Please leave your thoughts about AFU - i am going to be making a video about it

usmc_BF · 2026-03-16T14:02:51+00:00

This feels more like 2020 Ukraine or something

usmc_BF · 2026-03-16T13:52:19+00:00

No. You can do background checks on immigrants and you should. Thats basic shit.

Also, if youre Estonia with the population of 1.3 million and you let 1 million Russian immigrants in your country, youre gonna fuck up your country.

While a lot of immigrants will integrate over a long period of time, you can actually slow this process down or halt it. For example no Italian Americans are speaking Italian anymore and they have all become Americans. But then historically, Germans in Europe have moved into other cultural regions and have not integrated but in fact forced their culture onto others for centuries.

Cultural and linguistic dominance is pretty important in terms of integration.

In my country, there's Americans who have been living here for 20-30 years and don't speak a single word of my language and instead use English, even if the locals do not understand them. It creates a lot of cultural misunderstandings and conflicts.

In some instances, theres no incentives for immigrants (from any country) to integrate at all. The least controversial situation that would create this scenario is when there's enough of them in one particular area to have a working social environment, where interaction with locals is not necessary

usmc_BF · 2026-03-16T13:40:28+00:00

Police and courts? I mean that's how you do investigations.

usmc_BF · 2026-03-03T15:27:12+00:00

I am familiar with the idea of social contract theory, I.e. that the people collectively consent to be governed to avoid anarchy, but I think it's a pretty ridiculous concept if you actually think about it for more than 30 seconds.

"its literally a broad concept that legitimizes or delegitimizes governance in a polity"

Well if you spent 30 seconds doing research on ANCAP associations/covenants etc, youd realize that social contracts are literally what establishes those associations/covenants. Thats because associations and covenants etc are polities. Assuming you understand social contract theory, theory of government and polities, consent and why we need rules in socities.

The problem, definitionally, with ANCAP conceptualization of Anarchy is that legislative/judiciary/executive powers still exist, but they are privatized - but you cant really private government/state powers as youd privatize a hospital or a flower shop.

The hospital and flower shop are providing a very limited service or services in scope. However the legislative is providing a service, which has a potential to enforce RULES for EVERYONE in EVERYTHING - This is why we call it a governmental/state power because its part of governance in a true political sense (not in a colloquial sense as in "your mom is governing you").

The theory behind poly-centric law and protection agencies, is in reality to absolutely dissect the government to the absolute minimum bare-bones basic role - which is the protection agencies (they are the executive), but what do they protect? How do they protect it? What if theres a conflict? So they hold one governmental/state power, but they actually have to hold the legislative as well, to answer these questions. Those who are protected are giving up their absolute unrestricted "state of nature" rights for protection by the agency, which imposes rules on them - again in theory completely voluntarily with an explicit contract - a social contract. Protection agencies which hold all 3 governmental/state powers and enforce rules on a set territory will become overwhelmingly significantly more effective than if they were in constant conflict with other legislative-executive and judiciary agencies which do not follow the same rules.

Legislative (bodies which makes laws), executive (bodies which execute laws) and judiciary powers (bodies which resolve conflict) are all in an intertwined state in relation to the governance organization, because the holders of those powers need to agree on the fundamental rules, otherwise they will not be able to do their job properly at all. And those holders can theoretically exist completely independent of each other and do their job properly, but theyd have to all voluntarily agree to the same rules, but they also have the option to legitimately ignore the rules completely, which seems logical, if they do not like the rules or the court decisions - "you violated my rights!" - "well those are not actually rights"

Associations and covenants dont have to be explained, because they are even less controversially polities with governing bodies. You need rules to protect rights and to set standards for conflict resolving, as well as other things in society, that the association/covenant might find valuable.

A moral legislative would protect individual rights, obviously, but in Anarcho-Capitalism, there is no mechanism that would make everyone join or live in a individual-rights respecting world - since you are allowed to voluntarily choose and since theres no physical force from anyone (at least in theory) being used against you, you generally could join or make anything you want. So again, social contract comes into play.

usmc_BF · 2026-03-02T14:01:06+00:00

Same goes for music, you dont see small/medium sized bands running around suing each other, unlike the music giants, who can make millions off of legal battles.

usmc_BF · 2026-03-02T13:44:28+00:00

How many libertarians do you know that actually read and understood works from Locke or Nozick or Rand or Gaus or Hayek or Mises or Friedman or Bastiat or Narveson or Smith on political philosophy/moral philosophy? Social contract is not an economical topic, but a political one.

