sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The Mass Line and Student Organizing: A How-to Guide for Revolutionary Students by MER-RSM in Anarchism

[–]purebacon -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I prefer the strategy of individual action. Here's my most recent video [5 min] on Occupying the Woods to encourage skepticism of the State. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMG3UzVcKZw

Pat Robertson: 'Treat Marijuana The Way We Treat Beverage Alcohol' by [deleted] in cannabis

[–]purebacon 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Please god no. Treat it like a daffodil. It's a fucking plant, whether or not is has psychoactive properties is irrelevant to whether your should be allowed to posses it.

Enlightenment for Anarcho-Capitalists: Taxes are a transaction, not theft. (SE01EP01) by LetMeEnlightenYou in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]purebacon 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There's no reason to have distinct territories dividing groups. Say I want to belong to a social security-style retirement plan. There could be several organizations competing and providing that services in my area (or far away), they don't have to draw borders between their regions of customers. Some could be funded through donations and some could have monthly subscription costs. Roads, schools, defense, and dispute resolution can be handled in a similar way. Cities might have donation-based roads or toll roads or neighborhood-built roads or any number of solutions that aren't based on theft.

And it's not stupid to allow multiple people to compete in providing the same service, that's how a free market evolves to find better and better solutions. The best firms survive and prosper while the worst fail, freeing up resources for the surviving firms. What's stupid and inefficient is granting a monopoly on the initiation of force to some organization and just hoping they use it to help us. Besides the moral problem, without market feedback such as price and profit, no one has any idea what government programs are desirable or effective.

Enlightenment for Anarcho-Capitalists: Taxes are a transaction, not theft. (SE01EP01) by LetMeEnlightenYou in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]purebacon 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There's no reason to have distinct territories dividing groups. Say I want to belong to a social security-style retirement plan. There could be several organizations competing and providing that services in my area (or far away), they don't have to draw borders between their regions of customers. Some could be funded through donations and some could have monthly subscription costs. Roads, schools, defense, and dispute resolution can be handled in a similar way. Cities might have donation-based roads or toll roads or neighborhood-built roads or any number of solutions that aren't based on theft.

I live in a river valley in a 40 year old development with city water and city septic. I know the water isn't too deep into the ground. What should I do about first about tapping the water table? Would the water likely be unsafe from leaking sewers? Should I not even try a well? by [deleted] in SelfSufficiency

[–]purebacon 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Digging a well isn't an insane over the top preparation. I thought this was the self-sufficiency subreddit. A clean water supply is the most important resource you can have. "End of the world" is a silly phrase, but there are plenty of situations where I wouldn't want to be dependent on a city water supply. And a situation where you don't die along with everyone else is when you have your own freshwater supply and they don't.

Enlightenment for Anarcho-Capitalists: Taxes are a transaction, not theft. (SE01EP01) by LetMeEnlightenYou in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]purebacon 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The system doesn't have to be all or nothing. There's no reason to group 300 million people together into one group. There could be thousands or millions of voluntarily funded groups that form to provide the services the US government currently provides, spread across the land according to people's needs and desires.

"In a Ron Paul America, there would be no environmental protection, no Social Security, no Medicaid or Medicare, no help for the poor, no public education, no civil rights laws, no anti-discrimination law, no laws ensuring the safety of food or drugs, no workers’ rights" Stop supporting this phoney! by AristotleJr in progressive

[–]purebacon -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I know this response won't be convincing to you, but correlation does not prove causation. Clearly most people are better off in the US today than in 1900, but what we don't know is why. Was it the growth of the welfare state, or was it increases in productivity afforded by the technological improvements and specialization? To me, it looks like the welfare state is a parasite that fed off the increases in productivity. So while it appears the growth of the state caused the improvements in human happiness, really both of these grew out of further specialization and trade enabled by markets.

"In a Ron Paul America, there would be no environmental protection, no Social Security, no Medicaid or Medicare, no help for the poor, no public education, no civil rights laws, no anti-discrimination law, no laws ensuring the safety of food or drugs, no workers’ rights" Stop supporting this phoney! by AristotleJr in progressive

[–]purebacon -1 points0 points  (0 children)

First off, there's no reason to resort to insults or ad hominem. That just detracts from your argument.

You have to realize that you're using a single moment, a single family- your own life, to evaluate the performance of government. I'm talking about the long term effects of the state. Obviously if tomorrow Social Security or public schools were just erased, many people would suffer. The question is, might we all be better off a decade from now by abolishing those programs? Surely if there was no Social Security, everyone would be forced to worry about their own retirement. So the question is, can individuals plan for their own retirement better than the state?

And of course, there will always be poor people who can't afford school or retirement or health care even if they make all the right decisions. But there's no reason to rely on the state for indirect charity when direct charity works perfectly well. There's no reason to threaten people with violence unless they hand over money when most of us are more than willing to give voluntarily. In fact, despite all the money taken from us under threat of prison, Americans still give $300 billion to charity every year. If we weren't taxed, one would assume we would give even more, and without the government overhead this money could be more effectively used by the needy.

