good points, on a somewhat related point this is why i feel hate crime legislation is a farce.
that's not about equality either, it's about creating a special class of citizen with enhanced protections under the law . a sort of hyper citizen / person that is afforded unique prosecutorial embellisment
Noone is arguing that perfect equalization is possible, just that it is what should be strived for. And not without a complete mindset change first. A mindset that understands that the lack of free will means one person is not more deserving than another person. Of course such a system will fail as long as people are illogical egoists.
But complaining about giving a piece of what you perceive to be your share (even though it is not) to someone with no healthcare at all...come on.
No, your version of fairness is insane, and should not be strived for. Extorting others to cure the inequities of life is self defeating, if nothing else.
The stupid thing about this, is I am a lower income person without healthcare insurance, so I bet I am one of the people that you want others to have to give to, and you know what? I don't want it.
It's not giving, I am complaining about people demanding my stuff by threat of force, how many different ways can I explain this to you?
How can you not see that you are attempting to use guilt on me. Your last sentence is designed to shame me for not wanting to be extorted. You are doing the very thing I talked about in my video, for like the 8th time.
Sorry, but if you are complaining about trumped up words while using words like "extortion" when I don't believe in "ownership" of what is being taken is just silly. I'm sorry, a person does not have a right to "own what they do not "deserve".
So you wouldn't mind if I cam over to your house and took your computer? If your boss just decided not to pay you, that wouldn't bother you? Well, judging by your seeming disgust of incentives, perhaps you have no job?
Unfortunately I live in a society where I require incentives just to survive. This is the mindset change I am talking about. Ideally you would not need to take my computer, and you would understand the importance of equal distribution.
Your ideology is economic survival of the fittest, yet you do not see the harms of such system. It baffles me a bit.
You require incentives to survive? That sentence does not make sense. No one "requires" an incentive, that's completely absurd. They exist and make it more(or less) advantageous to do something.
What retribution? You are justifying extortion because there is no such thing as ownership. Why should there be retribution? You also didn't answer me, if your boss stopped paying you and expected you to work, would that bother you?
No, I require to get paid, because of the capitalistic system I live in. I cannot live without it. So yes, in our current system it would bother me. But in another system I would be more than happy to be a productive member of society (work) just to keep things functioning smoothly for the society I live in. I don't NEED incentive (to be productive) as long as I can live comfortably without it.
You do understand the money represents resources, correct? That people need resources to survive? This is a simple fact of life. It does not matter one iota what system you use for governance, this will still be true. In order for us to be able to use resources, people have to work. But their work does not create the same value. People do different things and have different abilities. This is also a simple fact of life.
So in your proposed system, someone who sits on he couch all day and refuses to work gets what? As much as anyone else? Remember, he can't choose, so you cant hold him responsible. You would make us all his slave?
By the way, you never answered me, should contracts be honored?
"Your ideology is economic survival of the fittest"
For like the millionth time, I didn't come up with this. I didn't invent the scarcity of resources and people finding the most efficient ways to use them. These are simple facts of life. My ideology consists of not victimizing others, but helping them. You seem to forget that I spent a great deal of time talking about how I like to help people. Just because I don't want to sacrifice my principles in achieving those ends, I am the bad guy
Do I not also live in a society where I need resources? Do I not live in a society where I must be paid? You are making an argument to justify me being extorted, because you claim it should not bother me because I don't actually own it. This exact same argument can apply to you and everything you own. You don't deserve it or own it, so you should not be upset when I come and take it all. What's your address? I am dead serious.
The acquisition of a resource does not equate to a good enough reason for ownership of that something, particularly because acquiring a resource does not mean one deserves the resource. Again, the lack of free will means no one person is more deserving.
I’m not proposing a system, I am proposing a mindset shift. In my proposed mindset shift people would understand the importance and value of productive work without the need of incentive. If such a mindset shift cannot happen, my proposed system is one that offers incentive but balances that with as much fairness and equality as possible.
If that means taxing people to help other people, so be it, as long as productivity is enough to keep society functional. I’m against those that want to take away the little equality systems we have.
On the other hand, I am all for improving those systems. I agree that taxing to fund an unnecessary war or anything else that does not assist people in need is bad and needs to change. I hear your plight on bad government policy. I don’t hear you on you thinking you have a right to resources you hold just because you had the causality to acquire them.