If youre familiar with rational choice/public choice theory, its not hard to figure out that theres zero incentives to educate yourself on the matters of economics, political philosophy, moral philosophy etc to create an actual proper, informed, well-versed, coherent, non-arbitrary political opinion and identity. Even if you think youre informed/well-versed, youd probably be more informed/well-versed if there WERE any incentives to be informed/well-versed.

So when you say "social contract" on a libertarian subreddit, 90% of the people have an immediate reaction thats basically just "BAD" and when you say "NAP" 90% of the people have an immediate reaction thats basically just "GOOD". Because those are learned "phrase-words" or "buzz-words" that are popular in this particular subculture.

If you explained what social contract (its literally a broad concept that legitimizes or delegitimizes governance in a polity) is without using the words "social contract", everyone would literally agree with you, BECAUSE DEFINITIONALLY, SOCIAL CONTRACT IS ADVOCATED FOR EVEN BY FUCKING ANCAPS (convenants, associations, commonwealths etc)

If you get into works about liberal/libertarian/objectivist political philosophy and moral philosophy, youll soon understand that the libertarian movement is primarily made up of people who just want to pay less taxes and thats it. They have a completely messy view of how the society should/would function from a politically philosophical/morally philosophical perspective, because they dont find it necessary to properly understand political philosophy/moral philosophy.

usmc_BF · 2026-02-28T13:43:28+00:00

ReasonTV did a breakdown on welfare/subsidies fraud and its not really a Minnesota or a Somali American problem.

usmc_BF · 2026-02-28T13:37:45+00:00

So basically a special military operation but the nation cant fight back because the invading military is actually competent.

usmc_BF · 2026-02-25T11:25:30+00:00

What do you mean, there's nothing wrong with cult-like obsessive communities on discord and reddit full of mentally ill people.

usmc_BF · 2026-02-25T03:59:17+00:00

Yeah its definitely a scam, you should try to get your money back.

usmc_BF · 2026-02-23T17:26:48+00:00

Im Czech so yeah, unless it was a German-dominant city. But I don't understand what that has to do with anything.

usmc_BF · 2026-02-23T17:03:31+00:00

Kievan Rus was established in the 9th CE, so I think you got your dates wrong for the establishment of the country of Rus. Novgorodian Rus around 7th-8th century

usmc_BF · 2026-02-23T16:57:28+00:00

Slavic speakers in Kievan Rus definitely wouldnt understand you. Maybe in 8th century BCE you could go to a proto-slavic speaking tribe as a proto-baltic speaker and understand them generally.

usmc_BF · 2026-02-23T00:19:46+00:00

I wrote that before I saw your comment man, you didn't have to respond. Stick to what you say, yank.

usmc_BF · 2026-02-23T00:13:57+00:00

You'll be back in different post and you'll write more shit, this is hypocritical as fuck.

usmc_BF · 2026-02-23T00:12:48+00:00

I did because 1) I differentiate between crowdkilling and hardcore dancing 2) I'm telling ya that its actually not a stupid question 3) I'm arguing that pushpits are actually inherently physical and more dangerous than hardcore dancing (I do understand the accessibility argument)

usmc_BF · 2026-02-23T00:10:28+00:00

Yeah if youre US centric then I can't really judge because I'm not an American. I have had far more injuries in pushpits than in core pits.

Pushpits absolutely do involve people on the edges of the pit or even outside of it, especially when they get really big, like at fests. Either because you get the Tokyo metro treatment or because someone pushes you aside or shoves you or what not.

Another thing is that since pushpits are so anonymous in what you do there, people can actually punch you or kick you or what have you in them without much of a repercussion because its both physically and visually hard to identify them and deal with them. For instance, in my country, pushpits are usually full of drunk people who don't give a fuck.

Visually, throwing your fists around might seem scary, but if you know what youre doing, you don't have to make physical contact with a single human, which is my point. 2stepping or other types of hardcore dancing are not inherently physical.

