|
On April 29 2010 03:14 fellcrow wrote:
How is taxation slavery? Yurebis, you need to be consistent. If you talk about rights and stealing you obviously believe in a government. What kind of government? On every argument you set up a new scenario that best fits your argument. This is why debates are done in person and not over text. You are manipulating everything. Debates are forums are fail.
make your own hypotheticals then, if you dont like mine
|
obviously taxation isnt == slavery, if it was then they would be synonyms and I wouldnt have to explain anything.
its a parallel drawn over who owns what.
|
i merged the two separate discussions in one post i'm a badass
On April 29 2010 03:12 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2010 03:10 EmeraldSparks wrote:On April 29 2010 03:09 Yurebis wrote:On April 29 2010 03:07 EmeraldSparks wrote:On April 29 2010 03:06 Yurebis wrote:On April 29 2010 03:03 EmeraldSparks wrote:On April 29 2010 03:01 Yurebis wrote:On April 29 2010 02:55 EmeraldSparks wrote:
if you can't defend yourself from government "theft" that's your incapacity and therefore it's your fault Very good. so you see no difference between creating something, and taking away that which was made by others? it's all human action and might makes right? thats swell, but I want to make sure no on both counts then you see the difference between "I claim to own that which I created" and "I claim to own that which you created" ("and I act on that predictment too, np") government constantly applies the latter which I find repugnant. do you not? unjustified assumption: all salaries and other forms of wages are entirely self-created if you want me to try to justify the first I could give you the whole course on natural rights and all that crap but it's going to be arbitrary anyways, so it comes down to either you accept it or you don't do you respect private property or not? it's a generally good idea but the supremacy of property rights above all is not absolute I didn't say it was so then you would respect my claim that "I own that which I create" and would not respect the thief's claim that "I own that which I can grab from others fuck yeah"?
in general, yes
caveats:
1. rarely, but sometimes private theft is justified
2. society acting in concert can legitimately do things that individual citizens cannot
3. assumption: all salaries and other forms of wages are entirely self-created
On April 29 2010 03:14 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2010 03:12 EmeraldSparks wrote:On April 29 2010 03:11 Yurebis wrote:On April 29 2010 03:07 EmeraldSparks wrote:On April 29 2010 03:06 Yurebis wrote:On April 29 2010 03:03 EmeraldSparks wrote:On April 29 2010 03:02 Yurebis wrote:On April 29 2010 03:00 EmeraldSparks wrote:
obviously a completely libertarian society can * function *
but why the fuck would we bother not paying taxes would be a huge benefit imo but it's for each to decide, right. do we keep stealing from everyone or cut the bullshit? latter pls. we keep stealing from everyone because societies without taxes are retarded thought experiment time. would you a thousand years ago say "societies without slavery are retarded"? think. no, because taxation isn't slavery I see, so you would say "slavery isn't barbarianism, they still let you live and don't rape your wife" haha no if you and your wife are slaves they will actually rape your wife and you can't do anything about it comparing the statement "taxation is fine" to "slavery is fine" is retarded come off it it's not retarded, it's different degrees of aggression and yeah I guess they'd rape your wife in both cases. in slavery, the master claims control over 100% of your assets and your body in democracy, the state elected by your neighbors claim control over.. idk, 40% of your assets.
a police officer control over speeding drivers and hitler's control over nazi germany were "different degrees of aggression" but comparing them is still retarded
|
On April 29 2010 03:19 EmeraldSparks wrote:
i merged the two separate discussions in one post i'm a badass
I don't flood other threads so I'm inflating my postcount with this one sup
On April 29 2010 03:19 EmeraldSparks wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2010 03:12 Yurebis wrote:On April 29 2010 03:10 EmeraldSparks wrote:On April 29 2010 03:09 Yurebis wrote:On April 29 2010 03:07 EmeraldSparks wrote:On April 29 2010 03:06 Yurebis wrote:On April 29 2010 03:03 EmeraldSparks wrote:On April 29 2010 03:01 Yurebis wrote:On April 29 2010 02:55 EmeraldSparks wrote:
if you can't defend yourself from government "theft" that's your incapacity and therefore it's your fault Very good. so you see no difference between creating something, and taking away that which was made by others? it's all human action and might makes right? thats swell, but I want to make sure no on both counts then you see the difference between "I claim to own that which I created" and "I claim to own that which you created" ("and I act on that predictment too, np") government constantly applies the latter which I find repugnant. do you not? unjustified assumption: all salaries and other forms of wages are entirely self-created if you want me to try to justify the first I could give you the whole course on natural rights and all that crap but it's going to be arbitrary anyways, so it comes down to either you accept it or you don't do you respect private property or not? it's a generally good idea but the supremacy of property rights above all is not absolute I didn't say it was so then you would respect my claim that "I own that which I create" and would not respect the thief's claim that "I own that which I can grab from others fuck yeah"? in general, yes caveats: 1. rarely, but sometimes private theft is justified 2. society acting in concert can legitimately do things that individual things cannot 3. assumption: all salaries and other forms of wages are entirely self-created
its k
on point number 2, like what, invading property rights maybe?
on 3, nothing is completely created (unless you consider intellectual property legit, i dont) but transforming from unused resources is good enough. homesteading. from there on, trading, etc.
On April 29 2010 03:19 EmeraldSparks wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2010 03:14 Yurebis wrote:On April 29 2010 03:12 EmeraldSparks wrote:On April 29 2010 03:11 Yurebis wrote:On April 29 2010 03:07 EmeraldSparks wrote:On April 29 2010 03:06 Yurebis wrote:On April 29 2010 03:03 EmeraldSparks wrote:On April 29 2010 03:02 Yurebis wrote:On April 29 2010 03:00 EmeraldSparks wrote:
obviously a completely libertarian society can * function *
but why the fuck would we bother not paying taxes would be a huge benefit imo but it's for each to decide, right. do we keep stealing from everyone or cut the bullshit? latter pls. we keep stealing from everyone because societies without taxes are retarded thought experiment time. would you a thousand years ago say "societies without slavery are retarded"? think. no, because taxation isn't slavery I see, so you would say "slavery isn't barbarianism, they still let you live and don't rape your wife" haha no if you and your wife are slaves they will actually rape your wife and you can't do anything about it comparing the statement "taxation is fine" to "slavery is fine" is retarded come off it it's not retarded, it's different degrees of aggression and yeah I guess they'd rape your wife in both cases. in slavery, the master claims control over 100% of your assets and your body in democracy, the state elected by your neighbors claim control over.. idk, 40% of your assets. a police officer control over speeding drivers and hitler's control over nazi germany were "different degrees of aggression" but comparing them is still retarded actually I think a police officer giving tickets is the one thing thats somewhat justified parting from the premise that the state owns the roads.
