From the physics-transcending mind of Stefan Molyneux: The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

BreaksFull · 3時間前

What other movie will I watch after a day at the range with my Mosin Nagant?

BreaksFull · 13時間前

'It's slavery. Even if it doesn't remotely resemble slavery.'

BreaksFull · 14時間前

He's saying that we're living in a condition of slavery, even though there's no semblance to slavery.

BreaksFull · 14時間前

so if 99% is confiscated he becomes a free man? Ridiculous.

Don't be pedantic. You're making the claim that unless you have 100% total personal freedom in all things that you're a slave. That is ridiculous because a slave is someone who has zero freedom whatsoever, and in our society we are extremely free. Is it perfect? No, but we can and do negotiate freedoms with the ruling powers, and we have gained freedoms in this way. In the various civil rights movements we saw oppressed people attain freedom, in the Vietnam War we saw people attain freedom (ending the draft), and we are currently seeing people gain freedoms in legalizing marijuana in more and more states. Slaves don't get to negotiate with the masters. We can and we do, so we are not slaves.

Government can easily go on mass murder anytime it wants, as we have seen throughout history hundreds of millions murdered by their own governments. Our existence depends on whim of a single gang.

Sure, when the government consists of a single gang or a single figure. When was the last time the US or Canada went on a massive murdering spree against its own civilians on the whim of a few?

Government offers you deals at gun point, not much of a deal is it? If rob your house and then bring you a sack of potatoes and a sandwich to compensate is that okay with you?

Don't agree with the deal? Then renounce your citizenship and leave. To quote your reply in a different thread,

'Those immigrants agreed to work for those companies voluntarily, they were not held at gun point to work there. No such thing as exploitation.'

No one's forcing you to stay, you can leave whenever you want.

government can do whatever it wants to you and change laws on whims, nothing guaranteed about it, its a joke.

Many can, but not ours (presuming you're Canadian/American). The governmental systems are designed specifically to prevent whimsical change. Have you followed the news at all, watching Obama fight tooth and nail for everything he wants to get through? Hardly a system where an oligarchic few change laws on a whim.

All these are begging groups, cotton pickers could also beg their masters for certain things, also they were given shelter, free time all to increase their productivity.

The difference in your terrible analogy is masters had no obligation to help their slaves, and they could rescind any charities they gave at a whim. The Civil Rights Movement in the US on the other hand caused new laws and amendments to be created that citizens can and have sued the government over.Brown v Board of Education and Hernandez v Texas are both examples of this. This is not reminiscent of a slave-master relationship.

Government also forces to obey or die, try to do something which is against the law but is actually a human right and see how quickly you get round up, and if you try to defend your human right with force you die as simple as that.

Citizens of Colorado and Washington -and more and more states- fought for what they believed a human right that was illegal (marijuana consumption and selling) and made it legal. That's directly contradictory to your thesis.

On the Molyneux video: Atrocious history aside (Empire did not destroy Romes economy, barbarians did) he just keeps talking about slavery that doesn't exist, much as you do. You're insisting that despite having protected freedoms, despite being able to negotiate with the authorities, despite being able to do everything slaves can't and that contradict the whole notion of slavery, that we're still actually slaves. It's absurdity to the highest degree, calling it slavery when it has none of the attributes of slavery.

As long as requirements are not met as i have stated before, but the argument still stands.

If the majority of people become so enlightened and morally devout as stable anarchism would require, then why go with anarchism at all? If everyone were such wonderful people, then any system of government would work.

BreaksFull · 14時間前

Anti-Chinese sentiment was high in the 1800s and it could be very difficult for Chinese immigrants to get work other than the jobs no one wants, like railway work. Given that, you don't think it exploitation for them to be paid lower wages than white workers and charges for room and board while white workers weren't? It's not exploitation to take advantage of people with no other job opportunities?

My point is that saying America was 'better' then because there was more freedom is dodgy. It was better for certain privileged classes, but not for a big part of the population who were discriminates against. It's much better to be a black person now, or a gay person, or a foreigner in general, than it used to be. America has gotten much better for them.

BreaksFull · 17時間前

I want to step into this thread briefly while I respond to the other.

America used to be great in its early stages, silver dollar, almost completely free market, it is still relatively ok, but its not nearly as great as it was and it is getting worse.

Back when slavery was in wide practise? When blacks were considered 3/5ths of a person? When the practise of certain sexual acts was illegal? When immigrating people were cruelly exploited by companies for underpaid dangerous labour? This sounds like Stephen 'objectively freer back then' Molyneux, who conveniently ignores all the screaming examples of tyranny and literal slavery to paint his rosy picture of a freer America of old.

BreaksFull · 18時間前

I genuinely can't understand this logic that slavery is the loss of profit, or fruits of labour. As opposed to, y'know, loss of liberty.

Also.

you can only do what your master(government) tells you in form of legislation and you have no actual say in the creation of legislation.