No, you don't hear my plight on bad government policy. At all. My point is that it is the system that allows people to be extorted to enrich others is fundamentally flawed, and the problems that government creates comes from this very problem. When I complain about this arrangement, seeming as I had nothing to do with it's creation and never agreed to any of it, you are just telling me to deal with it. Well, it'll never end if I listen to you.
What if I told you taxing(taking property with force or threat of force) people went to making our society less productive and functional? What if I told you that you are just assuming that this system is making things "equal", when in fact it is doing anything but? That wouldn't change your mind, would it?
No, this is categorically false. How could one see the productive value of something if there is no incentive to be productive? Even after your proposed mind-set shift, you still are just stating incentives for people to act a certain way. How is it possible you don't/can't see this?
It MAY not be a good enough reason, but if the people didn't see an incentive to produce those resources, they will never be produced. Your idea removes almost all the incentive. Good luck eating when no one wants to work because no one deserves or owns anything.
"For the THIRD TIME, should contracts be honored?"
YES - LEGAL contracts should be honored. LEGAL contracts. Ones that align with the rules set up that prevent unfairness.
"What if I told you..."
If you could show me it would lead to a complete economic crash without speculating, I'd have no choice but to support the movement to matter how unfair the results were.
And again, I am supporting a mindset shift and not supporting my system without it first. I do believe, however, that we can still curtail to those illogical people who think they are more deserving than others, and at the same time use balance in some fairness for those that do not deserve to be in the poverty they are in. And we can do this without relying on "charity" which, without a mindset shift, no one would give enough.
So to recap, I support partial capitalism as the only viable solution until people understand what is fair. I do not support an entirely free market as that does nothing to equalize and is only fair to those that have the causality to thrive in such environment. Just as survival of the fittest causes billions of animals to suffer/die, the free market is the causal equivalent in the economic world.
I've always liked the idea that when you reach the age of 18, you get X money to help you get your life started. A large part of my liking the idea is based on who my family is. Then I realize it meets the same flaw so many of my ideas for how to make the world a better place run into... where the hell does the money for that come from? And I've never come up with a good answer, so I rarely even bring it up.
Have you done a video about anarchism? I ask because you're the only person I've seen espouse anarchism who is also articulate and politically/economically knowledgeable. In other words, how, in your view, would an anarchist society operate exactly? I know, I know, Google is my friend...
What people really want when they say things like this is:
equal health care
equal schools
equal rights
equal opportunities for employment
thats all they really want, and can you blame them?
You might be a "pull yourself up" kinda guy, and that works well until you are on the other side and cant do it by yourself, then yuo will realize just how hard it is. :)
I want things to be equal too, but you cannot accomplish this by imposing inequality. It won't work, and it undermines the very thing you are trying to accomplish.
but I feel like a more vigorous PR campaign aiming to win the hearts and minds who do vote for legislators who push for such laws, would be a more fair system.
My general problem with the American free market is that it's only free for some.
In my view corporate campaign contributions as well as lobbying congress should be illegal. By very design, the ability of corporations to buy and sell legislators is harmful to innovation in the free market. Large corporations will continue to encourage creation of law, as well as distribution of subsidies that give themselves an uneven advantage compared to smaller corporations and threats of innovation (ie. non-gasoline motor vehicles).
Nothing is for sure. We do our best to help one another when we can, but not everyone is equal and never will be. We lead by example by actually living the values of helping others, and not victimizing them.
For example having a broad based education system ensures a more educated society which means a better pool of people for private sector to choose from. That generates more wealth and takes a lot of uncertainty out of society.
I am all for it, provided no one is being victimized, of course. The best thing we could have for education would be the free market. Can you imagine the techniques that can be used that don't cost very much. The government is always stagnant and drives up costs, especially since it has the monopoly, at least in this country.
I think the differences in our opinion about governments come from different experiences. The neoliberal government has done a great job, business friendly, tries to keep regulations simple and non invasive, low taxes, entanglements only to keep people of falling to total poverty, actively fighting with corruption and trying to keep an equality of opportunity not to micromanage everyone's life and when invasive reforms are needed to waste less money then they take head on.
No, it doesn't come from different experiences. I have very little direct experience with the state at all. It comes from my understanding of what the state is, that it is built on force and coercion, and on victimizing others.
