There is a false paradigm of "left vs right" in the way that people think in terms of "left" and "right"
Left to right is a continuum that measures the amount of state control in a polity.
Far leftism, communism, is absolute state control. Control of economics requires state control, so any form of socialism is by definition on the left.
On the far right side is anarchy (pure anarchy, ancap - there is no such thing as a anarcho-socialist, it is a contradiction in terms)
And although the Left has a long tradition of dishonesty and information distortion, which includes anyone opposing them as "right extremists" and changing their own nomenclature, even smart guys like Nolan and Pournelle have contributed to the confusion of definitions of Left and Right.
I think it's great that my little prince of the baahamas has taken an interest in this topic, it's one that should be very close to his heart.
Baah has been injured with autism due to a bad batch of the varicella vaccine and as such struggles with a few things like interacting with other people.
Please remember this when speaking with him, after all he is my little genius.
Left to right is a continuum that measures the amount of state control in a polity.
You want to argue that left vs right is how much state control is in a policy?
We were discussing about how Left Representatives, and Right Representatives in the way it was implied and used, which I argued that the whole political process is for suckers, not just one aspect of it, or one party.
See, there is no policy of anarchy, or A policy of anarchy or any such decree, it goes fundamentally against anarchy, anarchy doesn't exist in terms of Policy so positing that one end of the spectrum is the antonym to policy, and at the other end of the spectrum is complete state control policy, and people decide that through representatives, is fallacious, it's another false premise, another false dichotomy wrapped up in words that try to validate it's first false premise.
It's not a contradiction in terms, they can voluntarily engage in that end can they not? Same for communists, they can be state controlled or completely voluntary, it's not inherent of left vs right least of all how you used it "vote democratic". Implying that voting otherwise is better, a better more anarchic policy.
The essence is that there is no "left vs right" and equivocation isn't an argument, it's a fallacy, so then it betrays what you used the term for, or how people vote, as if anarchy could be voted is a moot point, because anarchy isn't policy. To argue that government is proven by broken skulls in a museum and call anarchy tribal government resolves that you are a braindead zombie who hasn't bothered to look into what's escaping his mouth.
too many assumptions in the first minute of the vid
"people got along with each other before government"; no, they didn't...any museum worth it's salt has a skull that was bashed in millienia before anyone had said the word government
There are always going to be bandits; government does not create the bandits, but bandits will infest government when the citizenry does not perform their own self-defense duties
when bandits don't have government, it is up to people (who become "citizens" under government, although it's exactly the same group of folks), to bear arms and maintain vigilance against banditry, then kill bandits where they attack.
in ether case, people must defend themselves
When government is used, it is again up to the citizens to keep bandits out of government, and kill them where they infect it by paying attention to politics and watering the tree of liberty as necessary
there is no magical utopia where people hold hands and sing cumbiya...government does not create this magical utopia either
all government is is a "dangerous tool"; it is a extension of humanity as it is
anyone who wants to be left alone needs a large armory, government or not.
this is sloppy, but it should serve as a post on it's own. thanks for the inspiration!
"people got along with each other before government"; no, they didn't...any museum worth it's salt has a skull that was bashed in millienia before anyone had said the word government
Not true, there are numerous indigenous people that got along just fine without government. The people of zoomia have been without government for longer than government has been around, they number over one hundred million, and they don't need government, even though there are five distinct cultures.
The assumption that people didn't get along before government is cast aside when you examine the period of anarchy after almost all revolutions which was violently brought to an end by government, sometimes weeks, sometime years later, besides Zomia. Government hasn't brought peace anywhere, and to blame the people for government taking over is equal to blaming someone for getting robbed, raped or murdered. This is evident in all history, before government people were getting along just fine, after government nothing has changed except now people are extorted and subjugated to the mandates and rules of the ruling class. That doesn't solve anything, as there wasn't anything to solve or that it sought to solve other than to extort people under the premise of "protection", it's the classic protection racket that the mob has used.
There are always going to be bandits; government does not create the bandits, but bandits will infest government when the citizenry does not perform their own self-defense duties
Government clearly creates bandits, they are the biggest bandits, they steal more than bandits do through asset forfeiture every single year, and that's just what's reported, they extort everyone for no benefit besides their own, if they aren't there to stop bandits and bandits still exist regardless of government then government isn't doing it's end of the protection racket, but if it was it wouldn't be any more legitimate, because extortion is never legitimate.
when bandits don't have government, it is up to people (who become "citizens" under government, although it's exactly the same group of folks), to bear arms and maintain vigilance against banditry, then kill bandits where they attack.
Those evil bandits that attack, I wonder why Zomia hasn't been taken over by pillaging bandits or have problems with bandits even though they have no government.