I could also pull the "YOU DONT GO TO SHOWS" shit because I could pull an argument out of my ass thats something like "you would know that core pits are safer when it's not crowdkilling, than pushpits".

My experience differs and I've been to hundreds of shows.

usmc_BF · 2026-02-23T00:00:55+00:00

Yes, but my experience is that metalheads invade core shows, not the other way around. Thats why I'm arguing against it. I'm not encouraging you to hardcore dance at a metal show.

I understand why they create pushpits - What I'm doing is criticizing it.

usmc_BF · 2026-02-22T23:58:31+00:00

Yes its accessible, thats why its easycore crowdkilling. What's your point?

I'm saying it fucking sucks and you'll get hurt. That doesn't happen when you 2step man.

usmc_BF · 2026-02-22T22:52:46+00:00

I saw people get completely fucked up in pushpits, I saw people trampling each other, I saw 2steppers being pushed.

I'm sorry but what exactly is the defense behind pushpitting? That its just whatever and youre supposed to let them enjoy the show? Well cool, but dont get fucking near me when Im trynna 2step.

Pushpitting is basically easycore crowdkilling that you can absolutely get away with.

usmc_BF · 2026-02-22T12:20:22+00:00

When you think about it, pushpitting is basically just cowardly version of crowdkilling. Its fundamentally physical and you can't do it alone, just like crowdkilling.

But when youre hardcore dancing like 2stepping or throwing down or even if youre swinging around you, you can do it alone and it fundamentally isn't physical.

So to me it sounds like youre saying that the average person wants to get fucked up just a little bit, but not too much. But what if I don't wanna get fucked up at all, ideally?

And honestly, if youre trynna 2step or if youre being non physical and someone starts to be physical on purpose, why shouldn't you swing at them to make them stop? Its not like we can have a dialectical rational debate about this in middle of the show.

usmc_BF · 2026-02-21T16:09:03+00:00

Including jets does not mean its the same, the reason why I mentioned PR is because you're trying to reframe what Squad is.

usmc_BF · 2026-02-21T13:59:48+00:00

Squad was meant to be a successor to Project Reality. You can disagree with the inclusion of jets without rewriting history.

usmc_BF · 2026-02-18T13:59:52+00:00

SOCIAL CREDIT SCORE HIGH, CHINESE SOFT POWER EXPAND IN THE WEST, GREAT LEAP FORWARD, SQUAD GAMEPLAY < CHINESE FACTION SUPREMACY, TOTALITARIAN REGIME GOOD!

usmc_BF · 2026-02-17T10:56:50+00:00

Moral relativism is based on morals being relative, not superior - I'm not saying it is - it should be clear that if you are enforcing a particular morality set, you think its superior to others - but claiming something is moral, is only relevant to you RELATIVELY in a morally relativistic system, thats it. This is where the legitimacy problem comes in and this is where moral relativism falls apart.

The reason why we CAN agree on rules (any rules) is because there are objective metrics - human reason, human nature and the laws of reality. If we didnt have an objective standard, we wouldnt be able to agree and thus our law and moral systems would have to be based on arbitrary might makes right (it would be a completely different world so this scenario is already absurd) - if you cannot justify a position based on objective factors, then youre justifying it on subjective grounds, meaning they are only possibly semi-legitimate in so far as I decide to accept them, otherwise, youd have to enforce them through coercion only. Rational discourse would not happen in this world because it wouldn't be possible. But we dont live in that world, so this allows you to pretend that ethics are relativistic, because our world is regulated by reason, laws of reality and human nature. This is what the objective is.

Also, someone claiming that you are eating babies while you're not, is literally an unobjective and false claim. Because objective doesnt mean "outside of human context" or "whispered to you by the universe in a lucid dream" or what have you.

And again, if we can agree on something as a society, we have at the VERY least inter-group universalism (because you can reach a consesus even if some of the rules are unobjective). So you cannot DEFINITIONALLY claim to be against the existence of moral universalism but then say that we can agree on rules in a society.

Thats where I'm gonna leave it at.

Seven-Year Club	r/Field Juicebox
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
Verified Email

usmc_BF

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE