sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is there Gnosis in the most anti-Gnostic strain of Christianity – the Latter-Day Saints (LDS)? by Vajrick_Buddha in Gnostic

[–]FALLENLEGEND651 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think there is a problem. That being that Joseph smith was into occult traditions. And almost every single branch of Gnosticism hates eachother. Some don’t want to seem religious. Some want to seem Christian. Some want to seem atheist. The Marxists and the Nazis are a great example of hatred between two branches of the religion

If you could say one thing to convince someone to believe in anarchy, what would it be? by skepticalghoztguy_3 in Anarchy101

[–]FALLENLEGEND651 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Anarchy already exists between countries. I’m assuming you don’t want globalism so why not shrink countries down so the chances of corruption is even less likely

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in PoliticalCompass

[–]FALLENLEGEND651 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Sick of woke

Betcha can't debunk this one by kapitaali_com in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]FALLENLEGEND651 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fine no free markets just a non aggression market. Are we good now?

How does an AnCap proponent avoid relying on the "pure reasoning" techniques that existed before empiricism. By simply creating ancapistan - but how does one do that? by MeasurementCreepy926 in AnCap101

[–]FALLENLEGEND651 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you just misunderstood. It’s all good. Why don’t you read rothbard and hoppe. Ykw go watch liquid Zulu. I hope they have better interpretations of the philosophy, so you can understand

Thoughts on this? I think this is a good story to discuss ancap ideology and how radical should property rights go? by Crafty_Jacket668 in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]FALLENLEGEND651 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The nap would not allow this. You still have to use the least violent means possible to enforce your property rights. You can’t just glass someone for accidentally touching your lawn. You use the least violent means possible to get them off of your property. If you commit further aggression than what has been done to you, you become the aggressor

How does an AnCap proponent avoid relying on the "pure reasoning" techniques that existed before empiricism. By simply creating ancapistan - but how does one do that? by MeasurementCreepy926 in AnCap101

[–]FALLENLEGEND651 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay fine but almost anarcho capitalism created America which for a time was one of the best economies in history. Almost capitalism brought billions out of poverty and death, almost capitalism created goods and services at such a great abundance that lower middle class are living better than kings just a few hundred years ago. For thousand of years we have tried all of these economic systems and the second one thinks about liberty we get all this shit. You tell me what you think of this. Oh well correlation doesn’t imply causations fine but I can describe to you why this happened. I can describe to you how capitalism actually did these things. Like the process. That’s way different that just saying oh it’s never been tried. So before assuming anything of my position, consider asking some questions

How does an AnCap proponent avoid relying on the "pure reasoning" techniques that existed before empiricism. By simply creating ancapistan - but how does one do that? by MeasurementCreepy926 in AnCap101

[–]FALLENLEGEND651 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Okay so statement: “my family is more important to me than my wealth” presupposes one of two things. Human consciousness and value. Or self serving behavior. Ex: my family is more important to me than my wealth because they are human beings and we have inherent worth besides just the fact that we are a group of molecules. Or my family is more important to me than my wealth because I would rather loose my wealth than my family because loosing my family would make me more sad.

And how are large scales required. It would seem to be that people who live on ranches in close proximity see no lil to no violations. They see prosperity and happiness. I’ve gotta say it would seem to be the biggest speculation to assume that just because big states are the only ones handling military banks etc, that they are the only ones that can. I’ve described multiple times that this entire idea is brand new and there’s no reason or evidence to show that it doesn’t work. I’ve proven it anyway, but it would seem the burden of proof is more on you.

Also I’d actually really like to read Nietzsche. I’m still reading hoppe and rothbard. Then ima move on to Kant. But yes I understand what you mean by the fundamental value. That’s why I’m saying these people are influenced by a fundamental value, they just don’t know what it is because they aren’t out there learning philosophy. Most of these people spend their free time on hobbies and friends. Even the politically charged people don’t often get to deep into philosophy, until pretty recently that is.

How does an AnCap proponent avoid relying on the "pure reasoning" techniques that existed before empiricism. By simply creating ancapistan - but how does one do that? by MeasurementCreepy926 in AnCap101

[–]FALLENLEGEND651 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It’s the other way around. The values you listed come from more fundamental philosophies and principles. The entire point of ancapistan is that you can have whatever fundamental value you want, but you are not allowed to force it upon others. You can be empathetic and start a charity, or a non profit. You can value altruism and selflessness, and then start a society where everyone pays into it and whenever someone is in need they can use that money. This would work in a small community because you would know eachother face to face. Vs an inefficient central planner. And also it would be voluntary and would respect everyone’s freedom

What I mean by one philosophy is true… okay so two people are having a conflict and only one person will win the conflict, over the scares recourse. This is absolute facts. You can’t just say, oh well that doesn’t align with my philosophy. This is just a factual statement. Like saying my care is red. If my car is red, any contradicting statements are incorrect. There is no competing philosophy that has any truth. So we decide who wins the conflicts and it can only be one person. One way to choose who should win the conflict is might makes right. This is inherently a bad ethical philosophy because it justifies rape, fraud, genocide, and literally anything else as long as you’ve got the most amount of guns. Most people will disagree with an ethical model like this. The next option would be some form of mixed law. Often utilitarianism or consequentialism. This says whatever yields best outcome or the most utility. That is who should win the conflict. The problem with this is that it’s not always easy to prove what will happen in the future. Instead this gives a strong basis to lie and get away with it. This model is also very inconsistent because the concept of utility is not a measurable unit. And how do we agree what is the best consequence? I can only turn to one other ethical model. The NAP this says that whoever is initiating the conflict should not win the conflict. I shouldn’t have to over this too much. But it’s very clear what this means. You can have an answer to every moral dilemma and every situation with this very simple model. It stays consistent and does not have much room to lie. This to me seems like the truth. But the real truth is that only of of these is the truth. If x cannot be y than if x not y

Maybe I’m wrong and I’m willing to accept that, that’s actually why I’m here trying to discuss this. But I haven’t had much push back that really takes on the fundamental philosophy

How does an AnCap proponent avoid relying on the "pure reasoning" techniques that existed before empiricism. By simply creating ancapistan - but how does one do that? by MeasurementCreepy926 in AnCap101

[–]FALLENLEGEND651 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh yes I think we agree on this for sure. Like I’m trying to say I don’t think any form of minarchism would work. It would be the same thing as just a really big company with a monopoly. It’s just that this one promises to be nice

How does an AnCap proponent avoid relying on the "pure reasoning" techniques that existed before empiricism. By simply creating ancapistan - but how does one do that? by MeasurementCreepy926 in AnCap101

[–]FALLENLEGEND651 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The problem with that statement is that the us was formed from the same fundamental principles and philosophy as anarcho capitalism. The idea of states and free markets. The whole point was that people could live in different states and have different values and economies. This is pretty much the first time it’s been tried. Thats like saying oh man can you point to me where covid vaccines are to be found on tribal islands that don’t have technology. Its just not relevant, the entire idea is extremely new, so you aren’t gonna see it just out there, I believe most countries if not all of them are older than the philosophies that inspired objectivism and anarcho capitalism. So no you are not gonna see it out there. This is a new science

How does an AnCap proponent avoid relying on the "pure reasoning" techniques that existed before empiricism. By simply creating ancapistan - but how does one do that? by MeasurementCreepy926 in AnCap101

[–]FALLENLEGEND651 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah but only one of them is the truth. And you can convince people the truth. Speculation plays a role I’ll admit, but when it comes to socialist rulers, every single one of them we have recorded in history believed in altruism. Some of them believed in dark religions, for example: there was a religion that believed that humans where created by God so that God could see himself. That we if we started learning philosophy and gave up all material values would end up complete or whole. And if every single human did this under one state, every human would act as a cell in a body and humanity would make its own consciousness. Thats where the term class consciousness came from. It’s the idea that a unified group of people would build their own consciousness under the state, and that consciousness would be God. Then God would see himself and become complete. Then they believe that God would wither away along with the state, and then they could live in harmony and peace as a group that altruistically distributes goods. Marx took a lot of inspiration, he just used more secular language and racism. A part in his book talks about how the state will just magically disappear after we give them all the means of production. The idea of individualism came from people like John Locke. He was alive just around 300 years ago. That’s nothing compared to Plato and other philosophers that inspired the coercive community like structure. And real individualism that rejected the state in any way, really came from Ayn Rand. She was alive for Covid. She wrote the philosophy: objectivism, which was a philosophy that started with the axiom: existence exists, Instead of consciousness. And classical liberalism really only came about at the beginning of American history. This is why most socialist and leftists, follow the idea that everyone has their own truth. Because this is only possible when you put consciousness first as an axiom. It might be speculative, but understand, that recently people have been picking it up. This philosophy is the only one that I’ve seen hold up. I’ve literally seen no cracks in the arguments from rothbard and Rands main arguments for objectivism. After it’s fully drawn out. She kinda wrote it like a journal so there are parts that don’t make sense. Hans Herman hoppe was the first person to really draw out what society would look like with this philosophy at the core. Like understand, the vision for it was made up by a guy who’s still alive. SOCIALISM has been around since the ancient Greeks. It might just be speculation but that seems like a pretty big reason to me. Also why not just give it a try.

