Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

President Trump seems willing to open up the economy sooner rather than later

Republic Of Minerva

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:2. Nobody, and I mean nobody ever fell into poverty by some uncontrollable accident. If you fall into poverty, it's you're own lack of due diligence and failure to properly prepare. I would sure love examples of people gaining wealth by the power of some outside force they had no control of, because that sounds very interesting.

Okay... like cases of catastrophic injury or illness?

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Oh that's great... but has no relevance at all in a secular state. You believe this? Do it yourself by yourself, but please don't force your religion on anyone else.

I can, will and am encouraged by the founding fathers to vote with a religious conscious and with my values maintained.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:1. Again, they failed to prepare.

2. You can maintain your values and vote with your conscience without forcing your religious beliefs on everyone else.

1. The assertion that the millions of Americans who fall into poverty because of catastrophic injury or illness is their fault as they “didn’t prepare” is literally just stupid

2. When did I force my religious beliefs on anyone?

Kongeriget Island

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:1. It's really not stupid. It's the free market (or, specifically, the free labor market). They didn't prepare, and now they can't sell their labor ("can't").

2. Were you not advocating a safety net on the basis that "my Christian" beliefs...

1. If they ‘can’t’ sell their labor, then it is not their fault. Which is my entire point.

2. And? I’m not forcing a religious view on anyone. I’m taking a position that’s secular but from my religious values, which are inherently tied to my own values.

Kongeriget Island

I would NEVER suggest that that one virus, y'all know the one, is being blown out of proportion by the MSM to justify authoritarian, statist, actions. Hear that NS mods? That's a thing I'm NOT suggesting...

Wheatonleks

Auxorii wrote:Okay... like cases of catastrophic injury or illness?

It is not the job of the Secular State to care for you if you are ill or injured. That is the role of the People (and in America through their friends, families, churches, communities and benevolence organizations). Do you really want the secular state deciding your fate if you are ill or injured -- that eventually never goes well when their are Hilters, Stalins, Mussolinis and Maos in the wings ready to use the public largess to murder its Citizenry in the name of Health and Human Services?

Nobody starved to death in the great depression, nobody died of bureaucratic stupidity during the Great San Francisco Earthquake of 1906. (In fact the world was amazed at how many people were helped so quickly by their own Citizens when their was no government to get in the way of the People helping the People (which is counter-intuitive to the typical European who thinks that government getting in the way is helping.)) All this changed with starting with Wilson, and FDR, then resurged with LBJ, Nixon/Ford, Carter and despite Reagan's efforts whey are straddled with a government that has usurped the rights, duties, and responsibilities reserved to the People themselves.

People died because of FEMA stupidity during Katrina, and thousands denied immediate aid because they would not let the real first respondents in -- the HAM operators, the volunteer doctors, the Scouts, the Churches with food, clothing, supplies, not to mention the brown water boat organization specifically prepared to help in these situations. FEMA screwed it up so badly, that the US Navy had to be called in for crying out loud. People were arrested for doing what they normally do to help other -- commandeer buses to get as many people out of the rising floods as possible. Government instead illegally detained people in unsanitary conditions in a stadium where people were continuously assaulted and worse under the noses of their supposed government providers turned jailers.

The People have provided care and training through their Churches and their colleges, universities, hospitals, and charities (clothes, food, shelter) for centuries until the Marxists power grab to make them a function of the State. All this extraneous garbage does more harm than good.

Auxorii wrote:I can, will and am encouraged by the founding fathers to vote with a religious conscious and with my values maintained.

This is good. Our Founders maintained that their was the Secular Sword, and the Spiritual Sword. The state is the secular sword, and that is what the Constitution is about. The spiritual sword is the Church, and its province is health , education, and benevolence (charity) as it has been doing for centuries before there were colonies here.

As long as one remembers which domain is which, this is a very good thing. The state has no business doing anything but stopping bad guys from defrauding and taking other people's stuff (their lives, liberty, and property). The Church is free to govern itself and maintain their Universities, Hospitals, and Benevolence Organization (Welfare and Charitable organizations). In a free country that is a constitutional republic this is the norm. As we become less free and more of a totalitarian/authoritarian police state the less liberty and fewer freedoms we can engage in -- so far as to kick Christians out of education, health, welfare, and even their voice in the public forum.

Everyone has values. The Statist has values, the Anarchist has values, the Atheist Secularist has values, the Christian Secularist has values etc. Do not confuse secular with Secularist. There are Atheist Secularist/Atheist Humanists, and Christian Secularist/Humanists -- one is a Statist goon, whose government is his god, and the state is his religion; and the other their God is God, and government is public servant amenable to both God and the individual and which is not to be convulsed with the Church. The State is not God and can never be. The lie propagated in the US to destroy society by the Soviets was to confuse the terms to destroy our societal fabric of the religiously delusional bourgeoisie and institute proper Atheist governance.

addenda:

When the anti-theistic Secularist says you cannot impose your religious values, they are imposing their religious values on you. They have just as no right to impose their values on you that you do on them. You have every right to give a defense and argument for the hope that lies within you. You have every right to live as a Christian in the public square -- there is nothing lawful about doing good, and proclaiming the Gospel. The Libertarian Atheist even if he is a Secularist will not deny you your idiosyncratic foolishness (in his mind) as they and we at least hold the same concepts of Secularism (through their Objectivism) as the Classical Liberal Evangelical (Objective Realism). We agree on the ontology (the nature of good government), but not the epistemology (our understanding of why it is that way).

Auxorii

I don’t believe the state should have power over morality which is a deeply personal endeavor, no judge has any more right to declare what is right or wrong than anyone else does, no matter how fancy their robe might be

Wheatonleks wrote:I don’t believe the state should have power over morality which is a deeply personal endeavor, no judge has any more right to declare what is right or wrong than anyone else does, no matter how fancy their robe might be

One has to make a self-refuting moral argument in order to deny morality. The question remains, "Is it right to do good, or right to do harm?" What state of the state there is must operate morally, not immorally. I would prefer that mankind were angels and did not anything other than self-governance, but this doesn't cohere to the nature of reality.

Narland wrote:One has to make a self-refuting moral argument in order to deny morality. The question remains, "Is it right to do good, or right to do harm?" What state of the state there is must operate morally, not immorally. I would prefer that mankind were angels and did not anything other than self-governance, but this doesn't cohere to the nature of reality.

