone else telling them how to live their lives.


    And like flies playing a game of chicken with oncoming cars, the biggest impression we'll make is a brief splat on the windshield before being removed by the wiper.

    So we might as well just keep a low profile, take what we can get under the radar, and die before anyone finds out.


     

  • The thing is, you don't have to trust something 100% in order for it to be the best choice. If my only two options involve an 80% chance of death or a 60% chance of death, I'm going to pick the 60% chance, even though I know I'll most likely die.
  • I'd pick the 80%... though it does sorta count on both offering the same MEANS of death.
    But at least life has a 100% chance of death. ^_^
  • It reminds me of an analogy given by Michael Badnarik in one of his lectures (you should check it out I think there's a website with it seperated in to four two hour videos)
  • Likes cheesecake unironically.
    Before I clicked on it.

    Jesus, what's with Libertarians and their obsession with "freedom"...
  • What's with authoritarians and their obsession with the state?
  • *Quirks an eyebrow*

    You would rather be controlled? You into S&M or something?  "Tax me Mr President! Tax me HARD!"

  • Likes cheesecake unironically.
    Yay for extremes, eh?
  • It's threads like these that make people lose their respect for you. Before you answer, I already know you're going to reply "explain ninjaclown how does making threads about the same thing over and over again make people not like me because I want people to like me" (probably not with correct spelling), so I'll answer. You don't seem to understand that by making threads like these you prove a) You do not understand what an extreme is and the difference between it and middle ground, and b) you indirectly (maybe even unintentionally) accuse all of us as content with being controlled by oppressive, authoritarian powers. The world is not black and white, and it's about time you understood what that meant.
  • Well Ninjaclown what do you expect me to turn to? What does everyone expect my political views to be exactly?
  • It's fine to object to certain things in the government, but assuming life can be better under anarchy or overstating the effects that the government has on your life isn't going to allow people to take you seriously.
  • edited 2011-05-31 04:20:24
    i've seen four basic concepts. Complete Liberty, Complete oppression, the social oppression of the right, and the economic oppression of the left. What am I missing?

    Actually Gelzo I used to be Minarchist before turning to my specific variant of Anarchist philosophy.
  • edited 2011-05-31 04:19:48
    If you must eat a phoenix, boil it, do not roast it. This only encourages their mischievous habits.
    ^^^ Reasonable.
  • Exactly what is "reasonable" Cygan? is it not as much an abstraction as what you accuse me of?
  • @ninjaclown...  Maybe he practices what he preaches and doesn't give a toss what "people" think of him.

    Either way... it isn't black and white, but then neither is any view significantly deviatory from the norm itself necessarily a "black and white" perspective.  So what if he picks a viewpoint that appears to be over two standard deviations from the average? Good on him.

    (Gender assumptions made. Alter if necessary.)

  • What exactly has the government done to you? Be specific.

    And anarchy isn't feasible.
  • It's not what it has done to me it's what it has done and tried ot have done to the people. illegal and u8nconstitutional legislation, suppression of free speech on certain grounds and attempts to do so. Seizure and attempted control of peoples property.
  • Ok what about Minarchism?
  • Anarchy isn't sustainable due to human nature (as noted in my first post), but it is a desirable ideal for a small minority of us... and existing closer to it likely feels better than further from it.
  • If you must eat a phoenix, boil it, do not roast it. This only encourages their mischievous habits.
    Tnu, please inform me why the Contitution is such a valid form of control over the government?
  • edited 2011-05-31 04:32:10
    You know this reminds me of a funny story. May I Cygan?

    That's pretty much what it was built for. Read the tenth amendmetn of the US Constitution and tha tmay clear it up. as well as the ninth amendment. it establishes a government of enumerated powers in essence strictly defining the government to ensure that it doesn't overstep its boundaries. the difference being that many constitutions are quite large and say what the state "can't" do while ours is small, simplistic, and states only what it "can" do so there should ideally be no room for ambiguity of "technically it doesn't say the governmetn can't do this".
  • If you must eat a phoenix, boil it, do not roast it. This only encourages their mischievous habits.
    Preferably not.
  • I need to remember when to stop bothering.
Sign In or Register to comment.