HUMAN RIGHTS? You don't have any fucking human rights... You either have complete freedom or total enslavement, you want to talk about your fucking human rights, look at what happened to Japanese-Americans in World War II, the only right they had, was RIGHT this way into the concentration camps.
As for freedom of speech, I like pointing out that lots of the greatest literature was written before the concept existed or where it was strictly controlled, like in Tsarist Russia. The last fifty years have seen more freedom of speech than any other period in history, and what has been the result? Can one have the Renaissance without the Borgias?
And the most poisonous idea that reigns today is the notion that all life is of equal value. Why should the mediocre be entitled to happiness or the pursuit thereof? What if their pursuit of happiness conflicts with that of the higher men? Why should quantity triumph over quality? Why should all that crawls on the ground triumph over all that is elevated?
The real question is: happiness for whom and what kind of happiness? Most people would be happier sitting home all day watching TV rather than going to work. Most people have little motivation to accomplish anything beyond that required to live a comfortable life. The higher men who "move things forward" and possess that rare combination of talent and ambition will always be outnumbered by the mediocre.
It's funny how you conclude by clinging to one of the most modern, and IMO most destructive, ideas: that the telos of society is to create happiness for its members. Do you think a Greek noble cared whether or not some helot found "happiness" in life? In the words of Saint-Just during the French Revolution: "Happiness is a new idea in Europe."
I'm a transhumanist; I'm well aware of the moral paucity of 'happiness' as an intrinsic end (orasmium, anybody?).
I use quite a bit of philosophical shorthand, however; in this case 'happiness' is a placeholder. Better to use one word, than an added 15 minutes of explanation.
For the record, your heuristical perspective fills my heart with joy.
as far as I knew, libertarian concepts of rights on a deserted island were meant to illustrate the freedoms we have in absence of an authoritative entity and not an epitome of human expression. It's not the ultimate expression of humanity.
Suppose we say freedom of speech is a default right. If someone chooses to say certain things and not others, does that mean they have fewer rights? I would say it's that they merely choose a certain expression of freedom over the subsequent consequences.
@intercourseman69 My point is more that there's no holy scripture with 'Freedom of Speech' inscribed on stone tablets. It's not a fundamental particle of the Universe. It's not black-and-white. I'm *for* freedom of speech - I just mistake it as a luxury, or sorts; proximate, not ultimate.
ok, i agree that rights are not some sacred endowment onto man. I just didn't think it was fair for you to say that libertarians were saying the ultimate expression of man was on a deserted island.
I would contend that this illustration of rights was similar to Austrian economics breaking down economic theory into the simplest terms often labeled as "Crusoe Economics". No one is saying that the greatest economy is one guy on an island. Rather, this is what we start out with.
@intercourseman69 I think my issue is that the desert island is supposed to 'prove' the sacredness of human rights, while in reality it falls short. Whereareas the economist argument illustrates the basics, without pretending that it (necessarily) describes the behaviour of millions in an accurate manner.
I don't know of any libertarian who says a desert island "proves" the sacredness of human rights. I do think that it illustrates our freedoms without any inhibition. In the real world among millions of people, we need to pick and choose when we surrender or enact our rights based upon our subjective values.
Of course, we choose when to exercise or limit our rights of our own volition. This to me is the fundamental libertarian ideology.
Im 12 and even i can understand that we dont have ''freedom'', thats just what the government calls it. I we had freedom we would not have to follow certain laws, pass every border without paying money and i believe maybe there wouldnt be different republics, so it wouldnt be any borders at all. Everyone just lived with eachother.
@MeNameBeFreidrich Funny how obvious truths become ANARCHICH after High School... in your own case, young lad, I would recommend looking to feminism in your own country.
If you are truly 12 and sane, I see a great deal of pain in your future; also, a great deal of hope.
@CodeManFromTheFuture When you mention those things, my back goes up... not because I wouldn't expect (some) privately run cities to engage in such things, but moreso because how they're implemented in democratically-run governments is so incredibly haphazard and psychotic.
Same as the cops: I am very much pro- law and order, but in its present state I'm disgusted by the police.
HUMAN RIGHTS? You don't have any fucking human rights... You either have complete freedom or total enslavement, you want to talk about your fucking human rights, look at what happened to Japanese-Americans in World War II, the only right they had, was RIGHT this way into the concentration camps.
George Carlin
TehAlexJonesChannel 2 weeks ago
As for freedom of speech, I like pointing out that lots of the greatest literature was written before the concept existed or where it was strictly controlled, like in Tsarist Russia. The last fifty years have seen more freedom of speech than any other period in history, and what has been the result? Can one have the Renaissance without the Borgias?