Well of course if one of the options is “do good” than it’s a simple enough question, but that being an option implies that we know precisely what it means to “do good,” and that is a question that we haven’t been able to answer since the question was first asked, and like the question of “which god/gods is/are real” it is a question that has been the center of countless dramas, war, and disagreements, and much like the state has no place declaring which religions are correct, the state also has no right to declare which moral philosophies are correct

Should the deontologists be forced to sacrifice their principles in order to create the most happiness for the most people? Should utilitarians be forced to follow deontological principles if it means abandoning their calculations?

If a state is “democratic” and the majority white population is convinced that being black is a sin, and then the holy law makers ascribe that to stone, does that make being black immoral?

And who gets to decide that a man can’t rule himself? Who has the right to impose their way of living, their morality, their god, their diet, their language, their customs, on someone else?

Narland wrote:It is not the job of the State to care for you if you are ill or injured. That is the role of the People (and in America through their friends, families, churches, communities and benevolence organizations).

I think it’s about what system is most efficient in providing the most quality care to their citizens; in the U.S, I believe that that would be more in a more free market.

However, the U.S healthcare system right now is raveled with red tape and bureaucracy. It’s not a free market, so a lot of solutions that would typically solve for a free market wouldn’t in the case of the U.S, and as many Americans due to the failure and absurdity of the system don’t have access to quality healthcare and there needs to be a public option.

Also, you talk about these “organizations” of People. If it is the role of the People, then I see no reason why the People can’t organize a State if that is the most efficient way to fulfill their means in a circumstance.

Jadentopian Order, Kongeriget Island

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Auxorii wrote:I think it’s about what system is most efficient in providing the most quality care to their citizens; in the U.S, I believe that that would be more in a more free market.

However, the U.S healthcare system right now is raveled with red tape and bureaucracy. It’s not a free market, so a lot of solutions that would typically solve for a free market wouldn’t in the case of the U.S, and as many Americans due to the failure and absurdity of the system don’t have access to quality healthcare and there needs to be a public option.

Also, you talk about these “organizations” of People. If it is the role of the People, then I see no reason why the People can’t organize a State as it’s the most practical and efficient way to have structured organization in society.

There’s so much red-tape because of the state breathing down the backs of insurance companies and drug companies with their regulations, and at the same time the US government causes prices to go up by not allowing genuine competition, the US government favors companies and gives them money, bails them out when they fail, if the US had a genuine free market economy, if we got rid of government regulations and subsidies, than companies would have legitimate competition, and they would be falling over each other trying to give the consumer the best options, the best care, and the best quality, because if they don’t someone else will and they’ll go out of business

With a state company there is no competition, you get what you get, and the American people deserve better than that, they deserve to be fought for, they deserve to have people competing to give them the best deal they can give, not just one option

Narland, Auxorii

Wheatonleks wrote:There’s so much red-tape because of the state breathing down the backs of insurance companies and drug companies with their regulations, and at the same time the US government causes prices to go up by not allowing genuine competition, the US government favors companies and gives them money, bails them out when they fail, if the US had a genuine free market economy, if we got rid of government regulations and subsidies, than companies would have legitimate competition, and they would be falling over each other trying to give the consumer the best options, the best care, and the best quality, because if they don’t someone else will and they’ll go out of business

With a state company there is no competition, you get what you get, and the American people deserve better than that, they deserve to be fought for, they deserve to have people competing to give them the best deal they can give, not just one option

I agree with you completely- however, my point is that it would take years in order to transform our healthcare system to be an actual free market system, and until then, I believe there has to be a public option to cover those with catastrophic injury or illness or who cannot afford health insurance.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:I agree with you completely, except for the part where you said that the state is the most practical and efficient way to have structure organization in society...

...the part where you say that there is no reason for people to not be able to form a coercive system to enforce moral actions that should be left to individuals to figure out voluntarily.

I actually edited that after I posted it as I didn’t agree with that phrasing either to “...if that is the most efficient way to fulfill their means in a circumstance.” as I still believe a government in some form is necessary for some issues.

Oh Wil, you have such a way with twisting words~

Auxorii wrote:I agree with you completely- however, my point is that it would take years in order to transform our healthcare system to be an actual free market system, and until then, I believe there has to be a public option to cover those with catastrophic injury or illness or who cannot afford health insurance.

I actually edited that after I posted it as I didn’t agree with that phrasing either to “...if that is the most efficient way to fulfill their means in a circumstance.” as I still believe a government in some form is necessary for some issues.

Oh Wil, you have such a way with twisting words~

I don't think it would be harder than creating a public option, and it certainly wouldn't cost as many tax-payer dollars, just have the government completely remove itself, end the subsidies, end the regulations

I think the world would be far better off without states dictating morality and infringing on the free market

Wheatonleks wrote:I don't think it would be harder than creating a public option, and it certainly wouldn't cost as many tax-payer dollars, just have the government completely remove itself, end the subsidies, end the regulations

I think the world would be far better off without states dictating morality and infringing on the free market

I think that the effort of the government “completely removing itself, ending the subsidies, ending the regulations” would take years. Not only do you have all those regulations and red tape to undo, but you also have the entire medicare and medicaid system to dismantle in that case.

Auxorii wrote:I think that the effort of the government “completely removing itself, ending the subsidies, ending the regulations” would take years. Not only do you have all those regulations and red tape to undo, but you also have the entire medicare and medicaid system to dismantle in that case.

I think it would definitely be a hard fight, statists have a lot of power, but the doing itself wouldn't take very long, the freemarket is the natural state of affairs, and all you would need to do to return to that would be to remove funding from the subsidies, the agencies which enforce regulations, and the state insurance, at the point they have no impact, and the first step of that is making sure the state doesn't increase its interference

Narland

Wheatonleks wrote:I think it would definitely be a hard fight, statists have a lot of power, but the doing itself wouldn't take very long, the freemarket is the natural state of affairs, and all you would need to do to return to that would be to remove funding from the subsidies, the agencies which enforce regulations, and the state insurance, at the point they have no impact, and the first step of that is making sure the state doesn't increase its interference

The process of having millions of people changing from state healthcare over to private would have to take years alone. You can’t just cut the funding to their healthcare.

Auxorii wrote:The process of having millions of people changing from state healthcare over to private would have to take years alone. You can’t just cut the funding to their healthcare.

You'd be surprised by how quickly the market can self-correct once it's left to its own devices, and the millions of jobs that open up once the government bureaucracy is cut means that people will be able to fight to get good healthcare, not just be stuck in perpetual poverty because the government doesn't allow them to move up

Narland

Wheatonleks wrote:You'd be surprised by how quickly the market can self-correct once it's left to its own devices, and the millions of jobs that open up once the government bureaucracy is cut means that people will be able to fight to get good healthcare, not just be stuck in perpetual poverty because the government doesn't allow them to move up

I believe in a free market because I think it’s the most efficient.