When the government becomes bandits you vote them out. Repeat after me "initiating violence to extort is ok if you're doing it to fight off bandits" Obey Obey Obey, limited government, left vs right, those evil bandits will surely take over.
When government is used, it is again up to the citizens to keep bandits out of government, and kill them where they infect it by paying attention to politics and watering the tree of liberty as necessary
When extortion and theft is used, is for the people to keep "bandits" out of extortion and theft. I get it, you're a braindead zombie that believe government is a necessary evil, because hordes of raiders, and who will build the roads. No utopic society means government, or theft, mind control, and initiating force in general is an extension of humanity, because people are extortion loving thieves that have an incessant need to rule or lord over each other, and if you want to be left alone, you better do it with a government.
LOLOLOL
Woosh that one minute video really worked up all the braindead rhetoric because so much assumption. Like raiders.
you're a braindead zombie that believe government is a necessary evil
snort, I was going to state specifically that government is NOT a "necessary evil" because I thought you were adult enough to understand that, but congratulations for putting the words in my mouth that you want to argue against
Good luck on your own Utopia!
btw, how are you going to get me to participate in your political fantasy other than use of force?
hopefully, you understand to just leave me out of it ;>
Obviously you skirted the argument that if you believe in either political party you simply believe that others have the power to do what nobody else can, like initiating violence and extortion, and theft.
Glad you agree that regardless of policy, they both suffer from being liars and cheats, the point was that believing they have a right to initiate violence, extortion and theft, makes you a sucker, regardless of who lies more.
How I would get you to join a "political fantasy"?
First you would have to realize that I am not here to get you to join, I am here positing arguments and ridiculing you, personally, so that others raise questions about their own beliefs as I have no interest in converting you, only in speaking the truth.
I never said "utopia" I never said "political fantasy", so we have nothing to speak about. Those assumptions in the first minute have been dispelled, I spoke of matter of fact, and you can focus on the inconsequential, the point is that if you require force to get people to participate, you're a sucker. There are better ways, take a look at Zomia, and countless indigenous cultures and the periods in between wars where anarchy and voluntary interaction was how people got along, it even happened in this country with the Germans in New York at the turn of the century, but every time government thugs were what squashed those peaceful times. People have lived without government in peace, and that's not "numerous assertions", or even one, it's a fact of life that doesn't get debated by those that are aware of it.
a better inspiration: Why running around calling folks zombies and sheeple helps me convince those folks that my ideology, which most of those folks already hold a suspicious view of, is superior to theirs
With special bonus inspiration: why ignoring everything those folks say to argue against what I really want to argue is a superior tactic in such convincing
The sheeple was after I provided reasoning and rightly so as you could only stomach a minute of the many assertion about people getting along without government. You can take offense but you do realize that this ideology, or anarchy, is what steem is based on, as dan is an anarchist, and I have no reason to entertain discussion with someone that ignores the argument and focuses solely on their pathetically erected strawmen.
Yeah, I did much ignoring to your strawmen. See here, it's not Left vs Right, it's left vs right, and anarchism is far right. Yeahhhhhh, anarchism is policy, enforced by force.
I would write how sheeple and zombies are an excellent medium of convincing others that voting for a new puppet every 4 years is certifiable insanity and most absurd after they've been demonstrated as braindead unquestioning, and hardly confronting, but ever evasive, ignoring the obvious argument, zombie, sheeple, or however else you want to describe people that evade the argument in reaction to the congestive dissonance that says "NO, Government saved people from being savages, look at a museum!" when he's presented with an entertaining thought that upon examination "so called museums" is actually a living truth and a fact of life for over one hundred million people, and has been for so long before government.
Yeahhhhhh, anarchism is policy, enforced by force.
except I never said that...you interpreted that the way you wanted to read it
pure anarchy is at the far right of the continuum, meaning no state control; which in practicality results in warlords, or pure banditry
but if you want to pretend that tribal government in Zomia isn't really government, go right ahead LOL; if you want to further pretend there isn't inter-tribal conflict, please continue
It's your fantasy. I'd hate to disrupt that! It's nice to be the supramoral and ultraintellectual hero defeating the powers of evil via strawman and bold statement, isn't it?
or wait, are you in mama's basement smoking weed and dreaming about that sweeet UBI check that real anarchy is going to give you without any effort on your own part?
Obviously you skirted the argument that if you believe in either political party you simply believe that others have the power to do what nobody else can, like initiating violence and extortion, and theft.
Glad you agree that regardless of policy, they both suffer from being liars and cheats, the point was that believing they have a right to initiate violence, extortion and theft, makes you a sucker, regardless of who lies more.
Left vs Right Paradigm is for suckers, they both are proven liars or you're saying that the right isn't?