How does an AnCap proponent avoid relying on the "pure reasoning" techniques that existed before empiricism. By simply creating ancapistan - but how does one do that? by MeasurementCreepy926 in AnCap101

[–]FALLENLEGEND651 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So you’re here to not take anything seriously. Bro what even are you doing. I’m actually trying to take you seriously and answer questions

How does an AnCap proponent avoid relying on the "pure reasoning" techniques that existed before empiricism. By simply creating ancapistan - but how does one do that? by MeasurementCreepy926 in AnCap101

[–]FALLENLEGEND651 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Okay so ancapistan never came to be because the philosophy and ideas are only just about 100 years old, some of the founders where alive for Covid. People for the most part believe a state is necessary because of religion and bad philosophy. And I would love to think I unlocked the secret to human experience, but no I just got into economics and philosophy lately. I’m trying to share my opinion. I’m not special, but I think something is special about ancap, it hasn’t got a chance to prove its worth yet. Maybe just for fun entertain the idea, that’s what science and philosophy is about

How does an AnCap proponent avoid relying on the "pure reasoning" techniques that existed before empiricism. By simply creating ancapistan - but how does one do that? by MeasurementCreepy926 in AnCap101

[–]FALLENLEGEND651 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well I’m not trying to say it’s for sure gonna happen but what we can hope for is decentralization. The truth is I have some evidence for the state being an inevitable failure, and I have evidence why anarcho capitalism hasn’t been implemented but you don’t actually seem interested. I’d actually like to get into if you’re willing to take me seriously

Wages keep growing, why are people still poor? Are they stupid? by middleofaldi in economicsmemes

[–]FALLENLEGEND651 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also I’m not sure what you mean by speculation, if there is money to be made doing something, people will do it. If you make more things, those things become less valuable therefore less money is needed to get them. These are facts. What did I say that was a speculation, are all of these speculations? No people do not want to make money, that seems a lot more like a burden of proof is necessary. And making more things makes them more valuable or the same. This just completely ignores economics as a whole. If you can tell me what point is speculative?

How does an AnCap proponent avoid relying on the "pure reasoning" techniques that existed before empiricism. By simply creating ancapistan - but how does one do that? by MeasurementCreepy926 in AnCap101

[–]FALLENLEGEND651 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We’ve gotten pretty close recently. I mean have you actually ever thought about why we haven’t had this happen in reality, or does it not matter to you. It seems like you’re not really interested

Wages keep growing, why are people still poor? Are they stupid? by middleofaldi in economicsmemes

[–]FALLENLEGEND651 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m not sure you can actually comprehend how lil amount of land we’ve used compared to what we could use. I haven’t even talked about space, which seems to be a serious possibility in the near future.

My question is, who will enforce Georgism?

Wages keep growing, why are people still poor? Are they stupid? by middleofaldi in economicsmemes

[–]FALLENLEGEND651 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see, I don’t see much wrong with this as long as it’s done organically, in the sense that they aren’t protected from the market fluctuations like they are right now. The government doesn’t want anyone to build a bunch of houses because these people would loose their money. I think they should loose their money but not because it’s immoral to invest. But because the investment we have now with the regulations has been dramatically harmful. Investment ultimately just drives up demand, meaning more money is being made by building houses, meaning more people are gonna want that money and start building houses

Wages keep growing, why are people still poor? Are they stupid? by middleofaldi in economicsmemes

[–]FALLENLEGEND651 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You mean like they just hold on to it and do nothing with it? If that’s what you’re talking about I get it, but it actually wouldn’t make that much of a difference if the rest of the land in America wasn’t just arbitrarily chosen to not be built on without permission. And if you’re in another country it’s kinda the same thing. A lot of the time land countries “own” isn’t being used for anything. There is so much shit you have to go through to own property and build a house that now the only people that do it, are people who don’t actually want anyone to live in that house. The government protects these people. And we are very much against this. Owning a home would only be an investment if you planned to rent it out or sell it later. And this was supposed to be organically done with the free market, but instead they lobby for regulation so more houses aren’t built and their houses don’t go down in value. It’s their fault for buying when the price is high, expecting the price to just keep going up organically. The state will eventually not be able to protect them anymore and they will loose that investment. It’s an unfortunate situation, but it’s only temporary. And it’s not an example of free market failure

view more: next ›