but how did they get to own the roads, was obviously by coercing private money, so it was wrong, and it could be claimed that they don't own it after all.
until theres a proper privatization, that muddy situation will be... muddy.
|
On April 29 2010 03:24 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2010 03:19 EmeraldSparks wrote:
i merged the two separate discussions in one post i'm a badass I don't flood other threads so I'm inflating my postcount with this one sup Show nested quote +On April 29 2010 03:19 EmeraldSparks wrote:On April 29 2010 03:12 Yurebis wrote:On April 29 2010 03:10 EmeraldSparks wrote:On April 29 2010 03:09 Yurebis wrote:On April 29 2010 03:07 EmeraldSparks wrote:On April 29 2010 03:06 Yurebis wrote:On April 29 2010 03:03 EmeraldSparks wrote:On April 29 2010 03:01 Yurebis wrote:On April 29 2010 02:55 EmeraldSparks wrote:
if you can't defend yourself from government "theft" that's your incapacity and therefore it's your fault Very good. so you see no difference between creating something, and taking away that which was made by others? it's all human action and might makes right? thats swell, but I want to make sure no on both counts then you see the difference between "I claim to own that which I created" and "I claim to own that which you created" ("and I act on that predictment too, np") government constantly applies the latter which I find repugnant. do you not? unjustified assumption: all salaries and other forms of wages are entirely self-created if you want me to try to justify the first I could give you the whole course on natural rights and all that crap but it's going to be arbitrary anyways, so it comes down to either you accept it or you don't do you respect private property or not? it's a generally good idea but the supremacy of property rights above all is not absolute I didn't say it was so then you would respect my claim that "I own that which I create" and would not respect the thief's claim that "I own that which I can grab from others fuck yeah"? in general, yes caveats: 1. rarely, but sometimes private theft is justified 2. society acting in concert can legitimately do things that individual things cannot 3. assumption: all salaries and other forms of wages are entirely self-created its k on point number 2, like what, invading property rights maybe? on 3, nothing is completely created (unless you consider intellectual property legit, i dont) but transforming from unused resources is good enough. homesteading. from there on, trading, etc.
On point 2 - the state has the legitimacy to do a lot of things that private citizens cannot. If the properly operating justice organ of a society puts a thief in jail for a year, that's more or less justified; if I catch a thief and lock him in my basement for a year, that's not justified. As another example, the government of a society can own cruise missiles; private citizens and corporations should not be allowed to.
On point 3 - that's more or less exactly my point. Now, this doesn't meant that people should have carte blanche to take away your shit on the assumption that you didn't create it all, but it does allow for taxation for "society's contribution to your wealth." Wealth today is so absurdly far removed from homesteading and "unused resource exploitation" (who owns those resources in the first place) that anything you do is integrally tied into society.
On April 29 2010 03:24 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2010 03:19 EmeraldSparks wrote:On April 29 2010 03:14 Yurebis wrote:On April 29 2010 03:12 EmeraldSparks wrote:On April 29 2010 03:11 Yurebis wrote:On April 29 2010 03:07 EmeraldSparks wrote:On April 29 2010 03:06 Yurebis wrote:On April 29 2010 03:03 EmeraldSparks wrote:On April 29 2010 03:02 Yurebis wrote:On April 29 2010 03:00 EmeraldSparks wrote:
obviously a completely libertarian society can * function *
but why the fuck would we bother not paying taxes would be a huge benefit imo but it's for each to decide, right. do we keep stealing from everyone or cut the bullshit? latter pls. we keep stealing from everyone because societies without taxes are retarded thought experiment time. would you a thousand years ago say "societies without slavery are retarded"? think. no, because taxation isn't slavery I see, so you would say "slavery isn't barbarianism, they still let you live and don't rape your wife" haha no if you and your wife are slaves they will actually rape your wife and you can't do anything about it comparing the statement "taxation is fine" to "slavery is fine" is retarded come off it it's not retarded, it's different degrees of aggression and yeah I guess they'd rape your wife in both cases. in slavery, the master claims control over 100% of your assets and your body in democracy, the state elected by your neighbors claim control over.. idk, 40% of your assets. a police officer control over speeding drivers and hitler's control over nazi germany were "different degrees of aggression" but comparing them is still retarded actually I think a police officer giving tickets is the one thing thats somewhat justified parting from the premise that the state owns the roads. but how did they get to own the roads, was obviously by coercing private money, so it was wrong, and it could be claimed that they don't own it after all. until theres a proper privatization, that muddy situation will be... muddy.
you can't claim that the government doesn't own the roads
you can claim that the government * shouldn't * own the roads but it's pretty clear that they do
|
On April 29 2010 03:30 EmeraldSparks wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2010 03:24 Yurebis wrote:On April 29 2010 03:19 EmeraldSparks wrote:
i merged the two separate discussions in one post i'm a badass I don't flood other threads so I'm inflating my postcount with this one sup On April 29 2010 03:19 EmeraldSparks wrote:On April 29 2010 03:12 Yurebis wrote:On April 29 2010 03:10 EmeraldSparks wrote:On April 29 2010 03:09 Yurebis wrote:On April 29 2010 03:07 EmeraldSparks wrote:On April 29 2010 03:06 Yurebis wrote:On April 29 2010 03:03 EmeraldSparks wrote:On April 29 2010 03:01 Yurebis wrote:
[quote]
Very good.
so you see no difference between creating something, and taking away that which was made by others?
it's all human action and might makes right?
thats swell, but I want to make sure no on both counts then you see the difference between "I claim to own that which I created" and "I claim to own that which you created" ("and I act on that predictment too, np") government constantly applies the latter which I find repugnant. do you not? unjustified assumption: all salaries and other forms of wages are entirely self-created if you want me to try to justify the first I could give you the whole course on natural rights and all that crap but it's going to be arbitrary anyways, so it comes down to either you accept it or you don't do you respect private property or not? it's a generally good idea but the supremacy of property rights above all is not absolute I didn't say it was so then you would respect my claim that "I own that which I create" and would not respect the thief's claim that "I own that which I can grab from others fuck yeah"? in general, yes caveats: 1. rarely, but sometimes private theft is justified 2. society acting in concert can legitimately do things that individual things cannot 3. assumption: all salaries and other forms of wages are entirely self-created its k on point number 2, like what, invading property rights maybe? on 3, nothing is completely created (unless you consider intellectual property legit, i dont) but transforming from unused resources is good enough. homesteading. from there on, trading, etc. On point 2 - the state has the legitimacy to do a lot of things that private citizens cannot. If the properly operating justice organ of a society puts a thief in jail for a year, that's more or less justified; if I catch a thief and lock him in my basement for a year, that's not justified. As another example, the government of a society can own cruise missiles; private citizens and corporations should not be allowed to.
I know what you mean but to be exact, when you say "is justified" you mean "I see it as justified"? I say it like that (too?) and I hate when people call me out on it but I just have to make sure for what I'm about to say. assuming you are from here on.
there is no practical difference between the state incarcerating someone and a private agency doing the same, correct?
The only difference is on the perception of others whether it was right or not, on a case-by-case analysis.
Many people see the war on Iraq illegitimate, despite being the saintly US government that started it. So government ain't the law or god. What it does can be see as illegitimate, yeah?
Just like if you started a war, same deal.
On April 29 2010 03:30 EmeraldSparks wrote:
On point 3 - that's more or less exactly my point. Now, this doesn't meant that people should have carte blanche to take away your shit on the assumption that you didn't create it all, but it does allow for taxation for "society's contribution to your wealth."
does not
On April 29 2010 03:30 EmeraldSparks wrote: Wealth today is so absurdly far removed from homesteading and "unused resource exploitation" (who owns those resources in the first place) that anything you do is integrally tied into society.
I meant unowned.
Like, me by going in a forest and grabbing an apple, have not stolen anything from anyone, because its an unowned and unused apple tree, and the whole forest in fact.
I would also not respect the claim to own a piece of land just by fencing around it. gotta transform more than just putting a flag on it and declaring it yours. but thats besides the point
and it's not removed at all. from cutting down the trees, extracting oil, transporting them to a factory, making shit, distributing, through all that business I don't know nothing about, there is rigid control in the part of the entrepreneurs who own, transform, and trade those resources into products.
unlike the government, who has no part in creating or transforming anything. they just boss around, take some cash, and give back shitty services just so we wont outright kill them all in a bloody madness of revolutionizing rage. rar.
also, unsolicited services should not be payed at all. if I wash your car without you asking for it, would you recognize my right of stealing you $10 for it? thats what the government does with their services basically.
On April 29 2010 03:30 EmeraldSparks wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2010 03:24 Yurebis wrote:On April 29 2010 03:19 EmeraldSparks wrote:On April 29 2010 03:14 Yurebis wrote:On April 29 2010 03:12 EmeraldSparks wrote:On April 29 2010 03:11 Yurebis wrote:On April 29 2010 03:07 EmeraldSparks wrote:On April 29 2010 03:06 Yurebis wrote:On April 29 2010 03:03 EmeraldSparks wrote:On April 29 2010 03:02 Yurebis wrote:
[quote]
not paying taxes would be a huge benefit imo
but it's for each to decide, right.
do we keep stealing from everyone or
cut the bullshit?
latter pls. we keep stealing from everyone because societies without taxes are retarded thought experiment time. would you a thousand years ago say "societies without slavery are retarded"? think. no, because taxation isn't slavery I see, so you would say "slavery isn't barbarianism, they still let you live and don't rape your wife" haha no if you and your wife are slaves they will actually rape your wife and you can't do anything about it comparing the statement "taxation is fine" to "slavery is fine" is retarded come off it it's not retarded, it's different degrees of aggression and yeah I guess they'd rape your wife in both cases. in slavery, the master claims control over 100% of your assets and your body in democracy, the state elected by your neighbors claim control over.. idk, 40% of your assets. a police officer control over speeding drivers and hitler's control over nazi germany were "different degrees of aggression" but comparing them is still retarded actually I think a police officer giving tickets is the one thing thats somewhat justified parting from the premise that the state owns the roads. but how did they get to own the roads, was obviously by coercing private money, so it was wrong, and it could be claimed that they don't own it after all. until theres a proper privatization, that muddy situation will be... muddy. you can't claim that the government doesn't own the roads you can claim that the government * shouldn't * own the roads but it's pretty clear that they do
yeah I guess, w/e
edit: naw, fuck you, I won't concede.
the government CLAIMS to own the roads, but what has it done to make them?
It stole some money from citizens
gave it to a constructor company
there, it's theirs
god damnit, if I steal your dough, buy me a stereo, do I own the stereo?
thats what I meant.
|
On April 29 2010 02:24 Yurebis wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 29 2010 02:02 hefty wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2010 01:18 Yurebis wrote:On April 29 2010 01:13 uiCk wrote:On April 29 2010 01:02 Yurebis wrote:On April 29 2010 01:00 uiCk wrote:
no doubt, i cant belive people still respond to him :/
ps. the guy is freeloading knowledge, I can't believe people post no content and call me a troll instead what have you braught to the table? the only "content" that has been braught forwad, is by other people tying to make you realize your wiki major is pretty weak. your what i call a life troll. you know, if my premises are so wrong, then why hasn't anyone went bullet by bullet refuting them. they're in the OP, take a shot saying they are don't make them to be too much barking, too little bitting Your premises have been shown wrong numerous times, but I won't give you every example. Just take this from one of the first responses in the thread: quote and I answer then. On April 29 2010 02:02 hefty wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 14:40 Yurebis wrote:On April 27 2010 14:00 piratekaybear wrote:
#1 - The collective is only a group of individuals
- I contest this premise. A group of humans is quite different from a group of trees; yet both show unique properties that are exclusive to collective groupings of humans/trees relative to their lone counterparts. The difference between a lone human and that in a group is immense. Without another human, with whom could one share marriage, love, political unions, etc? T Tell me, where does marriage, love, political unions exist if not inside each individuals head? Realistically, the individual is indeed everything, and it would make no difference for him if his lovers, friends, and strangers were all MUTANT CYBORGS or even illusions So all of that exists in his head. You're missing the point. The marriage, or sense of belonging/whatever, may be in his head, but is only possible because of it's existence (or perceived existence, see below). And if I have to respond to your matrix/cyborg idea: It doesn't change a thing. If only the subject experiences belongingness to a group of any sort, it has already qualitatively altered his subjective consciousness. it's still his consciousness. It's not an external entity's consciousness. It's not the "greater good"'s consciousness.
Here you are doing what I later in the post preemptively pointed out you shouldn't do. It's not about your agenda in this thread (collectivism and all), I just want to disprove premise #1, the point follows.
On April 29 2010 02:24 Yurebis wrote:
Don't matter to me what happens within when I'm just trying to show there can't be a greater good when it's just a group of individuals. there is a good for each individual, and those may be assumed to be the same, but you'll never know before hand, only after the fact if you allow them to choose the (perhaps coinciding) means.
premise not invalidated Still, it's only premise #1, stop defending your position on collectivism it's irrelevant here.
----- Tried to put things in quotes and stuff here, but messed up, I'll jump to the point:
On April 29 2010 02:24 Yurebis wrote:
I'm not trolling, I just don't see anything there but trees
or anything in a society but people and their individual goals
their characteristics may be alike
but that doesn't create anything outside of them
if it does, it would be something supernatural, like spirits, or god, maybe.
Take heed of the above objections and forget the society and individual goals for a moment.
It is still only trees in the forest, no new entities are made. But the individual trees are altered by the group/collective. They are no longer what they were on their own. There don't need to be new entities, there just need to be added something to the equation.
On their own, the trees were 1.
Grouped together something was added, in a cluster the individual tree is: 1+s
The cluster is then n(1+s) where n is the number of trees.
n =|= n(1+s)
Thus #1 is false, a group is more than a sum of individuals although it is only made entities called individuals.
|
Linkin park told me to be an individual and independent so i am an individualist and I think it rocks woooo even if in the end it doesnt even matterrrrr
|
On April 29 2010 03:49 hefty wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2010 02:24 Yurebis wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 29 2010 02:02 hefty wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2010 01:18 Yurebis wrote:On April 29 2010 01:13 uiCk wrote:On April 29 2010 01:02 Yurebis wrote:On April 29 2010 01:00 uiCk wrote:
no doubt, i cant belive people still respond to him :/
ps. the guy is freeloading knowledge, I can't believe people post no content and call me a troll instead what have you braught to the table? the only "content" that has been braught forwad, is by other people tying to make you realize your wiki major is pretty weak. your what i call a life troll. you know, if my premises are so wrong, then why hasn't anyone went bullet by bullet refuting them. they're in the OP, take a shot saying they are don't make them to be too much barking, too little bitting Your premises have been shown wrong numerous times, but I won't give you every example. Just take this from one of the first responses in the thread: quote and I answer then. On April 29 2010 02:02 hefty wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 14:40 Yurebis wrote:On April 27 2010 14:00 piratekaybear wrote:
#1 - The collective is only a group of individuals
- I contest this premise. A group of humans is quite different from a group of trees; yet both show unique properties that are exclusive to collective groupings of humans/trees relative to their lone counterparts. The difference between a lone human and that in a group is immense. Without another human, with whom could one share marriage, love, political unions, etc? T Tell me, where does marriage, love, political unions exist if not inside each individuals head? Realistically, the individual is indeed everything, and it would make no difference for him if his lovers, friends, and strangers were all MUTANT CYBORGS or even illusions So all of that exists in his head. You're missing the point. The marriage, or sense of belonging/whatever, may be in his head, but is only possible because of it's existence (or perceived existence, see below). And if I have to respond to your matrix/cyborg idea: It doesn't change a thing. If only the subject experiences belongingness to a group of any sort, it has already qualitatively altered his subjective consciousness. it's still his consciousness. It's not an external entity's consciousness. It's not the "greater good"'s consciousness. Here you are doing what I later in the post preemptively pointed out you shouldn't do. It's not about your agenda in this thread (collectivism and all), I just want to disprove premise #1, the point follows. what follows?
that the individuals consciousness has been changed by external entities?
big deal?
doesn't conflict with there being nothing other than many individuals' consciousnesses within that group of individuals
On April 29 2010 03:49 hefty wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2010 02:24 Yurebis wrote:
Don't matter to me what happens within when I'm just trying to show there can't be a greater good when it's just a group of individuals. there is a good for each individual, and those may be assumed to be the same, but you'll never know before hand, only after the fact if you allow them to choose the (perhaps coinciding) means.
premise not invalidated Still, it's only premise #1, stop defending your position on collectivism it's irrelevant here.
no u
On April 29 2010 03:49 hefty wrote:
----- Tried to put things in quotes and stuff here, but messed up, I'll jump to the point:
I use a copy+paste of like
(/quote)
(QUOTE)(B)On April 29 2010 03:49 hefty wrote /B)
that I set up every reply
i paste that shit right where I want to comment and type inside of it
so good, no mistakes ever
On April 29 2010 03:49 hefty wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2010 02:24 Yurebis wrote:
I'm not trolling, I just don't see anything there but trees
or anything in a society but people and their individual goals
their characteristics may be alike
but that doesn't create anything outside of them
if it does, it would be something supernatural, like spirits, or god, maybe. Take heed of the above objections and forget the society and individual goals for a moment. It is still only trees in the forest, no new entities are made. But the individual trees are altered by the group/collective. They are no longer what they were on their own. There don't need to be new entities, there just need to be added something to the equation. On their own, the trees were 1. Grouped together something was added, in a cluster the individual tree is: 1+s The cluster is then n(1+s) where n is the number of trees. n =|= n(1+s) Thus #1 is false, a group is more than a sum of individuals although it is only made entities called individuals.
wtf. it's still a tree. It don't matter to me even if it would turn pink and be embarrassed for being around other trees because it's naked, or self-explode due to bizarre atomic reactions, it's still just a tree.
the point of the analogy is not to say that the individual elements are unchanged no matter what, they can change, i dont give a shit, but no new entity has been created out of it.
there is no external consciousness out of the individual
there can be no external goal
therefore, the greater good is at best an illusion
|
On April 29 2010 03:53 TheAntZ wrote:
Linkin park told me to be an individual and independent so i am an individualist and I think it rocks woooo even if in the end it doesnt even matterrrrr
you tried so hard and only got this far...
|
On April 29 2010 04:01 Yurebis wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 29 2010 03:49 hefty wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2010 02:24 Yurebis wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 29 2010 02:02 hefty wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2010 01:18 Yurebis wrote:On April 29 2010 01:13 uiCk wrote:On April 29 2010 01:02 Yurebis wrote:On April 29 2010 01:00 uiCk wrote:
no doubt, i cant belive people still respond to him :/
ps. the guy is freeloading knowledge, I can't believe people post no content and call me a troll instead what have you braught to the table? the only "content" that has been braught forwad, is by other people tying to make you realize your wiki major is pretty weak. your what i call a life troll. you know, if my premises are so wrong, then why hasn't anyone went bullet by bullet refuting them. they're in the OP, take a shot saying they are don't make them to be too much barking, too little bitting Your premises have been shown wrong numerous times, but I won't give you every example. Just take this from one of the first responses in the thread: quote and I answer then. On April 29 2010 02:02 hefty wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 14:40 Yurebis wrote:On April 27 2010 14:00 piratekaybear wrote:
#1 - The collective is only a group of individuals
- I contest this premise. A group of humans is quite different from a group of trees; yet both show unique properties that are exclusive to collective groupings of humans/trees relative to their lone counterparts. The difference between a lone human and that in a group is immense. Without another human, with whom could one share marriage, love, political unions, etc? T Tell me, where does marriage, love, political unions exist if not inside each individuals head? Realistically, the individual is indeed everything, and it would make no difference for him if his lovers, friends, and strangers were all MUTANT CYBORGS or even illusions So all of that exists in his head. You're missing the point. The marriage, or sense of belonging/whatever, may be in his head, but is only possible because of it's existence (or perceived existence, see below). And if I have to respond to your matrix/cyborg idea: It doesn't change a thing. If only the subject experiences belongingness to a group of any sort, it has already qualitatively altered his subjective consciousness. it's still his consciousness. It's not an external entity's consciousness. It's not the "greater good"'s consciousness. Here you are doing what I later in the post preemptively pointed out you shouldn't do. It's not about your agenda in this thread (collectivism and all), I just want to disprove premise #1, the point follows. what follows? that the individuals consciousness has been changed by external entities? big deal? doesn't conflict with there being nothing other than many individuals' consciousnesses within that group of individuals On April 29 2010 03:49 hefty wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2010 02:24 Yurebis wrote:
Don't matter to me what happens within when I'm just trying to show there can't be a greater good when it's just a group of individuals. there is a good for each individual, and those may be assumed to be the same, but you'll never know before hand, only after the fact if you allow them to choose the (perhaps coinciding) means.
premise not invalidated Still, it's only premise #1, stop defending your position on collectivism it's irrelevant here. no u On April 29 2010 03:49 hefty wrote:
----- Tried to put things in quotes and stuff here, but messed up, I'll jump to the point: I use a copy+paste of like (/quote) (QUOTE)(B)On April 29 2010 03:49 hefty wrote /B) that I set up every reply i paste that shit right where I want to comment and type inside of it so good, no mistakes ever On April 29 2010 03:49 hefty wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2010 02:24 Yurebis wrote:
I'm not trolling, I just don't see anything there but trees
or anything in a society but people and their individual goals
their characteristics may be alike
but that doesn't create anything outside of them
if it does, it would be something supernatural, like spirits, or god, maybe. Take heed of the above objections and forget the society and individual goals for a moment. It is still only trees in the forest, no new entities are made. But the individual trees are altered by the group/collective. They are no longer what they were on their own. There don't need to be new entities, there just need to be added something to the equation. On their own, the trees were 1. Grouped together something was added, in a cluster the individual tree is: 1+s The cluster is then n(1+s) where n is the number of trees. n =|= n(1+s) Thus #1 is false, a group is more than a sum of individuals although it is only made entities called individuals. wtf. it's still a tree. It don't matter to me even if it would turn pink and be embarrassed for being around other trees because it's naked, or self-explode due to bizarre atomic reactions, it's still just a tree. the point of the analogy is not to say that the individual elements are unchanged no matter what, they can change, i dont give a shit, but no new entity has been created out of it. there is no external consciousness out of the individual there can be no external goal therefore, the greater good is at best an illusion
Jeeesus Christ*. I took all that effort telling you to forget the minds of individuals for a moment - setting it up so it should be fairly understandable to anyone that the following point (the one at the end of the post obv) has NOTHING to do with external consciousness, and yet you fall back to it. That post was only on premise #1. I give up on you.
* Don't believe in him of course ^^
|
On April 29 2010 05:25 hefty wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2010 04:01 Yurebis wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 29 2010 03:49 hefty wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2010 02:24 Yurebis wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 29 2010 02:02 hefty wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2010 01:18 Yurebis wrote:On April 29 2010 01:13 uiCk wrote:On April 29 2010 01:02 Yurebis wrote:On April 29 2010 01:00 uiCk wrote:
no doubt, i cant belive people still respond to him :/
ps. the guy is freeloading knowledge, I can't believe people post no content and call me a troll instead what have you braught to the table? the only "content" that has been braught forwad, is by other people tying to make you realize your wiki major is pretty weak. your what i call a life troll. you know, if my premises are so wrong, then why hasn't anyone went bullet by bullet refuting them. they're in the OP, take a shot saying they are don't make them to be too much barking, too little bitting Your premises have been shown wrong numerous times, but I won't give you every example. Just take this from one of the first responses in the thread: quote and I answer then. On April 29 2010 02:02 hefty wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 14:40 Yurebis wrote:On April 27 2010 14:00 piratekaybear wrote:
#1 - The collective is only a group of individuals
- I contest this premise. A group of humans is quite different from a group of trees; yet both show unique properties that are exclusive to collective groupings of humans/trees relative to their lone counterparts. The difference between a lone human and that in a group is immense. Without another human, with whom could one share marriage, love, political unions, etc? T Tell me, where does marriage, love, political unions exist if not inside each individuals head? Realistically, the individual is indeed everything, and it would make no difference for him if his lovers, friends, and strangers were all MUTANT CYBORGS or even illusions So all of that exists in his head. You're missing the point. The marriage, or sense of belonging/whatever, may be in his head, but is only possible because of it's existence (or perceived existence, see below). And if I have to respond to your matrix/cyborg idea: It doesn't change a thing. If only the subject experiences belongingness to a group of any sort, it has already qualitatively altered his subjective consciousness. it's still his consciousness. It's not an external entity's consciousness. It's not the "greater good"'s consciousness. Here you are doing what I later in the post preemptively pointed out you shouldn't do. It's not about your agenda in this thread (collectivism and all), I just want to disprove premise #1, the point follows. what follows? that the individuals consciousness has been changed by external entities? big deal? doesn't conflict with there being nothing other than many individuals' consciousnesses within that group of individuals On April 29 2010 03:49 hefty wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2010 02:24 Yurebis wrote:
Don't matter to me what happens within when I'm just trying to show there can't be a greater good when it's just a group of individuals. there is a good for each individual, and those may be assumed to be the same, but you'll never know before hand, only after the fact if you allow them to choose the (perhaps coinciding) means.
premise not invalidated Still, it's only premise #1, stop defending your position on collectivism it's irrelevant here. no u On April 29 2010 03:49 hefty wrote:
----- Tried to put things in quotes and stuff here, but messed up, I'll jump to the point: I use a copy+paste of like (/quote) (QUOTE)(B)On April 29 2010 03:49 hefty wrote /B) that I set up every reply i paste that shit right where I want to comment and type inside of it so good, no mistakes ever On April 29 2010 03:49 hefty wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2010 02:24 Yurebis wrote:
I'm not trolling, I just don't see anything there but trees
or anything in a society but people and their individual goals
their characteristics may be alike
but that doesn't create anything outside of them
if it does, it would be something supernatural, like spirits, or god, maybe. Take heed of the above objections and forget the society and individual goals for a moment. It is still only trees in the forest, no new entities are made. But the individual trees are altered by the group/collective. They are no longer what they were on their own. There don't need to be new entities, there just need to be added something to the equation. On their own, the trees were 1. Grouped together something was added, in a cluster the individual tree is: 1+s The cluster is then n(1+s) where n is the number of trees. n =|= n(1+s) Thus #1 is false, a group is more than a sum of individuals although it is only made entities called individuals. wtf. it's still a tree. It don't matter to me even if it would turn pink and be embarrassed for being around other trees because it's naked, or self-explode due to bizarre atomic reactions, it's still just a tree. the point of the analogy is not to say that the individual elements are unchanged no matter what, they can change, i dont give a shit, but no new entity has been created out of it. there is no external consciousness out of the individual there can be no external goal therefore, the greater good is at best an illusion Jeeesus Christ*. I took all that effort telling you to forget the minds of individuals for a moment - setting it up so it should be fairly understandable to anyone that the following point (the one at the end of the post obv) has NOTHING to do with external consciousness, and yet you fall back to it. That post was only on premise #1. I give up on you. * Don't believe in him of course ^^
why not break down your points like I do.
let me try.
1-a tree is a certain arrangement of molecules
2-those molecules may change arrangement when another tree is nearby
3-therefore, this arrangement of molecules has gained something
in response
2- I don't give a damn if it's changed, it's still a damn tree
3- changing isn't gaining something new
is it clear now?
|
does walmart rob you everytime you enter their establishment just because they can? Does wallmart exist in civil society wherein the sword of the state would crush them if they did so?
Yes.
Does wallmart's position in society constitute a renunciation of their right to self governance and an authorization of the state to act against them?
Yes.
Go look at what you're quoting then tell me if an organization like wallmart is a good example. Somali pirates might work a bit better. And yes, they would rob me.
Covenants can be interchanged without force you know. you can have a third party to arbitrate the deal, and call on you if you break it. people who break contracts are ostracized and lose profit, so its on their interest to not break it.. The third party, if able to enforce the agreement, has coercive measures and violence against both of you. You further assume that people who break contracts are ostracized (ie, gain stigma) and lose profit, but that's operating under the assumption of perfect knowledge, which is false. This is completely demolished by the parable of Gyges.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Gyges
If you cannot be held accountable because your anti-social behavior cannot be detected, then there's no deterrence. What's more, if you're perfectly immoral and excellent at it, not only will you not appear to break your contracts, but you'll appear like a beacon of morality and gain plenty of profit. What's more, if the profit accrued by a single breach of covenant was large enough, no amount of stigma would deter it. In the most charitable instance, every covenant becomes an evaluation of how much stigma would be gained vs how much profit there was to be made by breach.
Your example regarding the "smart" thief shortly before works here; a smart thief would break covenants which would minimize stigma (he'd kill certain people to shut them up, bully the old and weak, put fear into people so they don't say anything, pay off the people responsible for spreading news related to stigma, etc), and would maximize self gain.
how do you "damage" free association? Easiest method? Break covenants regarding free association as per the above schema.
that is a nice statement you got there, privatization being inefficient. It is because its true in that sector. There isn't a single case study which proves otherwise. The profit motive does not optimally mesh with every potential service.
Monopoly. what's the crime about monopoly? There's no crime until its made a crime by civil society.
That said, you're showing your true colours by pretending that free markets work well when dominated by monopolies; your entire argument in the OP is essentially an attempt at attacking the power monopoly of governments. Somewhat contradictory that you'd ignore the same ability to levy force when the instrument is not called a government, but I don't really expect better from bread thinkers.
cornered by being extremely efficient? what crime has been committed?
is offering a service a crime? I guess it is when the government wants to enter a market and control it right... If by being extremely efficient you mean hired the mob to fuck their competition at night and refused to let anyone that didn't play by their rules use the railways, then yes. They were efficient. Efficient at consolidating power.
Feel free to look up the history of Standard Oil. Don't even bother defending yourself on this point until you do because its clear you have no idea what you're talking about if you think free markets and cornered markets are the same thing.
yeah man, and me claiming to own my body is also violent because I'm depriving rapists and murderers from raping me, correct? How do you claim your body? By preventing someone else from exercising their will to kill you. Yes. That's violence.
Oh shit, violence and force can be used in a justifiable manner! Better re-look at that truistic hatred of government!
public property is a joke. it's state property.
there is only unowned property, unownable property (just made that up imo), and owned property
public property is property owned by the thugs. No, actually it isn't. I can create public property in the private sphere by the granting of servitudes or unlimited implied licenses. Go back to my question and try again without the canned talking points.
and the best for last:
wow, bravo L. so if I steal your car, you'll say that you gave it to me?
seriously? Strawman. Try again.
Somalia is hardly an anarcho-capitalist place right now. It just doesn't have a conventional modern state. it still has thugish families that take care of the law functions of society and you can only secede from if you have another one to go.
I don't have a family nor contacts in Somalia, if I go there on my free will I couldn't do shit even if I knew their language. Nah bro. The lack of a modern state means you can build your dream world there. Bet it all on the hope of not getting shot at night and having all of your stuff stolen.
|
On April 29 2010 05:45 Yurebis wrote:
why not break down your points like I do.
let me try.