You can disagree all you like, but it doesnt change the fact that the whole thing is funded by taxes, which are extortion. The rules are passed by fiat and then enforced with violence. There is no escape from this.
This way of democracy has its benefits to your ideal, but as it boils down to political preference, its pointless to argue over it. I rather have it this way, you don't.
Except your way involves me being victimized, whereas my way does not involve victimizing anyone. Your so called "political preference" is actively hurting people, like I discussed in my charity vid
Yes but life is not fair. We all can't get what we want. The cost/benefit calculation makes my preference more reasonable. You may disagree with that all you want, but i do prefer this way of living.
I will not be silenced by platitudes like "life is not fair". That is no justification for you inflicting your will on me with violence. I am glad that are you happy, I wish you would let me be happy. I'm not doing anything to you to make you unhappy, how about you treat me with the same respect?
Its not me who is inflicting pain to you, its your constitution, thats what you need change. You need to dismantle the house and senate so they could not make tax laws and only collect donations.
Hey, we can agree on that. Dismantle the power structure, I'm with you. If the system was based on donations, it would collapse under it's weight so fast. That's why it will never happen.
I said if you wan't change that's what you need to do, not that i agree with that. If i would be a US citizen i would consider my government legit, so the only way to dismantle a legit state is to do it by voting, if people agree that democracy is nonsense and taxes are evil then you can live in you utopia.
@Uhmu45 Lol, consistency is Utopian ... w/e. How can you say any state is legit? What makes it legit? That you are born in that particular geographical region? That you are using it to your own means? What is a "legit" state? If the mob majority says it is okay is it legit? Is truth only measured by what the mob majority agrees to? If people agree (within a democracy) that you have too much and want to take everything you own away from you would that be legit?
@j0nathanbs23 A state is legit when it plays by the rules that were agreed upon before the game started(that goes for democracys).It's a scale(not either or),some states are more legit, some are less so. You could call a majority a mob when it gets to power and starts changing the rules for its own gains without any disregard to the game rules and minoritys.
(Utopia is an ideal community or society possessing a perfect socio-politico-legal system-that is so always in the eye of the beholder)
@Uhmu45 So it's legit even though those who agree on it are not alive today? Not like I agreed to it and I can't opt out with out a major health risk lol. If I decided to stop paying taxes, and the normal repercussions followed, wouldn't that be the majority reacting to me for its own gains? I would be the minority in that case ... Regardless, force has been used, throughout history, on the minorities that are on the fringe by states, its how states operate ...
Nobody is stopping you from advocating change. The constitution is not holy scripture. Until the rules have been changed, you must follow laws or suffer the consequences.
@Uhmu45 Why would I want to use the system to change the system when I don't want the system around at all? And you never made a case for legitimacy, you just asserted that the state is legitimate cause some people agreed on some rules. Any group of people can agree on things, that doesn't make it binding to everyone in an arbitrary geographical region. Y is it legitimate for a state to impose w/e force they wish onto a population in some arbitrary land grab, and not legit for everyone else?
Yes the state is legitimate because 90% of people agree on the rules and play by the them and consider them as valid. We the 90% make the rules and the enforcement valid. And the state loses legitimacy when it brakes the agreed rules. The state can't just impose w/e force they wish and take away land.
This is a invalid analogy, belief in the state is what makes people act and follow the rules, there is nothing supernatural about it, if people stopped believing in the state, then it stopped existing. If 90% would think that the constitution is toilet paper and nothing else then thats what it is, there would be no state.
Religious claims make statements about reality, we can measure reality. Claims about political preference are subjective. Thats why there is politics.
@Uhmu45 No it isn't invalid, belief is what i was pointing at. There is irrefutable truth as to the nature of the state. I'm not talking about politics, never was.
Just cause the majority says something is okay/right/correct doesn't mean it necessarily is.
utopia leads to 1984
wp4866 2 months ago
you have not made any videos in a while. why the sudden urge to make some after so long?
Herning666 7 months ago
@Herning666
No particular reason.
FearsEdge 7 months ago
oh man, that was a wonderful rant :D bravo.