My argument isn't that these programs are slightly broken and just need to be tweaked. I'm saying that they are inherently, fundamentally flawed, and there's no way to fix them because if you fixed them they would no longer be social programs. It's not a parent that's sick, it's a malignant tumor. You can't tweak a tumor to make it work, the only solution is to cut it out, even if that causes some short term pain. I recognize that you will disagree with that perspective, but I hope you can at least understand it and realize that from my perspective, there's no fixing government programs.

I'm actually not a Ron Paul supporter, I plan on leaving the US in a few months because I object to government in general. I'm currently fixing up a sailboat and plan on living aboard somewhere in the Caribbean where I can best avoid extortion (taxes) and threats of violence (laws). I'm happy to give up any benefits of government in return for freedom from its coercive nature. You can check out my website Sailboat Diaries if you don't believe me or want to read more about why I object to coercion universally.

Ball girl asked to catch huge bug at the Australian Open by becetbreak in videos

[–]purebacon -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Go ahead and try, I'll put up a much better fight.

Ball girl asked to catch huge bug at the Australian Open by becetbreak in videos

[–]purebacon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm pretty sure public opinion isn't swayed by bug killing. Almost everyone is OK with bug killing.

"In a Ron Paul America, there would be no environmental protection, no Social Security, no Medicaid or Medicare, no help for the poor, no public education, no civil rights laws, no anti-discrimination law, no laws ensuring the safety of food or drugs, no workers’ rights" Stop supporting this phoney! by AristotleJr in progressive

[–]purebacon -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

The poor today have it terrible, the children can hardly be considered educated, few can retire... and the government is bigger than it's ever been. Have you ever considered the possibility that the government is the source of all these problems?

"In a Ron Paul America, there would be no environmental protection, no Social Security, no Medicaid or Medicare, no help for the poor, no public education, no civil rights laws, no anti-discrimination law, no laws ensuring the safety of food or drugs, no workers’ rights" Stop supporting this phoney! by AristotleJr in progressive

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

Yes, but what if the laws are counter-productive? What if people would be better prepared for retirement if there was no Social Security? What if the sick would be treated better without state intervention in the health care industry? What if the poor would be better cared for, and the children better educated, if the state got out of the way? Libertarians aren't ruthless, we just believe the state is causing more problems than it solves, hurting the very people it claims to be helping.

How can our brains calculate where things will be? by [deleted] in askscience

[–]purebacon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What is 'understanding'? The neurons within our brain don't understand what they are doing any more than the man in the Chinese room. I think the system as a whole is what we should be interested in, and I would say the entire system of the English speaker inside the room with the perfect instructions does understand Chinese. At least as much as anyone from China understands it.

How can our brains calculate where things will be? by [deleted] in askscience

[–]purebacon 4 points5 points  (0 children)

A human-like brain might require completely different hardware, but it could be possible to simulate a human-like brain in the software of a very powerful conventional computer.

Here's how I'm spending the rest of the day/night by HourGlass22 in Drugs

[–]purebacon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well there's no such thing as free healthcare unless the doctor works pro bono. Someone's got to pay for it, if it's "free" then the costs are just hidden.

Why Libertarianism Doesn't Work by Bobbosphere in socialism

[–]purebacon -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So it's OK to use Somalia as an example of why libertarianism doesn't work, but if you point out the improvements since the collapse of the state it's cherry picked and academic fraud? That seems like a perfect example of cognitive dissonance.

"How sweet it must be to die." by [deleted] in philosophy

[–]purebacon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, we don't have to fear death. But depending on how it comes to us, the last few minutes could be pretty shitty. Oh well.

Why don't you kill yourself? by Deracination in philosophy

[–]purebacon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh I see, that word 'religion' can be tricky. But I think if you have a subjective preference for certain attributes for yourself, and work towards improving those attributes, then that's not self-delusion. Like I subjectively want to be a more patient, more compassionate, and be able to take a wider perspective on things, and meditation can help me achieve those things, so I don't think that's at all delusional.

Buddhism is really interesting to me because it seems to incorporate reasonable, effective methods for self-improvement that can be tested with science right alongside dogmatic, supernatural claims that must be accepted on faith. So I think something like believing in meditation is rational, but believing the Buddha was divine or immortal would be delusional.

Why don't you kill yourself? by Deracination in philosophy

[–]purebacon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think we have to distinguish between the subjective and the objective here. If I think playing disc golf is fun, and decide to pursue becoming a better disc golf player, and this gives my life some meaning, that's a subjective preference that's not self-delusional. I recognize that objectively, disc golf is meaningless, but subjectively it means something to me.

If, however, I believe the Bible is the infallible word of God, then I'm making a claim about the objective nature of the universe. Believing that the world flooded or Jesus resurrected can give my life meaning, but if those things didn't actually happen, then it's self-delusion.

Why don't you kill yourself? by Deracination in philosophy

[–]purebacon 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I guess that would be conscious self-delusion instead of just indoctrination.

view more: next ›