That being said, it’s not a religion. I have no idea what the healthcare economy would look like after that massive transformation, and truth be told- you do not either. There is market theory and the hand of the market and all, but at the end of the day we live in a highly unpredictable, highly industrialized and rapidly evolving economy that I could see completely taking advantage of people or providing the best quality solutions we ever thought possible. I assume the reality will be somewhere in between.

Narland, Rateria

Auxorii wrote:I believe in a free market because I think it’s the most efficient.

That being said, it’s not a religion. I have no idea what the healthcare economy would look like after that massive transformation, and truth be told- you do not either. There is market theory and the hand of the market and all, but at the end of the day we live in a highly unpredictable, highly industrialized and rapidly evolving economy that I could see completely taking advantage of people or providing the best quality solutions we ever thought possible. I assume the reality will be somewhere in between.

And I think the best way to answer that question is to unleash those creative chaotic energies, and I guarantee that what the people genuinely vote for, with their wallet, will be better than anything some bureaucrat could come up with

Narland, Auxorii

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Sometimes you have to twist a thing to make it straight.

Oh no

Auxorii, Kongeriget Island

Auxorii wrote:I think it’s about what system is most efficient in providing the most quality care to their citizens; in the U.S, I believe that that would be more in a more free market.

However, the U.S healthcare system right now is raveled with red tape and bureaucracy. It’s not a free market, so a lot of solutions that would typically solve for a free market wouldn’t in the case of the U.S, and as many Americans due to the failure and absurdity of the system don’t have access to quality healthcare and there needs to be a public option.

Also, you talk about these “organizations” of People. If it is the role of the People, then I see no reason why the People can’t organize a State if that is the most efficient way to fulfill their means in a circumstance.

Umm, so you're saying the solution to healthcare over-regulation is more regulation and control?

Statist healthcare reforms, I believe, are more difficult to achieve than free-market ones. The Trump Administration has already committed a number of positive deregulatory actions allowing more experimentation, greater competition and more individual choice, and all of that with just regulatory changes and executive orders (and, of course, the Ind. Mandate was terminated by law). Every major legislative attempt at healthcare reform since the 70s, under Nixon, Carter, Clinton and Trump has failed, except for one, Obamacare, and even then it took bringing in a dying senator and significantly gutting the bill (including taking out the public option) just to make it passable in the Senate. Under all four of those presidents I mentioned, both the president and the Congress agreed on the principles of healthcare reform, and in each case it was defeated by the details.

I think creating a public option would be more complicated. I think free market healthcare reform is easier and more tangible than we imagine. Very broadly speaking, the main problem with the system right now is that it restricts supply. Getting these swept aside just takes political willpower, something hard to come by in an election year.

Narland, Wheatonleks

Pevvania wrote:Umm, so you're saying the solution to healthcare over-regulation is more regulation and control

I’m saying the solution is to slowly transition to a free market system maintaining safety nets instead of just cutting off people’s healthcare because you think that would work better.

If I could wave a magic wand, I would end regulations and mandates, cut subsidies and end the bureaucracy. Have a skinny repeal of the Affordable Care Act to strip it to it’s essentials, then take Obamacare, merge it with medicare, medicaid and all the other forms of state provided healthcare into a basic public option. I think there should be a free market in healthcare and the government shouldn’t interfere with it; but I also believe there could be a voluntary and affordable public option that would provide a safety net for all Americans.

Pevvania, Kongeriget Island

Auxorii wrote:I’m saying the solution is to slowly transition to a free market system maintaining safety nets instead of just cutting off people’s healthcare because you think that would work better.

If I could wave a magic wand, I would end regulations and mandates, cut subsidies and end the bureaucracy. Have a skinny repeal of the Affordable Care Act to strip it to it’s essentials, then take Obamacare, merge it with medicare, medicaid and all the other forms of state provided healthcare into a basic public option. I think there should be a free market in healthcare and the government shouldn’t interfere with it; but I also believe there could be a voluntary and affordable public option that would provide a safety net for all Americans.

Ok, I get you. That's a pretty reasonable position. A public option would definitely be preferably to the complicated mess we have now, if we're taking one or the other.

Narland, Auxorii

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:The virus that caused all those worldwide problems in that one movie was not the result of a failure of the Chinese government to control a situation it caused. The media in that movie did not cause unnecessary mass hysteria for their own profit and in alliance with that one fictional political party. That one fictional political party did not exploit the situation and the panic that was not manufactured by the media to push its own political agenda and influence the coming election in that movie. Government responses in that movie were completely appropriate and legal.

Wow living on the edge I see

Narland

Auxorii wrote:I’m saying the solution is to slowly transition to a free market system maintaining safety nets instead of just cutting off people’s healthcare because you think that would work better.

If I could wave a magic wand, I would end regulations and mandates, cut subsidies and end the bureaucracy. Have a skinny repeal of the Affordable Care Act to strip it to it’s essentials, then take Obamacare, merge it with medicare, medicaid and all the other forms of state provided healthcare into a basic public option. I think there should be a free market in healthcare and the government shouldn’t interfere with it; but I also believe there could be a voluntary and affordable public option that would provide a safety net for all Americans.

I understand that the place you’re coming from is good, and I think the idea of a public option is very seductive, but we have to think of the larger ramifications of that, having a government mandated system will hamper competition and stagnate innovation, meaning that the solutions to the problems were trying to solve will come much slower than they should

Then there’s the issue of taxation, is it right to take someone’s money without their consent, even if that’s for a noble goal? And will the money some people save by this makeup the amount they have to pay through taxes, take our government retirement plans as an example, people don’t get back what they put into that system, and if we got rid of that system they could invest that money and get all their money back plus interest, the same is true of government insurance, especially since taxation often hits the people proponents of government healthcare are trying to help the hardest, they lose more in a government system than they get back, and that’s a really bad deal

Narland

Why do we have embassies with statist regions?

Wheatonleks wrote:Why do we have embassies with statist regions?

Because we're not all Anarchists here. Plus, most Anarchist regions on NS are leftist and hostile.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Post self-deleted by Narland.

Wheatonleks wrote:Well of course if one of the options is “do good” than it’s a simple enough question, but that being an option implies that we know precisely what it means to “do good,” and that is a question that we haven’t been able to answer since the question was first asked, and like the question of “which god/gods is/are real” it is a question that has been the center of countless dramas, war, and disagreements, and much like the state has no place declaring which religions are correct, the state also has no right to declare which moral philosophies are correct

Should the deontologists be forced to sacrifice their principles in order to create the most happiness for the most people?