MaikUniversum 7 months ago
good points, on a somewhat related point this is why i feel hate crime legislation is a farce.
that's not about equality either, it's about creating a special class of citizen with enhanced protections under the law . a sort of hyper citizen / person that is afforded unique prosecutorial embellisment
clownprince88 8 months ago
Noone is arguing that perfect equalization is possible, just that it is what should be strived for. And not without a complete mindset change first. A mindset that understands that the lack of free will means one person is not more deserving than another person. Of course such a system will fail as long as people are illogical egoists.
But complaining about giving a piece of what you perceive to be your share (even though it is not) to someone with no healthcare at all...come on.
trick0171 8 months ago
@trick0171
No, your version of fairness is insane, and should not be strived for. Extorting others to cure the inequities of life is self defeating, if nothing else.
The stupid thing about this, is I am a lower income person without healthcare insurance, so I bet I am one of the people that you want others to have to give to, and you know what? I don't want it.
FearsEdge 8 months ago
@FearsEdge
"have to give to" is shorthand for should be extorted to give to
FearsEdge 8 months ago
@trick0171
It's not giving, I am complaining about people demanding my stuff by threat of force, how many different ways can I explain this to you?
How can you not see that you are attempting to use guilt on me. Your last sentence is designed to shame me for not wanting to be extorted. You are doing the very thing I talked about in my video, for like the 8th time.
FearsEdge 8 months ago
@FearsEdge
Sorry, but if you are complaining about trumped up words while using words like "extortion" when I don't believe in "ownership" of what is being taken is just silly. I'm sorry, a person does not have a right to "own what they do not "deserve".
trick0171 8 months ago
@trick0171
So you wouldn't mind if I cam over to your house and took your computer? If your boss just decided not to pay you, that wouldn't bother you? Well, judging by your seeming disgust of incentives, perhaps you have no job?
FearsEdge 8 months ago
@FearsEdge
Unfortunately I live in a society where I require incentives just to survive. This is the mindset change I am talking about. Ideally you would not need to take my computer, and you would understand the importance of equal distribution.
Your ideology is economic survival of the fittest, yet you do not see the harms of such system. It baffles me a bit.
trick0171 8 months ago
@trick0171
You require incentives to survive? That sentence does not make sense. No one "requires" an incentive, that's completely absurd. They exist and make it more(or less) advantageous to do something.
What retribution? You are justifying extortion because there is no such thing as ownership. Why should there be retribution? You also didn't answer me, if your boss stopped paying you and expected you to work, would that bother you?
FearsEdge 8 months ago
@FearsEdge
No, I require to get paid, because of the capitalistic system I live in. I cannot live without it. So yes, in our current system it would bother me. But in another system I would be more than happy to be a productive member of society (work) just to keep things functioning smoothly for the society I live in. I don't NEED incentive (to be productive) as long as I can live comfortably without it.
trick0171 8 months ago
@trick0171
You do understand the money represents resources, correct? That people need resources to survive? This is a simple fact of life. It does not matter one iota what system you use for governance, this will still be true. In order for us to be able to use resources, people have to work. But their work does not create the same value. People do different things and have different abilities. This is also a simple fact of life.
FearsEdge 8 months ago
@trick0171
So in your proposed system, someone who sits on he couch all day and refuses to work gets what? As much as anyone else? Remember, he can't choose, so you cant hold him responsible. You would make us all his slave?
By the way, you never answered me, should contracts be honored?
FearsEdge 8 months ago
@trick0171
So you are saying that the INCENTIVE for you to work at that point would be to create a smoothly functioning society?
FearsEdge 8 months ago
@trick
"Your ideology is economic survival of the fittest"
For like the millionth time, I didn't come up with this. I didn't invent the scarcity of resources and people finding the most efficient ways to use them. These are simple facts of life. My ideology consists of not victimizing others, but helping them. You seem to forget that I spent a great deal of time talking about how I like to help people. Just because I don't want to sacrifice my principles in achieving those ends, I am the bad guy
FearsEdge 8 months ago
@trick0171
Do I not also live in a society where I need resources? Do I not live in a society where I must be paid? You are making an argument to justify me being extorted, because you claim it should not bother me because I don't actually own it. This exact same argument can apply to you and everything you own. You don't deserve it or own it, so you should not be upset when I come and take it all. What's your address? I am dead serious.
FearsEdge 8 months ago
@trick0171
Define extortion, and then tell me how it's different from what the state does.