Literally ignoring legislation formed by public sentiment that completely changed America. Civil Rights movement anyone? Anti-war demonstrations? Vietnam?

BreaksFull · 18時間前

wealth and fruits of your labor are extension of yourself, to confiscate part of your labor is to confiscate part of you. Also, if person is subject to rule of the master(government) isn't he is still a slave?

You aren't getting what a slave is. A slave doesn't have part of their self confiscated, they aren't subject to some rule by the master, a slave has all of their self confiscated. They don't get any fruits of their labour, they have zero guarantee of any sort toward their liberty. Their entire existence is dictated by the whim of a single entity and there is nothing they can do by their own power to improve their position.

I retain most of the fruit of my labour, and I am compensated for what is taken in the form of public services and guaranteed rights, I am part of a solidly affirmed exchange of my partial labour and liberty in exchange for the benefits of a centralized society. There are no deals for slaves, there is no exchange of liberty and labour for guaranteed services and protections. Slavery is a one-way street with no exceptions. By the fact that I retain much of my own labour and liberty and that I get specific benefits in exchange for the rest, I am not a slave.

Where the trial and legal council belongs to the master himself and master himself is free to change the laws at whim.

The master is not free, or rather the state is not. Just look at the constant battles over laws in America, there is no unified body that can change laws at a whim without discussion like there is with a slave.

Serfs are to pursue only around 50% of their future, other 50% belongs to the government.

How are you quantifying ones 'future.' What is the part of my future controlled by the state?

Exactly, you can only do what your master(government) tells you in form of legislation and you have no actual say in the creation of legislation. Your vote doesn't matter if you don't agree with the mob and good luck trying to influence the masters after they have been ellected, you can only beg(petition).

A slave doesn't even have the liberty of any choice. You are given a specific task by the master and that's that. I can chose from a very wide variety of choices and pursuits from jobs to personal interests. A slave can't chose to marry, or to move, or change careers, or learn a new skill, or negotiate his position, or anything else. I can direct my future in all such things. The only way in which your definition of slave holds up is if you hijack it and twist the meaning of it from its historical and universal meaning.

And what is this nonsense about having no say in legislation, legislation in democratic nations are peppered with examples of the citizenry pushing for change both big and small and effecting it. Prohibition, the antiwar movement, the Civil rights movement, woman's suffrage, drug laws, marriage laws, etc. All prime examples of the course of government and law being influenced and moved by public sentiment and will. And slaves don't push their masters for change, they are forced to obey or die. Clearly we are not slaves.

I'm working and can't watch any videos now. Much as I dislike Molyneux, you have a link to his transcript of the video?

Only system where there are no masters or slaves by design is stateless society and free trade.

A system which cannot exist without being annexed by a state or by a state arising from within.

BreaksFull · 23時間前

Indeed. While I don't think she's the soulless corporate harpy some people like to paint her as, I struggle to think that she's so immaculate that she isn't influenced by moneyed interests to some degree.

BreaksFull · 1日前

But how will you ever get through the HORDES of BROWN PEOPLE?!?!

BreaksFull · 1日前

You don't consider mass surveillance of US citizens to be at least a questionable act by the US government? Especially when it's so secret that pretty much all the elected officials were in the dark about it?

I'm not necessarily opposed to a surveillance program in and of itself, but I'm very opposed to one operating with no apparent accountability, even to the system designed to keep it accountable. I mean you have guys like William Binney and Thomas Drake, long-term intelligence members with a strong belief in the need for effective government intelligence, who both felt there were problems within the system and went through the proper official channels of internal whistleblowing, only to get viciously raked over the coals for it and have the book thrown at them. If the NSA was properly accountable to the system of internal whistleblowing then we wouldn't need guys like Snowden or Manning. But when you have people who think something is fundamentally wrong and who have no way of legally voicing their concerns, then you're going to have people who take a more drastic action.

BreaksFull · 1日前

Let me ask you this: If 100% of your labor stolen is slavery, is 99% still slavery or you are considered a free man? What about 80%? 70%?

It's not a question of labor, it's one of liberty. Every last ounce of value from my labor could go into some sort of vast wealth redistribution system of sorts and I could still be a free man. Because a slave is property, that's the identifying trait of a slave worldwide since the dawn of man. A slave has no liberties, no rights at all, as such we aren't not slaves.

You cannot be sold to another person. Your family cannot be arbitrarily divided and sold separately. You cannot be convicted of a crime without a trial and right to legal counsel. You are allowed to pursue your own job, your own interests, your own future. A slave is someone who can only ever do what their master tells them, and who has zero say in his fate. By the definition of slavery, we are not slaves and it's flat out insulting to compare our position of unparallelled privilege to the plight of genuine slaves.

Because anarchism is the logical conclusion to non aggression principle. It is the only philosophy compatible with international peace and prosperity.

Any system is compatible with international peace and prosperity, as long people stop fighting.