Depends. If their "principles" do not line up with objective reality, they need to be committed or find a less harmful occupation for their "skills" such as mosquito abatement, if they don't find that too morally reprehensible.

Wheatonleks wrote:Should utilitarians be forced to follow deontological principles if it means abandoning their calculations?
Depends. If their "calculations" cannot solve the equation to recognize the life, liberty and property of another individual, they need to be medicated or find a more suitable occupation for their "skills" such as slaughterhouse manager, if they aren't too dissatisfied with the limits imposed on them over beasts instead of humans.

Wheatonleks wrote:If a state is “democratic” and the majority white population is convinced that being black is a sin, and then the holy law makers ascribe that to stone, does that make being black immoral?
You answered your own question. At least you should have. It was a Democrat controlled Supreme Court that made the Dredd Scott decision that forced the rest of the Country to rise up and put a stop to the lunacy. Only humans can be morally vacuous enough to think (actually not think) that democracy could be a framework for justification of any political action; or tyranny, or oligarchy.

Wheatonleks wrote:And who gets to decide that a man can’t rule himself? Who has the right to impose their way of living, their morality, their god, their diet, their language, their customs, on someone else?

Again, you answered your own question. Or at least you should have. The man himself with his own reason and within reason, should he be capable of recognizing the most basic of self-evident truths upon examining reality objectively, and the nature of his own nature in dealing with others; has the capacity to do what is right and is in his right to do so and therefore need no other external governance than Nature and Nature's God. If he rise to maturity and productivity and remain moral and just he will extend the same courtesy to others. If he be selfish, immature, indolent, or despotic he will deny this to others. Ultimately one can only speak for and govern oneself. If he does not he will be governed be others. --in the US anyway, as it was conceived.

Suzi Island wrote:President Trump seems willing to open up the economy sooner rather than later

Not if he signs that abomination of a "stimulus" bill. He will guarantee that we party like its 1979. There is no was even with our productivity as Americans that we will be able to work our way out economically. I will not live long enough to watch the debasement of the $$$ rebound back to where we were when Trump was elected.

Wheatonleks

Auxorii wrote:I think it’s about what system is most efficient in providing the most quality care to their citizens; in the U.S, I believe that that would be more in a more free market.

However, the U.S healthcare system right now is raveled with red tape and bureaucracy. It’s not a free market, so a lot of solutions that would typically solve for a free market wouldn’t in the case of the U.S, and as many Americans due to the failure and absurdity of the system don’t have access to quality healthcare and there needs to be a public option.

Also, you talk about these “organizations” of People. If it is the role of the People, then I see no reason why the People can’t organize a State if that is the most efficient way to fulfill their means in a circumstance.

Free and open markets with self-governing people free to make their own decisions over their own healthcare is the most efficient. Americans as People do form their own states within States. That is what professional associations used to be about. The were self-governing NGOs that held their fellow professionals accountable for quality, efficiency,ethics, and productivity upon pain of banishment. However, once government gets involved focus is diverted from the client/customer to the bureacracy. They start pleasing the bureaucrat over the client and the graft, collusion, and corruption begins.

Miencraft, Wheatonleks

Auxorii wrote:I agree with you completely- however, my point is that it would take years in order to transform our healthcare system to be an actual free market system, and until then, I believe there has to be a public option to cover those with catastrophic injury or illness or who cannot afford health insurance.

It doesn't have to be.

Auxorii wrote:The process of having millions of people changing from state healthcare over to private would have to take years alone. You can’t just cut the funding to their healthcare.

All Congress has to do is defund everything that has gotten in the way of free and open markets. It could be done with the stroke of a pen. Congress gets too much of its power from special interest and bureaucratic control, so they won't. But they could return us back with one bill, that the President signs.

Yes the transition would take time, but that is what free enterprise does best -- innumerable migration through instantaneous transactions.

Wheatonleks

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Sometimes you have to twist a thing to make it straight.

Spoken like my attorney. If you aren't in law, you might have missed your calling.

Rateria

Narland wrote:Spoken like my attorney. If you aren't in law, you might have missed your calling.

I pray for the unfortunate soul who has to present a case against Wil

Narland, Rateria

My neighbor let his kids know that the coronavirus can live for up to 24 hours on cardboard, 48 hours on stainless steel, 72 hours on plastics, and forever on TV remotes. He then pretended to sneeze on the remote, thinking he would have it all to himself. The next day when he got home from work his kids had run the DirectTV remote through the dishwasher. DTV can deliver a new one to him in three days. lol.

Rateria, Wheatonleks

Skaveria wrote:Because we're not all Anarchists here. Plus, most Anarchist regions on NS are leftist and hostile.

I think libertarianism kind of transcends the left/right divide, yes in economic matters we're as far-right as you can be, but often in social-issues we've historically aligned ourselves far-more with the left than the right, particularly on things like drugs

I'd agree more with conservatives on economic matters, but I'd probably agree much more with a liberal on social matters, that's where the whole fiscally-conservative but socially-liberal catchphrase comes from

So I can half understand us having embassies with conservative regions because we'd agree with them more on economic matters, but why do we have embassies with a region like Right To Life, a region specifically made up of people who want to increase the power the state has on reproductive matters?

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Jadentopian Order wrote:I pray for the unfortunate soul who has to present a case against Wil

I pray for the unfortunate judge who’ll have to hear it.

Narland, Rateria, Jadentopian Order, Kongeriget Island

The time is late. If you want to party like its 1979 do nothing. Stagflation, malaise, +20% inflation, +20% unemployment and +20% prime lending rates, family businesses closing at a rate higher than the Great Depression are in this "stimulus" bill. The Keynesian Swampmonsters buddying up to Trump are hellbent on starting up the Keynesian death spiral of Stimulate/Raise Wages/Stimulate/Raise Wages ad naseum.

Please call your Senators and let them know that you do not want to be stimulated to death. No nation has ever spent itself out of debt, or stimulated its way to prosperity. 30 year of Keynes led up to the Stagflation and Malaise of the 1970s. If you are too young to remember, ask someone who had to suffer through the Leftist/Progressivist reign of "experts" under LBJ, Nixon/Ford, and Carter.

When talking to your elected servants, Tell them that the best thing they can do is to get out of the way -- no stimulus, no paying people to be unproductive. We can survive better without them than if they continue to muddle the economy further.

If they insist on meddling, have them consider foreclosure moratorium and rent federal until the economy rebounds. This is where the problem is. The simplest way to handle it, is for Congress to deal with the banks, and stay out of the hair of the People who need to make and earn a living.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:As a Libertarian, I do not believe that opposition to abortion equals statism. I also do not believe you have a right to have an abortion.