FearsEdge 8 months ago
@FearsEdge
I am not calling you a bad guy, but rather one that misunderstands some key points.
The very point is that people think they own “resources” just because they are able to acquire them. That is my very point of contention.
(MORE 1)
trick0171 8 months ago
The acquisition of a resource does not equate to a good enough reason for ownership of that something, particularly because acquiring a resource does not mean one deserves the resource. Again, the lack of free will means no one person is more deserving.
(MORE 2)
trick0171 8 months ago
“So in your proposed system…”
I’m not proposing a system, I am proposing a mindset shift. In my proposed mindset shift people would understand the importance and value of productive work without the need of incentive. If such a mindset shift cannot happen, my proposed system is one that offers incentive but balances that with as much fairness and equality as possible.
(MORE 3)
trick0171 8 months ago
If that means taxing people to help other people, so be it, as long as productivity is enough to keep society functional. I’m against those that want to take away the little equality systems we have.
(MORE 4)
trick0171 8 months ago
On the other hand, I am all for improving those systems. I agree that taxing to fund an unnecessary war or anything else that does not assist people in need is bad and needs to change. I hear your plight on bad government policy. I don’t hear you on you thinking you have a right to resources you hold just because you had the causality to acquire them.
Thanks.
(END 5)
trick0171 8 months ago
@trick0171
No, you don't hear my plight on bad government policy. At all. My point is that it is the system that allows people to be extorted to enrich others is fundamentally flawed, and the problems that government creates comes from this very problem. When I complain about this arrangement, seeming as I had nothing to do with it's creation and never agreed to any of it, you are just telling me to deal with it. Well, it'll never end if I listen to you.
FearsEdge 8 months ago
@trick0171
For the THIRD TIME, should contracts be honored?
FearsEdge 8 months ago
@trick0171
What if I told you taxing(taking property with force or threat of force) people went to making our society less productive and functional? What if I told you that you are just assuming that this system is making things "equal", when in fact it is doing anything but? That wouldn't change your mind, would it?
FearsEdge 8 months ago
@trick0171
No, this is categorically false. How could one see the productive value of something if there is no incentive to be productive? Even after your proposed mind-set shift, you still are just stating incentives for people to act a certain way. How is it possible you don't/can't see this?
FearsEdge 8 months ago
@trick0171
It MAY not be a good enough reason, but if the people didn't see an incentive to produce those resources, they will never be produced. Your idea removes almost all the incentive. Good luck eating when no one wants to work because no one deserves or owns anything.
FearsEdge 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FearsEdge
"For the THIRD TIME, should contracts be honored?"
YES - LEGAL contracts should be honored. LEGAL contracts. Ones that align with the rules set up that prevent unfairness.
"What if I told you..."
If you could show me it would lead to a complete economic crash without speculating, I'd have no choice but to support the movement to matter how unfair the results were.
(MORE 1)
trick0171 8 months ago
And again, I am supporting a mindset shift and not supporting my system without it first. I do believe, however, that we can still curtail to those illogical people who think they are more deserving than others, and at the same time use balance in some fairness for those that do not deserve to be in the poverty they are in. And we can do this without relying on "charity" which, without a mindset shift, no one would give enough.
(MORE 2)
trick0171 8 months ago
So to recap, I support partial capitalism as the only viable solution until people understand what is fair. I do not support an entirely free market as that does nothing to equalize and is only fair to those that have the causality to thrive in such environment. Just as survival of the fittest causes billions of animals to suffer/die, the free market is the causal equivalent in the economic world.
Peace.
(END 3)
trick0171 8 months ago
You want to hear really whacked out ideas about "equal money", check out the thousands of YT videos by the Desteni cult. They are freaky.
FluffyFeralMarmot 8 months ago
I've always liked the idea that when you reach the age of 18, you get X money to help you get your life started. A large part of my liking the idea is based on who my family is. Then I realize it meets the same flaw so many of my ideas for how to make the world a better place run into... where the hell does the money for that come from? And I've never come up with a good answer, so I rarely even bring it up.
ApocalypticInferno 8 months ago
Have you done a video about anarchism? I ask because you're the only person I've seen espouse anarchism who is also articulate and politically/economically knowledgeable. In other words, how, in your view, would an anarchist society operate exactly? I know, I know, Google is my friend...
tomgrant29 8 months ago
What people really want when they say things like this is:
equal health care
equal schools
equal rights
equal opportunities for employment
thats all they really want, and can you blame them?