SweeneyAgonistes 2 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
And the most poisonous idea that reigns today is the notion that all life is of equal value. Why should the mediocre be entitled to happiness or the pursuit thereof? What if their pursuit of happiness conflicts with that of the higher men? Why should quantity triumph over quality? Why should all that crawls on the ground triumph over all that is elevated?
SweeneyAgonistes 2 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
The real question is: happiness for whom and what kind of happiness? Most people would be happier sitting home all day watching TV rather than going to work. Most people have little motivation to accomplish anything beyond that required to live a comfortable life. The higher men who "move things forward" and possess that rare combination of talent and ambition will always be outnumbered by the mediocre.
SweeneyAgonistes 2 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
It's funny how you conclude by clinging to one of the most modern, and IMO most destructive, ideas: that the telos of society is to create happiness for its members. Do you think a Greek noble cared whether or not some helot found "happiness" in life? In the words of Saint-Just during the French Revolution: "Happiness is a new idea in Europe."
SweeneyAgonistes 2 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@SweeneyAgonistes You're preachin' to the converted.
I'm a transhumanist; I'm well aware of the moral paucity of 'happiness' as an intrinsic end (orasmium, anybody?).
I use quite a bit of philosophical shorthand, however; in this case 'happiness' is a placeholder. Better to use one word, than an added 15 minutes of explanation.
For the record, your heuristical perspective fills my heart with joy.
Aurini 1 week ago
Wow you converted me to this ideal your mind is very unique and insightful :)
snakebitgoat 1 month ago
@snakebitgoat Thanks! Just wait until I get to AI, the incoherence of morals, and the subjectivity of value. ;)
Aurini 1 month ago
as far as I knew, libertarian concepts of rights on a deserted island were meant to illustrate the freedoms we have in absence of an authoritative entity and not an epitome of human expression. It's not the ultimate expression of humanity.
Suppose we say freedom of speech is a default right. If someone chooses to say certain things and not others, does that mean they have fewer rights? I would say it's that they merely choose a certain expression of freedom over the subsequent consequences.
intercourseman69 2 months ago
@intercourseman69 My point is more that there's no holy scripture with 'Freedom of Speech' inscribed on stone tablets. It's not a fundamental particle of the Universe. It's not black-and-white. I'm *for* freedom of speech - I just mistake it as a luxury, or sorts; proximate, not ultimate.
Aurini 2 months ago
@Aurini
ok, i agree that rights are not some sacred endowment onto man. I just didn't think it was fair for you to say that libertarians were saying the ultimate expression of man was on a deserted island.
I would contend that this illustration of rights was similar to Austrian economics breaking down economic theory into the simplest terms often labeled as "Crusoe Economics". No one is saying that the greatest economy is one guy on an island. Rather, this is what we start out with.
intercourseman69 2 months ago
@intercourseman69 I think my issue is that the desert island is supposed to 'prove' the sacredness of human rights, while in reality it falls short. Whereareas the economist argument illustrates the basics, without pretending that it (necessarily) describes the behaviour of millions in an accurate manner.
Aurini 2 months ago
@Aurini
I don't know of any libertarian who says a desert island "proves" the sacredness of human rights. I do think that it illustrates our freedoms without any inhibition. In the real world among millions of people, we need to pick and choose when we surrender or enact our rights based upon our subjective values.
Of course, we choose when to exercise or limit our rights of our own volition. This to me is the fundamental libertarian ideology.
intercourseman69 2 months ago
Im 12 and even i can understand that we dont have ''freedom'', thats just what the government calls it. I we had freedom we would not have to follow certain laws, pass every border without paying money and i believe maybe there wouldnt be different republics, so it wouldnt be any borders at all. Everyone just lived with eachother.
MeNameBeFreidrich 2 months ago
@MeNameBeFreidrich Funny how obvious truths become ANARCHICH after High School... in your own case, young lad, I would recommend looking to feminism in your own country.
If you are truly 12 and sane, I see a great deal of pain in your future; also, a great deal of hope.
Aurini 2 months ago
@Aurini What do you mean by pain?
MeNameBeFreidrich 2 months ago
@CodeManFromTheFuture When you mention those things, my back goes up... not because I wouldn't expect (some) privately run cities to engage in such things, but moreso because how they're implemented in democratically-run governments is so incredibly haphazard and psychotic.
Same as the cops: I am very much pro- law and order, but in its present state I'm disgusted by the police.
Aurini 3 months ago
NOTHING ESCAPES THE DUALITY OF LIFE.. ONE THING MAY BE TRUE AND SOMETHING ELSE IN RELATIONSHIP BUT OPPOSITE WILL ALSO BE TRUE---HAPPY THANKSGIVEING
TO ALL MY RELATIONS
ALLAN
GO TO THE RESOURCE BASED ECONOMY DUDE YOU CAN STILL SMOKE AND RIDE YOUR BIKE....
riseingstardust 3 months ago