On a personal, individual, level of course not, just as you can be against the hoarding of money, or any other moral position, but when you start saying that the state should be enforcing your morality on others, which is what many pro-life people believe, than you are being a statist and an authoritarian

Of course not, positive freedom is philosophical garbage, you’re not entitled to anything, if you can’t find an abortion service that works for you than you aren’t entitled to one, but in a free market you do have the ability to look for one

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:I am of the opinion that abortion is murder.

And that's a fine opinion to hold, just don't push your morality on others and I won't push mine on yours

Wheatonleks wrote:And that's a fine opinion to hold, just don't push your morality on others and I won't push mine on yours

The problem is that if abortion is murder, it's a clear violation of the NAP. Seeing as regular adult murder is too. The argument of "don't push your morality on me." Falls apart when the person in question thinks you're literally about to kill a person. A woman going into an abortion clinic to them, is similar to seeing someone point a gun at someone else's head.

Narland, Auxorii, The United States Of Patriots

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Well, see, as said before, some sort of morality has to exist. That is, the morality to which all men agree: which is the NAP. Murder is a violation of the NAP.

Maybe, if there is a universal morality we certainly can’t seem to agree what that is, and I think we know from his history what happens when we give the state the power to enforce its own morality, and it never ends well

Skaveria wrote:The problem is that if abortion is murder, it's a clear violation of the NAP. Seeing as regular adult murder is too. The argument of "don't push your morality on me." Falls apart when the person in question thinks you're literally about to kill a person. A woman going into an abortion clinic to them, is similar to seeing someone point a gun at someone else's head.

Do you think a state should be able to enforce its morality on others that don’t agree to it?

Wheatonleks wrote:Do you think a state should be able to enforce its morality on others that don’t agree to it?

He believes that the state should enforce the NAP; which abortion violates.

Kongeriget Island

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Wheatonleks wrote:Do you think a state should be able to enforce its morality on others that don’t agree to it?

If that immorality involves a violation of the NAP, such as murder, then yes

Auxorii

Wheatonleks wrote:Do you think a state should be able to enforce its morality on others that don’t agree to it?

I'm not an Anarchist, so I believe the state has the role of protecting it's citizens from harm. Murder definitely constitutes harm, so yeah.

The abortion thing is unfortunately very black and white. If one believes, as I do, that an unborn child has personhood the same way a born one does, the killing of that child is unequivocally murder. If the unborn child didn't have personhood, killing it would have the same moral weight as removing a cyst or tumor, and I'd be pro-choice.

Essentially, what you're asking me to do is if I saw you about to kill some minority (just as an example, not calling you racist) and I said "How about you don't do that?" You reply "x minority aren't people anyways." I say "yes, the are" and you ask me to "Agree to disagree and respect my decision."

Well actually no, no I don't respect the decision. I'm going to attempt to stop this murder. There are externalities (the example minority or an unborn child) I don't care if you don't know the externalities exist. That may help me understand you're not a bad person for doing this, but regardless, I'm GOING to attempt to make this murder not happen.

Narland, The United States Of Patriots, Kongeriget Island, Aglonia

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Well, see, as said before, some sort of morality has to exist. That is, the morality to which all men agree: which is the NAP. Murder is a violation of the NAP.

And you trust the state with the ability to define what counts as aggression? Many would even say that looking at someone the wrong way is an act of aggression, if the state agrees with that opinion should people be punished for that?

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

since when did questioning a scientist or their theories validity become anti-science? Isn't science supposed to be about questioning and looking for answers. In other words has "science" become another tool for partisan hacks to prescribe illogical, unproven, and potentially dangerous laws?

Miencraft, Narland, Kongeriget Island, Wheatonleks

Skaveria wrote:I'm not an Anarchist, so I believe the state has the role of protecting it's citizens from harm. Murder definitely constitutes harm, so yeah.

The abortion thing is unfortunately very black and white. If one believes, as I do, that an unborn child has personhood the same way a born one does, the killing of that child is unequivocally murder. If the unborn child didn't have personhood, killing it would have the same moral weight as removing a cyst or tumor, and I'd be pro-choice.

Essentially, what you're asking me to do is if I saw you about to kill some minority (just as an example, not calling you racist) and I said "How about you don't do that?" You reply "x minority aren't people anyways." I say "yes, the are" and you ask me to "Agree to disagree and respect my decision."

Well actually no, no I don't respect the decision. I'm going to attempt to stop this murder. There are externalities (the example minority or an unborn child) I don't care if you don't know the externalities exist. That may help me understand you're not a bad person for doing this, but regardless, I'm GOING to attempt to make this murder not happen.

Do you trust the state to define what counts as harm, many would say that certain jokes are harmful to the minorities you brought up, if the state agrees should people be put in jail for having the wrong sense of humor?

And I absolutely respect that, and just like I don’t think the state has the right to stop abortions I also believe that the state doesn’t have the right to try and stop individuals from trying to stop abortions themselves, and since you said that to you would respond to abortion in the same way you would a KKK lynching I’m sure you’ll find far more creative and effective ways to stop that then some bureaucrat, who were never that good at stopping abortions anyway, like they are with everything else

The danger with giving the power the state to do that however is that the state is unaccountable, and if you give them the power to stop abortions that also give them the power to stop your protests or whatever else you’re doing to stop abortions.

Frankly from the position of pro-life, from the position of abortions should be stopped, the state is the last entity you want having control over that fight, because even when it was illegal there were abortions being performed all over the place, in back alleys with coat hangers and so many other places, I think if anything now that it’s legal you at least have centralized locations where abortions happen instead of it just being at random changing locations, now that they’re centralized you can protest there or do whatever else you deem moral, but regardless you’d be much better off forming your own private organizations to combat abortion then you would by spending resources on the state, which is never effective at anything

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:That doesn't make much sense within the context of the NAP.

Sure it does, because like any philosophical concept it has to be defined, and the state has the legal power to define these things

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:If the state is capable of redefining the NAP into something coercive, then society, which upholds the state, has decayed to a point where it wouldn't matter either way whether the state enforces morality or not.

The state is already capable of that, it’s the nature of the state, the state controls media, education, news especially, the state has an enormous amount of control over what people think

Just look around you, people think aggression means jokes, looks, look up microaggressions, and the state is full of these people, and the state encourages these people, because it increases the power of the state over our lives

Narland

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:And your alternative would be?