1-a tree is a certain arrangement of molecules
2-those molecules may change arrangement when another tree is nearby
3-therefore, this arrangement of molecules has gained something
in response
2- I don't give a damn if it's changed, it's still a damn tree
3- changing isn't gaining something new
is it clear now?
You been telling people to read up on all sorts of stuff. My advice for you is to read up on emergence, then apply to said premise. I don't want to continue this as it is going nowhere.
|
On April 29 2010 05:48 L wrote:Show nested quote +does walmart rob you everytime you enter their establishment just because they can? Does wallmart exist in civil society wherein the sword of the state would crush them if they did so? Yes.
you really think the state is a bigger threat to them rather than its customers never coming back and them losing profits?
what if they're operating at a third world country where the police force is inexistant
why dont they enslave a whole country there w\ their cash
because contrary to popular thought, violence is expensive.
the crime does not pay not because of punishment, but because of retaliation and lack of a long term prospect of profit
unless of course, you got the government watching your back
and people see your crime as legitimate
so its not really a crime then
On April 29 2010 05:48 L wrote:
Does wallmart's position in society constitute a renunciation of their right to self governance and an authorization of the state to act against them?
Yes.
what if they did indeed ask the government to stop opressing them?
don't matter, state says no, walmart folks got to shut the fuck up or have thugs come by and incarcerate them.
On April 29 2010 05:48 L wrote:Show nested quote +Covenants can be interchanged without force you know. you can have a third party to arbitrate the deal, and call on you if you break it. people who break contracts are ostracized and lose profit, so its on their interest to not break it.. The third party, if able to enforce the agreement, has coercive measures and violence against both of you. You further assume that people who break contracts are ostracized (ie, gain stigma) and lose profit, but that's operating under the assumption of perfect knowledge, which is false. This is completely demolished by the parable of Gyges. It's not coercive if it was agreed upon by both parties beforehand.
hence its a contract... a deal, an agreement.
will read
On April 29 2010 05:48 L wrote:
If you cannot be held accountable because your anti-social behavior cannot be detected, then there's no deterrence. What's more, if you're perfectly immoral and excellent at it, not only will you not appear to break your contracts, but you'll appear like a beacon of morality and gain plenty of profit. What's more, if the profit accrued by a single breach of covenant was large enough, no amount of stigma would deter it. In the most charitable instance, every covenant becomes an evaluation of how much stigma would be gained vs how much profit there was to be made by breach. and you think the entrepreneurs doing businesses wouldn't account for that risk? you really think they're dumb and like throwing money away? They will manage. There can be insurance, deposits, I don't know what else, the market is a billion heads worth of ideas.
You're not the first person in the world to know that L, and if such immense barriers exist where a certain business model cannot exist without coercion, too bad, it may not come to exist w\o a state after all.
Why is it that you think anything that man does requires some type coercion? Have a cup of peace, jesus.
On April 29 2010 05:48 L wrote:
Your example regarding the "smart" thief shortly before works here; a smart thief would break covenants which would minimize stigma (he'd kill certain people to shut them up, bully the old and weak, put fear into people so they don't say anything, pay off the people responsible for spreading news related to stigma, etc), and would maximize self gain. I didn't get half of what you said but sounds like government black ops to me amirite?
anyways. who is to stop such a clever clever criminal today, the state police? haha
he'd probably be the sheriff himself, being that smart. What's a better spot to be in as a thief and murdered if not inside the sanctified state itself?
On April 29 2010 05:48 L wrote: Easiest method? Break covenants regarding free association as per the above schema. You know, I used to think controlling the flow of information was easy like that too, you pay people off, kill those that can't be bribed... but seriously, by doing that, you're rasing the price of whatever information you're trying to conceal so much, that it becomes increasingly more rewarding to those who know to sell it elsewhere.
so.. to be able to do all that consistently, you either got to be mad rich or mad powerful.
in which case, if you're one of the two already, you're probably better off just lobbying the gov't to get whatever evil plan you have in mind done for cheap
I mean what would be easier, pay off a thousand people to shut up, or idk, pay off some key representatives to enact a censorship law? or paying off the FBI and state police chiefs?
Politics is the art of making people pay for their own miseries. You pay to get fucked up, rly.
On April 29 2010 05:48 L wrote: It is because its true in that sector. There isn't a single case study which proves otherwise. The profit motive does not optimally mesh with every potential service.
it's not true privatization because again, the government never, 99% of the time, shrinks a service or department. it does not like to layoff its bureaucrats. If there's a department taking care of healthcare, and they've "privatized" some places, that department is not going to close. It's gonna keep regulating behind another company. What government calls privatization more often than not is just a lease under the same regulatory thugs.
On April 29 2010 05:48 L wrote: There's no crime until its made a crime by civil society. That said, you're showing your true colours by pretending that free markets work well when dominated by monopolies; your entire argument in the OP is essentially an attempt at attacking the power monopoly of governments. Somewhat contradictory that you'd ignore the same ability to levy force when the instrument is not called a government, but I don't really expect better from bread thinkers.
you see, I've used the word monopoly contradictorily
I don't know how many times and I don't bother to check but,
the popular definition is "a sole provider of a certain goods or services"
and I've used that some, but sometimes I also mean it as what now is "legal monopoly" just by saying "monopoly", which is a sole provider as well, but one that has reached its status by force, by literally, coercively shutting down the competitors by the gun, by mandate.
so there really isn't a contradiction, I just slipped a few.
to make explicit
I'm not against monopolies which have reached their position by voluntary means
I'm against monopolies which are what they are by coercion, threat, violence.
the state is the latter
a market monopoly is the first (unless they're shady, which then probably means they're protected by the state anyways. the state doesn't like competition on shadiness so they either join or break lol)
On April 29 2010 05:48 L wrote:Show nested quote +cornered by being extremely efficient? what crime has been committed?
is offering a service a crime? I guess it is when the government wants to enter a market and control it right... If by being extremely efficient you mean hired the mob to fuck their competition at night and refused to let anyone that didn't play by their rules use the railways, then yes. They were efficient. Efficient at consolidating power.
that I'm against
and you know I'm against.
but it certainly certainly is not what naturally happens
there's hundreds of successful multinational corporations in the world, how many of them could you say are violent?
id say at most like, 1%
On April 29 2010 05:48 L wrote:
Feel free to look up the history of Standard Oil. Don't even bother defending yourself on this point until you do because its clear you have no idea what you're talking about if you think free markets and cornered markets are the same thing.