BreaksFull · 1日前

Slavery is when you are forced to give up any percent of your income/labor except for 0%

That sounds like an extremely contrived definition to me. The definition of slavery used by humanity since the dawn of the institution is the state of being owned by another person or an institution, and I mean completely owned. A slave is property, a slave cannot choose anything for themselves. Their entire existence is at the whim of their master, it's an afront to human nature to be enslaved.

We are not slaves. We are some of the most privileged people in the face of human history, with the greatest potential to realize our capabilities, to achieve our desires and dreams. We can learn what we want, we can marry who we want, live where we want. Comparing our state of living to slavery is beyond ridiculous.

but my main point is that society is evolving and it is getting easier and easier to fulfill requirements for stateless society, it is foolish to dismiss the idea due to past failures.

Sure it's hypothetically possible but you're using yourself to prove your point, that because you full heartedly adopted anarchistic ideology that everyone else will too. But people are widely different and hold different views, I don't know why you think everyone will just eventually agree with you.

BreaksFull · 1日前

For me his issues with surveillance and cracking down on whistle blowers/government transparency really tarnishes an otherwise good and solid presidency.

BreaksFull · 1日前

The fact that we have worldwide slavery under government is evidence that it is doing a great job, as intended.

You don't seem to have a practical understanding of what actual slavery is if you genuinely want to call living in the US/Canada/etc 'slavery.' Or an unbelievably narrow definition of freedom.

However, you constantly use historical examples why it couldn't work, it is as ridiculous as i would try to use historical examples to prove why wright brothers won't be able to fly their plane, everything has to be done for the first time, and to claim that just because it had failed in the past it will never work is to ignore the advancement of human beings and technology.

Lack of historical precedent for powered flight didn't make it impossible because we saw it all the time. Birds flew, balloons flew, gliders flew, powered flight was a mathematically provable concept and just required the right design. Anarchism, in the forms it's sprung up, has never shown to be capable of holding up to external pressure from centralized powers or to not shift toward centralization itself. We had oodles of precent for flight, we have none for sustainable Anarchism.

I just want to make sure, are you arguing in support of statist system?

To a degree.

BreaksFull · 1日前

military strength of the north

Fucking lol.

BreaksFull · 1日前

Gotcha.

BreaksFull · 1日前

Man its so much fun being a person with goals and a purpose.

BreaksFull · 1日前

Well the goal of the KR was also an ideological 'cleaning' of sorts, not just relocation. Still, there is probably some better examples of strategic population relocation out there than those genocidal communist radicals.

BreaksFull · 1日前

This is the sole purpose of government schooling, to train complacent workers who obey authority with no independent thought.

If that's the case it's down a remarkably terrible job at it for its entire existence, given the rich history of independent and diverse beliefs and thought in America and longstanding suspicion and public disagreement with the political establishment. I certainly agree that the American public education system is a dinosaur of a different time and it needs drastic reform, but calling it government brainwashing and indoctrination is grossly ignorant of actual government indoctrination, like the Indian residential schools where children were torn from their families by forced and placed in schools that intentionally tried to mold their minds in a specific way.

People used to live in tribal system, with tribe leaders, government is essentially scaled version of the tribe, with slight differences.

That's a pretty significant blanket statement that doesn't accurately describe the workings of many tribes and groups. The Germanic tribes of days during the Roman Empire had a very strong emphasis on freedom and personal liberty for free people, their chiefs were chosen by popular vote and they had little to no ability to override the will of their people, there was no blind following of authority.

This was the case for more than a few tribes and clans and other smaller groups of people throughout the ages, yet they all tended to drift toward a stronger central authority as it became feasible.

But anyway. My point is that throughout history, time and time again people have shown a willingness to trade personal absolute freedom for an easier existence. Maybe increased protection, maybe for increased wealth and personal fortune, or simply because like-minded people coalesce and form their society around social conventions and morals which eventually turn into laws. And while I'm sure there's a fair number of people who'd all be happy living in an anarchistic commune, humans are diverse enough and different-minded enough that anarchistic ideals will never completely and thoroughly take over everyone to the extent your utopia requires. And as long as there are centralized states in existence with anarchist ones, the centralized ones will dominate.

BreaksFull · 1日前

Completely over the top portrayal of public schooling aside, I find you're assessment of human behaviour lacking. People used to live without government of any sort long ago, all humans used to live in such a state, and without any influence of state brainwashing they all eventually coalesced into a unified group under some form of leadership, and eventually toward statehood of some sort.

You're more or less suggesting we rewind the clock on the state back to how we were originally. But why wouldn't history repeat itself? States formed from anarchy once before, they would do so again. Likewise conquest of some form would appear again, not because states turn people into brainwashed violent killers, but because there's benefits to conquest.

BreaksFull · 1日前

Not everyone is like you, not everyone will meet these requirements. And unless the significant majority of people do meet them, then your anarchist utopia will not long find itself conquered by an outside power, through military might or otherwise.

BreaksFull

トロフィーケース

本日のreddit gold目標額達成率

reddit gold Since April 2016	Two-Year Club
Verified Email