Not having one organization with a monopoly on reality, a world where a myriad of views are possible, of schools that are catholic, Buddhist, posadist, atheist, Wiccan, where people are allowed to believe and say what they want and form communities of people who believe the same, organic communities, not arbitrary enforced borders

A world where things are left for free individuals to run, where the only people involved in an exchange are you and the person you’re talking to, where the only one raising your kids are you, and where the only person creating your truth is you

A world where free individuals run the economy, not hapless bureaucrats

My alternative would be to abolish the state and let the market be free

Narland

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:This.

I bring it up a lot, because it's important: Freemasonry, without the aid of government, was one of the principal causes and drivers of the great upheaval which we call the Age of Enlightenment. The reason is pretty simple: its very essence promoted republicanism, secularism, popular sovereignty, the concept of the Human Race (the radical idea that Man constitutes a single family with common origin and destiny), elections, nation-states, etcetera. The rituals and traditions of Freemasonry foster the morality and philosophy necessary to unite men in pursuance and in defense of this, without the aid of government. This private enterprise (as well similar cooperative organizations) that has erected public schools, hospitals, and orphanages that provide for the welfare of society. It is only in recent history, with rise of the idea that it is the state's, as opposed to the individual's, duty to provide things that altruism has died amongst the masses, and with it the support for the great innovations of the Enlightenment which form the basis of modern civilization.

100% agree with your sentiment. It is essentially important to get across. It is about living free not just talking about being free like an armchair quarterback.

We live our own lives as individuals in free association with each other that are part of communities that are in free association as institutions (a voluntary free state (organization -- little s) within an established State (big S). In a free country the State is relegated to staying our of people's way so the People can govern themselves. I think this is where Neolibs and Neocons miss the distinction, and Statists and Leftist/Progressivists deny the difference.

With a free people, when someone ought to do something they are free to do what is right, just and good (and if they have the ethic) they can, will, and do rise to the occasion (with their own state (within a State) in their own self-governance with little or no cost to the community as a state (free association institution).

With a despotic people, when someone ought to do something they are shackled, lazy-minded (or outright evil) they can, will, and do call on the state (as if its government is obligated to do more than maintain itself) to do the least amount with materials from the lowest bidder at the highest tax increase possible as the state of the State.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote: ...
Again I totally agree with the sentiment. Where I disagree is that I think you give too much worship to Freemasonry. I see Freemasonry was a mere part of a the societal whole of freemen in free associations. That Freemason was a part is laudable. As you know, I do not think all lodges are demonic, just as not all churches are godly, and some are diabolic. Churches, militias, community organizations, benevolence organisations, unions (when not being a tool of Hegelian dialectics to attain Statism) were all part of the dynamic.

Narland wrote:100% agree with your sentiment. It is essentially important to get across. It is about living free not just talking about being free like an armchair quarterback.

We live our own lives as individuals in free association with each other that are part of communities that are in free association as institutions (a voluntary free state (organization) within an established State (Ceasar)). In a free country the State is relegated to staying our of people's way so the People can govern themselves. I think this is where Statists, and Leftists miss the distinction.

With a free people, when someone ought to do something they are free to do what is right, just and good (and if they have the ethic) they can, will, and do rise to the occasion (with their own state (within a State) in their own self-governance with little or no cost to the community as a state (free association institution).

With a despotic people, when someone ought to do something they are shackled, lazy-minded (or outright evil) they can, will, and do call on the state (as if its government is obligated to do more than maintain itself) to do the least amount with materials from the lowest bidder at the highest tax increase possible as the state of the State.

That sounds pretty good, certainly ideal compared to what we have today, but then I think the fact arises that within states you will have people who disagree with the morality of the state, and the state will enforce that morality on them anyway, even forcing people to do things they don’t see as right, just as good, meaning they cannot live as free individuals living life as they see fit to live.

And you will also have to have someone with the power to decide who is and who is not part of “the community,” and historically a lot of people have been excluded from that, queer people, black people, women. And it will have to be decided what it means to harm that community, and there are many theories as to what that means, which are again founded on the question of who exactly is a part of “the community.”

Narland

So apparently we have embassies with a monarchist region, very libertarian indeed...

Wheatonleks wrote:So apparently we have embassies with a monarchist region, very libertarian indeed...

Would you rather we be an affable/social and gregarious region or an inhospitable/unsocial and elitist region?

One can draw more flies with honey than than AXE body spray. :) If one wanted to draw flies that is. At the very least lets players in other regions know we are here when they look at their regions board.

Rateria, The United States Of Patriots

Narland wrote:Would you rather we be an affable/social and gregarious region or an inhospitable/unsocial and elitist region?

One can draw more flies with honey than than AXE body spray. :) If one wanted to draw flies that is.

Suppose that’s true, we might as well get some regions with lefty regions at that point though if were willing to be monarchists

Narland

Wheatonleks wrote:if were willing to be monarchists

Associating with != being

Rateria, The United States Of Patriots

Miencraft wrote:Associating with != being

Typo lol

Narland wrote:Again I totally agree with the sentiment. Where I disagree is that I think you give too much worship to Freemasonry. I see Freemasonry was a mere part of a the societal whole of freemen in free associations. That Freemason was a part is laudable. As you know, I do not think all lodges are demonic, just as not all churches are godly, and some are diabolic. Churches, militias, community organizations, benevolence organisations, unions (when not being a tool of Hegelian dialectics to attain Statism) were all part of the dynamic.

What lodges are demonic and which churches are diabolic?

Auxorii

Wheatonleks wrote:That sounds pretty good, certainly ideal compared to what we have today, but then I think the fact arises that within states you will have people who disagree with the morality of the state, and the state will enforce that morality on them anyway, even forcing people to do things they don’t see as right, just as good, meaning they cannot live as free individuals living life as they see fit to live.

And you will also have to have someone with the power to decide who is and who is not part of “the community,” and historically a lot of people have been excluded from that, queer people, black people, women. And it will have to be decided what it means to harm that community, and there are many theories as to what that means, which are again founded on the question of who exactly is a part of “the community.”

This is where civic virtue of the body politic (polity not democracy) comes into play. The citizenry MUST be taught education and morality to remain free (from amongst their right to freedom of association with respect to each other and with respect to Nature and Nature's God. Our Founders were adamant about that. ***note: the second sentence in the first paragraph got garbled. I tried to make it make sense, but it probably was alluding to an a quote .***

The citizenry is to use their freedom of association to form communities with their own governments (based on their self-governing freely decided social contractual obligations) at the most local jurisdiction possible. The state can do two things -- be a terror to criminals (those who do violence to the life, liberty and property of others) and speak well of those who do good (i.e., not slander/libel others just because they disagree or don't like them, and don't speak well of that and those which would harm others).