There is a false paradigm of "left vs right" in the way that people think in terms of "left" and "right"
Left to right is a continuum that measures the amount of state control in a polity.
Far leftism, communism, is absolute state control. Control of economics requires state control, so any form of socialism is by definition on the left.
On the far right side is anarchy (pure anarchy, ancap - there is no such thing as a anarcho-socialist, it is a contradiction in terms)
And although the Left has a long tradition of dishonesty and information distortion, which includes anyone opposing them as "right extremists" and changing their own nomenclature, even smart guys like Nolan and Pournelle have contributed to the confusion of definitions of Left and Right.
Much more detail here:
What is leftism? What is rightism? Why are there so many different interpretations?
Hello, my name is Urma and I am Baah's caretaker
I think it's great that my little prince of the baahamas has taken an interest in this topic, it's one that should be very close to his heart.
Baah has been injured with autism due to a bad batch of the varicella vaccine and as such struggles with a few things like interacting with other people.
Please remember this when speaking with him, after all he is my little genius.
now this is classic
a golf clap for @baah!
Well played, sir ;>
Now, if there really is a Gloria or Urma. I expect to see a picture verifying her existence...she should be a Jamaican woman in a bikini, on the beach
So what do we really have here?
Classic, in any case!
You want to argue that left vs right is how much state control is in a policy?
We were discussing about how Left Representatives, and Right Representatives in the way it was implied and used, which I argued that the whole political process is for suckers, not just one aspect of it, or one party.
See, there is no policy of anarchy, or A policy of anarchy or any such decree, it goes fundamentally against anarchy, anarchy doesn't exist in terms of Policy so positing that one end of the spectrum is the antonym to policy, and at the other end of the spectrum is complete state control policy, and people decide that through representatives, is fallacious, it's another false premise, another false dichotomy wrapped up in words that try to validate it's first false premise.
It's not a contradiction in terms, they can voluntarily engage in that end can they not? Same for communists, they can be state controlled or completely voluntary, it's not inherent of left vs right least of all how you used it "vote democratic". Implying that voting otherwise is better, a better more anarchic policy.
The essence is that there is no "left vs right" and equivocation isn't an argument, it's a fallacy, so then it betrays what you used the term for, or how people vote, as if anarchy could be voted is a moot point, because anarchy isn't policy. To argue that government is proven by broken skulls in a museum and call anarchy tribal government resolves that you are a braindead zombie who hasn't bothered to look into what's escaping his mouth.
If you are confusing republicans, a leftist political party, with the Right, then I see the confusion
There isn't a doctrinal policy of dishonesty on the Right, as there is on the Left.
That doesn't mean that any given politican or theorist on the Right isn't a liar, though.
Freedom means the freedom to be a lying douchebag, if an individual chooses to do so for power.
Good ol' freedom of limited governance.
too many assumptions in the first minute of the vid
"people got along with each other before government"; no, they didn't...any museum worth it's salt has a skull that was bashed in millienia before anyone had said the word government
There are always going to be bandits; government does not create the bandits, but bandits will infest government when the citizenry does not perform their own self-defense duties
when bandits don't have government, it is up to people (who become "citizens" under government, although it's exactly the same group of folks), to bear arms and maintain vigilance against banditry, then kill bandits where they attack.
in ether case, people must defend themselves
When government is used, it is again up to the citizens to keep bandits out of government, and kill them where they infect it by paying attention to politics and watering the tree of liberty as necessary
there is no magical utopia where people hold hands and sing cumbiya...government does not create this magical utopia either
all government is is a "dangerous tool"; it is a extension of humanity as it is
anyone who wants to be left alone needs a large armory, government or not.
this is sloppy, but it should serve as a post on it's own. thanks for the inspiration!
Not true, there are numerous indigenous people that got along just fine without government. The people of zoomia have been without government for longer than government has been around, they number over one hundred million, and they don't need government, even though there are five distinct cultures.
The assumption that people didn't get along before government is cast aside when you examine the period of anarchy after almost all revolutions which was violently brought to an end by government, sometimes weeks, sometime years later, besides Zomia. Government hasn't brought peace anywhere, and to blame the people for government taking over is equal to blaming someone for getting robbed, raped or murdered. This is evident in all history, before government people were getting along just fine, after government nothing has changed except now people are extorted and subjugated to the mandates and rules of the ruling class. That doesn't solve anything, as there wasn't anything to solve or that it sought to solve other than to extort people under the premise of "protection", it's the classic protection racket that the mob has used.
Government clearly creates bandits, they are the biggest bandits, they steal more than bandits do through asset forfeiture every single year, and that's just what's reported, they extort everyone for no benefit besides their own, if they aren't there to stop bandits and bandits still exist regardless of government then government isn't doing it's end of the protection racket, but if it was it wouldn't be any more legitimate, because extortion is never legitimate.