You might be a "pull yourself up" kinda guy, and that works well until you are on the other side and cant do it by yourself, then yuo will realize just how hard it is. :)
rednecktrucker1969 8 months ago
@rednecktrucker1969
I want things to be equal too, but you cannot accomplish this by imposing inequality. It won't work, and it undermines the very thing you are trying to accomplish.
FearsEdge 8 months ago
but I feel like a more vigorous PR campaign aiming to win the hearts and minds who do vote for legislators who push for such laws, would be a more fair system.
My general problem with the American free market is that it's only free for some.
JEMdev 8 months ago
@JEMdev America doesn't have a free market. There's no such thing as the "American free market."
theradioschizo 8 months ago
@JEMdev
The state is to blame for this problem :)
FearsEdge 8 months ago
In my view corporate campaign contributions as well as lobbying congress should be illegal. By very design, the ability of corporations to buy and sell legislators is harmful to innovation in the free market. Large corporations will continue to encourage creation of law, as well as distribution of subsidies that give themselves an uneven advantage compared to smaller corporations and threats of innovation (ie. non-gasoline motor vehicles).
Of course, this is in their best interests...
JEMdev 8 months ago
@JEMdev
That's why you take away the gun, since the people who have the most resources will always have the most access to it.
FearsEdge 8 months ago
Tis simple: To share out equality equally, someone has to be given the elite priviledge to take wealth by force and that is the height of inequality.
lordthawkeye 8 months ago
How would you ensure equality of opportunity?
Uhmu45 8 months ago
@Uhmu45
Nothing is for sure. We do our best to help one another when we can, but not everyone is equal and never will be. We lead by example by actually living the values of helping others, and not victimizing them.
FearsEdge 8 months ago
@FearsEdge
For example having a broad based education system ensures a more educated society which means a better pool of people for private sector to choose from. That generates more wealth and takes a lot of uncertainty out of society.
Uhmu45 8 months ago
@Uhmu45
I am all for it, provided no one is being victimized, of course. The best thing we could have for education would be the free market. Can you imagine the techniques that can be used that don't cost very much. The government is always stagnant and drives up costs, especially since it has the monopoly, at least in this country.
FearsEdge 8 months ago
@FearsEdge
I think the differences in our opinion about governments come from different experiences. The neoliberal government has done a great job, business friendly, tries to keep regulations simple and non invasive, low taxes, entanglements only to keep people of falling to total poverty, actively fighting with corruption and trying to keep an equality of opportunity not to micromanage everyone's life and when invasive reforms are needed to waste less money then they take head on.
Uhmu45 8 months ago
@Uhmu45
No, it doesn't come from different experiences. I have very little direct experience with the state at all. It comes from my understanding of what the state is, that it is built on force and coercion, and on victimizing others.
FearsEdge 8 months ago
@FearsEdge
And i disagree with that.
Uhmu45 8 months ago
@Uhmu45
You can disagree all you like, but it doesnt change the fact that the whole thing is funded by taxes, which are extortion. The rules are passed by fiat and then enforced with violence. There is no escape from this.
FearsEdge 8 months ago
@FearsEdge
This way of democracy has its benefits to your ideal, but as it boils down to political preference, its pointless to argue over it. I rather have it this way, you don't.
Uhmu45 8 months ago
@Uhmu45
Except your way involves me being victimized, whereas my way does not involve victimizing anyone. Your so called "political preference" is actively hurting people, like I discussed in my charity vid
FearsEdge 8 months ago
@FearsEdge
Yes but life is not fair. We all can't get what we want. The cost/benefit calculation makes my preference more reasonable. You may disagree with that all you want, but i do prefer this way of living.
Uhmu45 8 months ago
@Uhmu45
I will not be silenced by platitudes like "life is not fair". That is no justification for you inflicting your will on me with violence. I am glad that are you happy, I wish you would let me be happy. I'm not doing anything to you to make you unhappy, how about you treat me with the same respect?
FearsEdge 8 months ago
@FearsEdge
Its not me who is inflicting pain to you, its your constitution, thats what you need change. You need to dismantle the house and senate so they could not make tax laws and only collect donations.