If I am a free-thinker (Libertine) i would move to a libertine community and live like a free thinker, like Idaho's Crescent (town) used to be. If I am am a Quaker I would move to Greenleaf (a town about 40 miles away from Crescent), because that is how the community lives (even to this day). Their lifestyles are nearly diametrically opposed, but they are made up of the Citizenry who believe in Liberty and Equality respecting each other's life, liberty, and property. The libertine would not move to Greenleaf because he would not like the restrictions imposed against his will, and the Quaker would not live in Crescent because he would not like the licence practiced openly against his conscience.

When the Libertine and the Quaker meet at the State house because their lifestyles are nearly diametrically opposed one will preach at the other their gospel and tell the other to repent (exercising their right to freedom of association and freedom of speech). They would NOT tell the Legislature to legislate each other's communities into compliance to their own opinions (violating NAP) because they were not that morally stupid. They would ask the legislature to do one of the 95 Lawful functions of the State Constitution either more efficiently or differently through Legislation. They would expect their communities through themselves, their families, their town, or maybe county for the thousands of things government does routinely (as self-governing individuals) not governed (run) by the state of the State.

I don't have to conform to them, and they do not have to conform to me except in doing no harm (NAP). As a Christian I have the advantage because not only is it my duty to owe no man anything but to to love (NAP) -- all that is required for what little State there ought be if at all need be. I am also required to treat others how I want to be treated (Golden Rule) which creates a natural environment for the body politic to practice civic virtue as autonomous self-governing individuals with no need for a State except to stop invasion and insurrection (and make trade and commerce with other nations as equitably open as possible -- what regulation used to mean) which we could not accomplish as atomized communities, or small States. This is a reason why we have a Federal Government.

In the 1890s Queer people had their own communities in Gary and Detroit in particular --even Ada (County), Idaho that gunned Mormons down in the streets for being lawless insurrectionists, had their own queer communities (if one knew where to look) and a profitable trade with San Francisco up until the 1960s in homosexual prostitution, and until the 90s several drag clubs (private clubs) -- yes even Idaho. The Emerald was the emblem, and if you saw an emerald oddly displayed on a premises and in many cases the name itself (The Emerald Tavern), just stick around and you would meet them. Back to Gary and Detroit, they were a part of the local government, and did not impose their queerness on people of other opinions in their communities. They were expressly not welcome in other neighboring communities and were arrested if they forced their lifestyle on others in those communities (who chose to live differently).

In the 21st Century LBGTQ(insert the rest here) do not want to live and let live. The are on a mission to convert everyone and their children not just to tolerate their volitional choices, but to embrace and accept it upon pain of government punishment, to the point of destroying the Nature of good government and the Lawful self-government of others. They are merely useful stooges for the neo-Marxists who still think that if the fabric of society is destroyed that the "new man" will rise out of the ashes.

I apologize, Wheatonleks. I wish I could be more succinct, but since that last head injury, I just cannot get things down to short paragraph.

Wheatonleks wrote:What lodges are demonic and which churches are diabolic?

lol. Western Civ 201, Dante iirc.

That which gives renders good for good is human,

that which renders evil for evil is demonic,

that which renders evil for good is diabolic, and

that which renders good for evil is godly.

Any church (or lodge) that renders evil for good. Evil is that which causes harm (violates NAP). I will posit that any church advocating the Social(ist) Gospel and the Social(ist) Justice Gospel is diabolic. Lodges that advocate neo-Marxist principles (Statism) are in the same category. Yes, Marx was knowingly and willfully diabolic because he knew the harm he was advocating to get to his utopia.

One of the strengths lost to this generation of Americans since the Fabian Socialists took over academia, is our ethics. Communists need nothing more than Americans to forget their morality, so that Socialism can prevail.

Wheatonleks

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:I think that Freemasonry has unique position above other associations, if not for it's motivations and philosophy itself, at the very east because it gave rise to or inspired the others. A deeper look at masonic history (and current events) would show, I think, that Freemasonry is deserving of the title of Priesthood of the Enlightenment, given to them by both enemies like Hitler and its leaders lie Garibaldi.

I do not disagree in that. It is just that Theistic Humanism (roughly equivalent to Theistic Secularism) included Theists as well as Deists, and a proponerance of Evangelical (not the Fundamentalists, they came later) and Counter-Reformation Christians. What I have a problem with is Atheistic Humanists and Anti-Theist Secularists (Secularist Humanists) histrionically rewriting history as if Christianity had nothing to do with the Enlightenment and the Enlightenment was some sort of Protomarxist atheistic ideal. There was no magical divide between science and religion, just a divide between bad religion (religionists) and good science, and good religion and bad science (scientism). Christian Secular Humanism is more of a part of the enlightenment than Atheist Secularist Humanism which came with Marx (and the Marxists who destroyed it while claiming it as their own.) Technically, I blame Hegel and Kant for sowing the seeds of their own intellectual destruction but that is another topic.

Again I apologize for not being succinct. I no longer have my library of books at hand to draw from, and since my head injury I am very much like Biden on a good day.

>mods are banning people who claim Covid-19 is a government conspiracy

remember to thank max for free speech and press

Miencraft, Narland, Muh Roads, Rateria, Skaveria

Narland wrote:Again I apologize for not being succinct. I no longer have my library of books at hand to draw from, and since my head injury I am very much like Biden on a good day.

It is a privilege to read those posts filled with wisdom and so many points to think about- you are levels above Biden, friend.

Narland, Rateria, Skaveria

Auxorii wrote:It is a privilege to read those posts filled with wisdom and so many points to think about- you are levels above Biden, friend.

Thank you. I enjoy the opportunity to chat with you, and the rest of Libertatem. Nationstates has been a part of the "therapy" to get my brain working up to par.

Unfortunately one of my bad days are very much like Biden on the campaign trail. I wish somebody cared enough about Biden to stop him from embarrassing himself. At the last head injury I couln't function, did not know where I was half the time, and had even forgotten a former fiancee. My church came in and sold my house, cars, and carted my stuff to the Goodwill, and made sure I had food, clothing and shelter until I could get back on my feet. Unfortunately, I have these days where the brain moves 2mph on the 70mph expressway, and words are just streams of consciousness.

I am thankful I don't live in a country that hinders self-employment. In order to work I need the schedule to work around when my brain functions (which I cannot control.) In a totalitarian regime, I would be treated like Snowball, or the duck in Animal Farm. If I had been in China, I probably would have been "organ donored." cremated and dumped in a dustbin.