Those evil bandits that attack, I wonder why Zomia hasn't been taken over by pillaging bandits or have problems with bandits even though they have no government.
When the government becomes bandits you vote them out. Repeat after me "initiating violence to extort is ok if you're doing it to fight off bandits" Obey Obey Obey, limited government, left vs right, those evil bandits will surely take over.
When extortion and theft is used, is for the people to keep "bandits" out of extortion and theft. I get it, you're a braindead zombie that believe government is a necessary evil, because hordes of raiders, and who will build the roads. No utopic society means government, or theft, mind control, and initiating force in general is an extension of humanity, because people are extortion loving thieves that have an incessant need to rule or lord over each other, and if you want to be left alone, you better do it with a government.
LOLOLOL
Woosh that one minute video really worked up all the braindead rhetoric because so much assumption. Like raiders.
snort, I was going to state specifically that government is NOT a "necessary evil" because I thought you were adult enough to understand that, but congratulations for putting the words in my mouth that you want to argue against
Good luck on your own Utopia!
btw, how are you going to get me to participate in your political fantasy other than use of force?
hopefully, you understand to just leave me out of it ;>
Obviously you skirted the argument that if you believe in either political party you simply believe that others have the power to do what nobody else can, like initiating violence and extortion, and theft.
Glad you agree that regardless of policy, they both suffer from being liars and cheats, the point was that believing they have a right to initiate violence, extortion and theft, makes you a sucker, regardless of who lies more.
How I would get you to join a "political fantasy"?
First you would have to realize that I am not here to get you to join, I am here positing arguments and ridiculing you, personally, so that others raise questions about their own beliefs as I have no interest in converting you, only in speaking the truth.
I never said "utopia" I never said "political fantasy", so we have nothing to speak about. Those assumptions in the first minute have been dispelled, I spoke of matter of fact, and you can focus on the inconsequential, the point is that if you require force to get people to participate, you're a sucker. There are better ways, take a look at Zomia, and countless indigenous cultures and the periods in between wars where anarchy and voluntary interaction was how people got along, it even happened in this country with the Germans in New York at the turn of the century, but every time government thugs were what squashed those peaceful times. People have lived without government in peace, and that's not "numerous assertions", or even one, it's a fact of life that doesn't get debated by those that are aware of it.
Inspiration for a future post: Why am I on steem promoting delegating powers I don't have onto people, and how voting has changed my life.
a better inspiration:
Why running around calling folks zombies and sheeple helps me convince those folks that my ideology, which most of those folks already hold a suspicious view of, is superior to theirs
With special bonus inspiration:
why ignoring everything those folks say to argue against what I really want to argue is a superior tactic in such convincing
;>
The sheeple was after I provided reasoning and rightly so as you could only stomach a minute of the many assertion about people getting along without government. You can take offense but you do realize that this ideology, or anarchy, is what steem is based on, as dan is an anarchist, and I have no reason to entertain discussion with someone that ignores the argument and focuses solely on their pathetically erected strawmen.
Yeah, I did much ignoring to your strawmen. See here, it's not Left vs Right, it's left vs right, and anarchism is far right. Yeahhhhhh, anarchism is policy, enforced by force.
I would write how sheeple and zombies are an excellent medium of convincing others that voting for a new puppet every 4 years is certifiable insanity and most absurd after they've been demonstrated as braindead unquestioning, and hardly confronting, but ever evasive, ignoring the obvious argument, zombie, sheeple, or however else you want to describe people that evade the argument in reaction to the congestive dissonance that says "NO, Government saved people from being savages, look at a museum!" when he's presented with an entertaining thought that upon examination "so called museums" is actually a living truth and a fact of life for over one hundred million people, and has been for so long before government.
I just did that though.
except I never said that...you interpreted that the way you wanted to read it
pure anarchy is at the far right of the continuum, meaning no state control; which in practicality results in warlords, or pure banditry
but if you want to pretend that tribal government in Zomia isn't really government, go right ahead LOL; if you want to further pretend there isn't inter-tribal conflict, please continue
It's your fantasy. I'd hate to disrupt that! It's nice to be the supramoral and ultraintellectual hero defeating the powers of evil via strawman and bold statement, isn't it?
or wait, are you in mama's basement smoking weed and dreaming about that sweeet UBI check that real anarchy is going to give you without any effort on your own part?
Obviously you skirted the argument that if you believe in either political party you simply believe that others have the power to do what nobody else can, like initiating violence and extortion, and theft.
Glad you agree that regardless of policy, they both suffer from being liars and cheats, the point was that believing they have a right to initiate violence, extortion and theft, makes you a sucker, regardless of who lies more.