Uhmu45 8 months ago
@Uhmu45
Hey, we can agree on that. Dismantle the power structure, I'm with you. If the system was based on donations, it would collapse under it's weight so fast. That's why it will never happen.
FearsEdge 8 months ago
@FearsEdge
Don't be hasty, i don't agree with that! ;P
Uhmu45 8 months ago
@Uhmu45
You just said dismantle the house and senate. You just said it should be based on donations, exactly what is it you don't agree with?
FearsEdge 8 months ago
@FearsEdge
I said if you wan't change that's what you need to do, not that i agree with that. If i would be a US citizen i would consider my government legit, so the only way to dismantle a legit state is to do it by voting, if people agree that democracy is nonsense and taxes are evil then you can live in you utopia.
Uhmu45 8 months ago
@Uhmu45
You see, there's where your problem lies. I don't see the state as legitimate, and I know voting is a trick and a sham.
FearsEdge 8 months ago
@FearsEdge
Well then we have a problem lol
Uhmu45 8 months ago
@Uhmu45 Lol, consistency is Utopian ... w/e. How can you say any state is legit? What makes it legit? That you are born in that particular geographical region? That you are using it to your own means? What is a "legit" state? If the mob majority says it is okay is it legit? Is truth only measured by what the mob majority agrees to? If people agree (within a democracy) that you have too much and want to take everything you own away from you would that be legit?
j0nathanbs23 8 months ago
@j0nathanbs23 A state is legit when it plays by the rules that were agreed upon before the game started(that goes for democracys).It's a scale(not either or),some states are more legit, some are less so. You could call a majority a mob when it gets to power and starts changing the rules for its own gains without any disregard to the game rules and minoritys.
(Utopia is an ideal community or society possessing a perfect socio-politico-legal system-that is so always in the eye of the beholder)
Uhmu45 8 months ago
@Uhmu45 So it's legit even though those who agree on it are not alive today? Not like I agreed to it and I can't opt out with out a major health risk lol. If I decided to stop paying taxes, and the normal repercussions followed, wouldn't that be the majority reacting to me for its own gains? I would be the minority in that case ... Regardless, force has been used, throughout history, on the minorities that are on the fringe by states, its how states operate ...
j0nathanbs23 8 months ago
@j0nathanbs23
Nobody is stopping you from advocating change. The constitution is not holy scripture. Until the rules have been changed, you must follow laws or suffer the consequences.
Uhmu45 8 months ago
@Uhmu45 Why would I want to use the system to change the system when I don't want the system around at all? And you never made a case for legitimacy, you just asserted that the state is legitimate cause some people agreed on some rules. Any group of people can agree on things, that doesn't make it binding to everyone in an arbitrary geographical region. Y is it legitimate for a state to impose w/e force they wish onto a population in some arbitrary land grab, and not legit for everyone else?
j0nathanbs23 8 months ago
@j0nathanbs23
Yes the state is legitimate because 90% of people agree on the rules and play by the them and consider them as valid. We the 90% make the rules and the enforcement valid. And the state loses legitimacy when it brakes the agreed rules. The state can't just impose w/e force they wish and take away land.
Uhmu45 8 months ago
@Uhmu45 lol so the state is legitimate cause people say it is. You're just repeating yourself.
About 88% of the world's population believe in god so the proposition that "god exists" is valid.
God exists because people say god exists
And I think you misread what I was talking about on that last bit but it doesn't really matter ...
j0nathanbs23 8 months ago
@j0nathanbs23
This is a invalid analogy, belief in the state is what makes people act and follow the rules, there is nothing supernatural about it, if people stopped believing in the state, then it stopped existing. If 90% would think that the constitution is toilet paper and nothing else then thats what it is, there would be no state.
Religious claims make statements about reality, we can measure reality. Claims about political preference are subjective. Thats why there is politics.
Uhmu45 8 months ago
@Uhmu45 No it isn't invalid, belief is what i was pointing at. There is irrefutable truth as to the nature of the state. I'm not talking about politics, never was.
Just cause the majority says something is okay/right/correct doesn't mean it necessarily is.
j0nathanbs23 8 months ago
@j0nathanbs23
"Just cause the majority says something is okay/right/correct doesn't mean it necessarily is."
i agree.
Uhmu45 8 months ago
This could all be solved if everyone just gave their money to me.
dannypantsgm 8 months ago