Auxorii, Rateria

The States Of Balloon wrote:>mods are banning people who claim Covid-19 is a government conspiracy

remember to thank max for free speech and press

His book, Jennifer Government, sucks. I read it like 6 or 7 years ago. Not only is it an absurd straw man of libertarianism, it reads like a low-brow young adult novel.

Narland

Post self-deleted by Narland.

Post self-deleted by Narland.

Narland wrote:lol. Western Civ 201, Dante iirc.

That which gives renders good for good is human,

that which renders evil for evil is demonic,

that which renders evil for good is diabolic, and

that which renders good for evil is godly.

Any church (or lodge) that renders evil for good. Evil is that which causes harm (violates NAP). I will posit that any church advocating the Social(ist) Gospel and the Social(ist) Justice Gospel is diabolic. Lodges that advocate neo-Marxist principles (Statism) are in the same category. Yes, Marx was knowingly and willfully diabolic because he knew the harm he was advocating to get to his utopia.

As much as I hate Communism, I actually don't blame Marx' motives. He was living in the time of Csars, kings, much like our revolution of Liberalism.

It's not a absurd observation to notice that those who get rich from Capitalism seem to occupy space the same way a king might either.

Technically speaking, he was right when he said the Communist utopia could only be acheived in a post-scare environment as well. Post scarcity would render resources and labor worthless, because things only have value due to scarcity.

What Marx got wrong was the timeline and the degree to which a society must be post-scarce for it to work. For Communism to work, a society must LITERALLY have no scarcity. That means you have easy access to machines that can transfer elements into other elements, a thing making machine, a machine that can make everything, including other machines that make everything. Creation is no longer limited by matter. It would quite literally be a heaven.

There could be no market for things if things were unlimited. There'd be no need to trade. It'd even be asinine to hoard thing-making machines, as even one could make infinite others. There'd be no need for government or power structures. There'd be no need for violence. Utopia.

The problem is that that's Star Trek. That's in the absurdly far away future. Trying to implement Communism before those futuristic conditions have been met ends in catastrophe, as we all know.

So my new tactic when debating Communists is one of accelerationism. Accelerate Capitalism so rapidly that we get to post-scarcity, then when we do, boom, you've got your Communism. Or for the more pessimistic Communist, accelerate Capitalism to such a degree that the wealth devide gets so large it triggers a world revolution, boom, Communism.

You gotta Capitalism so hard it turns into Communism naturally. Call me the first Cap-Com.

Narland, Rateria

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Narland wrote:Unfortunately one of my bad days are very much like Biden on the campaign trail. I wish somebody cared enough about Biden to stop him from embarrassing himself. At the last head injury I couln't function, did not know where I was half the time, and had even forgotten a former fiancee. My church came in and sold my house, cars, and carted my stuff to the Goodwill, and made sure I had food, clothing and shelter until I could get back on my feet. Unfortunately, I have these days where the brain moves 2mph on the 70mph expressway, and words are just streams of consciousness.

I am thankful I don't live in a country that hinders self-employment. In order to work I need the schedule to work around when my brain functions (which I cannot control.) In a totalitarian regime, I would be treated like Snowball, or the duck in Animal Farm. If I had been in China, I probably would have been "organ donored." cremated and dumped in a dustbin.

I definitely agree- the DNC are clearly taking advantage of the shell of Joe Biden and it’s sad and disgusting; they know they can work him however they want.

I’m glad you have people that care about you, that is ultimately all we have in this world. Yes, and thank God we live in the U.S where you can decide your future of employment and take control of your life yourself.

Pevvania wrote:His book, Jennifer Government, sucks. I read it like 6 or 7 years ago. Not only is it an absurd straw man of libertarianism, it reads like a low-brow young adult novel.

What is that book even about?

Narland, Rateria

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:I think one plot point was that people's last names are their jobs. Some stupid dystopian thing. Never read the book, because it sounded gay. His other book sounds even worse.

Yeah, I thought about it but ultimately never cared enough to read it.

Might as well for the laugh though.

Rateria, Highway Eighty-Eight

Skaveria wrote:

So my new tactic when debating Communists is one of accelerationism. Accelerate Capitalism so rapidly that we get to post-scarcity, then when we do, boom, you've got your Communism. Or for the more pessimistic Communist, accelerate Capitalism to such a degree that the wealth devide gets so large it triggers a world revolution, boom, Communism.

You gotta Capitalism so hard it turns into Communism naturally. Call me the first Cap-Com.

Wait wait wait, isn’t this literally what Marx says? I might be wrong, it has been a while since I read any Marx.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:I think one plot point was that people's last names are their jobs. Some stupid dystopian thing. Never read the book, because it sounded gay. His other book sounds even worse.

The dystopian novel craze of the early/mid 2010s were horrible. They’re all the most surface level of critiques of authoritarianism with a story about a teen who somehow manages to destroy the entire system.

Pevvania, Auxorii, Rateria, Highway Eighty-Eight, Aglonia, Wheatonleks

Jadentopian Order wrote:

The dystopian novel craze of the early/mid 2010s were horrible. They’re all the most surface level of critiques of authoritarianism with a story about a teen who somehow manages to destroy the entire system.

I haven’t read any of those, but I imagine you’re referring to The Hunger Games, The Maze Runner, and Divergent. To be honest, I’ve only seen the film adaptations. I don’t have strong opinions on them. I haven’t read fiction books in a while.

Edit: If you count D&D sourcebooks as fiction, then I guess I have.

Narland, Auxorii, Jadentopian Order, Highway Eighty-Eight

Jadentopian Order wrote:Wait wait wait, isn’t this literally what Marx says? I might be wrong, it has been a while since I read any Marx.

The dystopian novel craze of the early/mid 2010s were horrible. They’re all the most surface level of critiques of authoritarianism with a story about a teen who somehow manages to destroy the entire system.

See I'm sorry. If you write a dystopian novel I almost feel it fits the genre better if the person is unable to destroy the system, at least not completely. I like how George Orwell did it, with the main character eventually succumbing to Big Brother.

Miencraft, Narland, Rateria, Highway Eighty-Eight

Jadentopian Order wrote:Wait wait wait, isn’t this literally what Marx says? I might be wrong, it has been a while since I read any Marx.

The dystopian novel craze of the early/mid 2010s were horrible. They’re all the most surface level of critiques of authoritarianism with a story about a teen who somehow manages to destroy the entire system.

However. Don't come at my Hunger Games like that. Hunger Games was actually brilliant in the way that it ended up showing that both the Government and revolutionaries were evil, and although the teen worked with others to tear down the established government, the actual dystopian society continued at the hands of the revolution itself.

Narland, Rateria

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.