Topic: This is the thread where you discuss free market, americans and libertarianism - page 47. (Read 33901 times)

Lol that wasn't directed at you   I already know I can't get through to you.

But I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. Quite the opposite.
It's right there in the name of the philosophy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism

and now you have practicably called me insane, just because i have a different opinion than you. you are no better than the rest of the world, when it comes to your opinions. You just don't want to admit that you are forcing people, while others are very clear about that.

"Mike Christ"

"s/he"

Seriously? 

Anyway, thanks for answering my question.  Yes, I realize America's a load of horse shit, and it's probably better somewhere else.  But let's not forget, the only reason America rose to such extreme power was through government.  There is no anarchistic society which can band together and start world wars.  If America wasn't the power it was today, it would be Russia, or China, the other massive states.  The point is, I don't like war, and there is no, "But war is necessary because people are people!"  I can't explain that to a statist, as you don't seem to realize there's even an option B, that if government is simply people, why is large government always so disconnected with its people?  Certainly, Anarchism seems very out there, but it's not much different than Atheism.  If 99 out of 100 people believe God is real, doesn't that make that 1 guy a total nut-job?  Yes, because 99 people agree; they don't need logic, or reason, they just need numbers.  The state has nothing but numbers, and anyone who says, "Well, wait a second, what if--" is immediately shot down because how could there be anything different than what there's always been?

Well, we knew you were an evil bastard. But thanks for admitting it.

You've written something after the question, but no time was it actually an answer. Kokjo there, has actually answered. You have evaded.

okay.

Yes i do know that the state is, and yes i do support it.

i have now answered your simple question, i hope you are able to understand my answer.

so you give up, and blame it on me? thats not fair.

and you have done that exact same thing to me, but im still listening to you.

because your arguments are just as lame as mine. Statist -> wrong wrong wrong, they are killing people by the billions! (very very rough sketch, i know)

yeah, you too.

Is it too much to ask that you fit your thoughts into one concise paragraph?    MysteryMiner pulls this same shit, because he refuses to take arguments as complete packages; instead, he isolates every single sentence as if they had nothing to do with each other.  I'm not going to be roving over every small detail; you're still circling around my points, nit-picking what you want out of my argument to fit yours.  If you're not going to answer my question, this same exact question I've presented every single time, why should I answer yours?


Humor me, at least once.

Do you understand what the state is, and do you support what it does?

It's a very simple question, and begs a simple answer.  I'm going to assume, if your next response is more nit-picking, or anything that doesn't remotely resemble "yes" or no", that it's definite support.  In which case, nothing I could ever say will make sense to you; after all, you believe libertarians are basically cultists, and everything which comes out of their mouths is bullshit, right?  So why should I bother arguing if you've determined I'm automatically wrong, before I've ever had the chance to explain?  You already won, bub.  Celebrate.  Go wank.

give me empirical evidence. death of violence per capita.

in denmark there is no death penalty. i do not know in what delusional world you live in.

No, "Statist asshole" is a pejorative. "Statist" is a descriptive term that means "a person who supports a state."

If you view that descriptive term as a pejorative, perhaps there is hope for you yet. Of course, you still have not explained how someone who supports a state is not a sociopathic proxy killer.

There aren't levels of empathy.  You either connect with other people, or you do not connect with other people (as we can see in kokjo's case.)


Statism is to be in support of the state.  The fact of the matter is, most people despise violence.  I don't believe people are inherently violent; rather, they become violent when they compete over resource.  Because that's no longer a large-scale issue in developed countries, it makes sense to keep people going in circles as if they had to be violent to survive.  Most people do not realize they are statists, and most people do not understand what the state is and what it actually does.  I have nothing against someone who has no idea there is an alternative to the system that is now, and these people are not who I am against.  I am against people who do understand the state, and are still in favor of it.  These are the sociopathic proxy killers.

I want to make this absolutely clear.  People who do not understand the inherent violence in statism cannot be labeled statists; rather, they simply don't realize there's anything else.  These people are democrats, republicans, liberals, conservatives, whatever party you can list--the point is, they don't realize what they're doing.  Someone who does not realizing they're supporting a system of violence are being fooled.  They cannot hold blame if they don't understand what it is they're doing.  If you didn't realize you accidentally knocked me off a ledge (silly example, sorry,) and you never realized you killed me, you can't truly be held accountable; you simply didn't know!  But if you did it intentionally, and you knew you were knocking people off ledges and killing them, that's when the tables turn.

So, no, >95% of the world has no clue what their government is about, so they can't be called "sociopathic proxy killers."  It's people who realize they're doing it that troubles me.  Which is why I keep asking you

But it doesn't, you see?

The state is institutionalized violence. It grants a segment of the population the ability to kill you, without repercussions.

Given the choice between nobody having the right to initiate violence, and a segment of the population claiming the sole right to initiate violence, I'm going to pick the first option every time.

I once thought I was autistic...but then I realized that was just another side of the schizo

yup 4 teh lulz!

Well shit!  If I'dda known you were autistic, I wouldn't have pushed so hard

And no, there's no argument.  To argue with you on the basis of empathy results in me saying "Yuh-huh" and you saying "Nuh-uh".  But then again, why are you getting into battles of philosophy knowing you're going in from a cold point of view?  For the fun of it? 

Well, you see, if he continues, you continue to teach him that hitting is wrong.

Vim Vi Repellere Licet.

I foresee infinite recursion, and a bloody face to me.

I'd like to know where you got that from... nowhere do the words "zero" and "tolerance" occur even in the same sentence with one another (well, until this one, of course).

Well, you know what they say about assuming.

On the contrary, that's the only way to know if he has learned. If you pull him off of you, tell him "don't do that," and then place handcuffs on him and prevent him from trying, it's impossible to know if he would try again or not.

so you say we should just have zero-tolerance, instead? wtf man?

I assume(without any evidence) that longer rehabilitation time means greater success.


it does not help very much, to just pull him of me and say "don't do that", and then letting him go.

Except if you limit his possible actions, how will you know when he's rehabilitated? After all, the only way to know is if he fails to try to hit you again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWyZHSZf3TM, the cage is there to limit his possibilities while he is getting rehabilitated.



i have already stated that i have autism, and lack empathy but not logic.

if the state gives me a better chance of survival, then a crazy ass anarchistic system, i will take my chances.

i know what it means, and its not that.

oh, yes there is. are you giving up?

i gets rewarded, yay!

You can't. don't feel bad that you fail it serves no purpose, i can only emulate empathy.