I don't need to.
Even if the state, a mafia, knocked out some other mafia per say, it's still just mafias colliding
didn't do anyone a favor.
On April 29 2010 05:48 L wrote:Show nested quote +yeah man, and me claiming to own my body is also violent because I'm depriving rapists and murderers from raping me, correct? How do you claim your body? By preventing someone else from exercising their will to kill you. Yes. That's violence. Oh shit, violence and force can be used in a justifiable manner! Better re-look at that truistic hatred of government! we're using different words for the same thing then
what I mean by violence are unjustifiable interpersonal acts
so.. that was it.. you were using violence to say any interpersonal act that interferes the other party in any way?
so, is me changing the patterns of pixels in your screen violence, since I'm affecting your vision?
the word violence loses it's meaning like that imo
On April 29 2010 05:48 L wrote:Show nested quote +public property is a joke. it's state property.
there is only unowned property, unownable property (just made that up imo), and owned property
public property is property owned by the thugs. No, actually it isn't. I can create public property in the private sphere by the granting of servitudes or unlimited implied licenses. Go back to my question and try again without the canned talking points.
it's still your property, you're just allowing people to walk on it...
re-reading
On April 29 2010 01:19 L wrote:
Think about the difference between public and private property to flesh that idea out more. Why is one private? Is public property fully public? Why not?
ok sorry for misrepresenting
it's not, because if no one owns it, then no one has a 'right' to control it
but I guess u know that and we are in agreement
(still don't like to call it public)
On April 29 2010 05:48 L wrote:and the best for last: Show nested quote +wow, bravo L. so if I steal your car, you'll say that you gave it to me?
seriously? Strawman. Try again.
it was a slight strawman, but your definition of voluntary is trash
voluntary doesn't mean "you have a choice between eating the bullet, running away, or performing fellatio 4 me"
it means you're free to reject the proposal and be left alone
you're joking if you mean that the state is voluntary because they're limited to a certain area, or
they're still invading my property and not leaving me alone if I don't want to pay them thugs.
the word voluntary is meaningless like that
On April 29 2010 05:48 L wrote:Show nested quote +Somalia is hardly an anarcho-capitalist place right now. It just doesn't have a conventional modern state. it still has thugish families that take care of the law functions of society and you can only secede from if you have another one to go.
I don't have a family nor contacts in Somalia, if I go there on my free will I couldn't do shit even if I knew their language. Nah bro. The lack of a modern state means you can build your dream world there. Bet it all on the hope of not getting shot at night and having all of your stuff stolen.
lol
|
On April 29 2010 05:51 hefty wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2010 05:45 Yurebis wrote:
why not break down your points like I do.
let me try.
1-a tree is a certain arrangement of molecules
2-those molecules may change arrangement when another tree is nearby
3-therefore, this arrangement of molecules has gained something
in response
2- I don't give a damn if it's changed, it's still a damn tree
3- changing isn't gaining something new
is it clear now? You been telling people to read up on all sorts of stuff. My advice for you is to read up on emergence, then apply to said premise. I don't want to continue this as it is going nowhere.
ok
...
so, by emergence, you mean, new atoms are gonna pop out the tree and form something new?
jk I'll read..
|
The anime "The Legend of Galactic Heroes" explores these issues as well as providing an epically scaled galactic-wide political drama/warfare.
One of the the protagonists believes nations are "meaningless". By that, he meant that nations are made up of people with similar goals, and exist to serve those people to that end. He sees it as more of a political tool for power (you serve it) than a genuine entity that serves you.
Though he hates the corruption present in his government, his loyalty to his country and beliefs does not waver lest he fall into corruption as well. He understands that though he is a single man, he is part of the foundation of what is right.
--
With that in mind, collectivism only works to a certain extent before the amount of individuals that belong to it starts to cap the collective's willingness to pursue the said goals. Eventually, there's going to be a point where the growing amount of individuals within the collective do not share the same mindset and thus begin to hinder the collective's overall progress.
Obviously, there are a lot of benefits to collectivism, but it is never the "be all, end all" solution to everything, and should be utilized in humanity within reasonable limits.
|
that ring of gyges story is really cute.
but that doesnt disprove praxeology at all
in fact it's very compatible (praxeology is value-free, so it can also explain the actions of a vile person)
assuming that the person who's invisible is also somewhat invulnerable (cuz it seems like he is):
you can't stop him from stealing shit, raping you
can't inflict damage upon him in exchange
can't recognize him
can't in fact even know he's next to you!
meaning, he cannot be retaliated upon, and he cannot be avoided
so obviously self-defense won't help, ostracism won't help
and that mofo is gonna run free raping bitches like a fucker
but that doesn't mean much in the real world where people are not invulnerable nor invisible.
you mess with someone, you better be ready to suffer back
and people knowing what others are able to do, are also able to prepare against the worse.
so violence can always be minimized further and further down
by the virtue of technology and capital retention.
|
On April 29 2010 06:43 shinigami wrote:
The anime "The Legend of Galactic Heroes" explores these issues as well as providing an epically scaled galactic-wide political drama/warfare.
One of the the protagonists believes nations are "meaningless". By that, he meant that nations are made up of people with similar goals, and exist to serve those people to that end. He sees it as more of a political tool for power (you serve it) than a genuine entity that serves you.
Though he hates the corruption present in his government, his loyalty to his country and beliefs does not waver lest he fall into corruption as well. He understands that though he is a single man, he is part of the foundation of what is right.
--
With that in mind, collectivism only works to a certain extent before the amount of individuals that belong to it starts to cap the collective's willingness to pursue the said goals. Eventually, there's going to be a point where the growing amount of individuals within the collective do not share the same mindset and thus begin to hinder the collective's overall progress.
Obviously, there are a lot of benefits to collectivism, but it is never the "be all, end all" solution to everything, and should be utilized in humanity within reasonable limits.
your too mild
u gotta go like
fuk the poleeece
|
ok hefty I've read a little on emergence and it is a curious thing
I may modify #1 a little bit just so it doesn't offend u, mr. strong emergence
as you could tell already the premise has nothing to do on whether a certain pattern of trees could create some sort of system so awesome that is something unique
but more on the consciousness property of individuals
so I'll see
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
