Amazon's pricing policy means that it's suppliers are kept destitute. It doesn't pay them enough to live off. — Isaac

Yet they work for Amazon, so apparently however unsatisfying the conditions its better than the alternative.

Amazon may take advantage of poverty, and that may or may not be immoral, but that is not the same as creating it. Likely those people would be worse off if Amazon disappeared. You simply believe Amazon should offer them a better deal.

I can be violent if I want. How do they 'hold a monopoly'? — Isaac

I can't take this argument seriously.

Yeah. Didn't think it would take long before this deteriorated into "the government ought to make the laws I benefit from, but not the ones where others benefit" — Isaac

If that's how you want to mischaracterize my position, we will soon be done here.

Government doesn't protect its position with violence. — Isaac

Of course it does. It does so in war, stopping violent protests, etc. And when it doesn't use physical violence it uses threats of violence. How many people do you think would continue to pay taxes if they weren't threatened with jail (which is a threat of violence) for not doing so?

Government does what it does the same way corporations do, control of capital. — Isaac

Governments function through violence, the free market does not. They're not even remotely the same.

...enough people. Just like governments. — Isaac

Nonsense. Two people could agree to cover each other's insurance and deprive Black Rock. Black Rock wouldn't care, and this two-person deal may not be as cost effective as what Black Rock offers, but the option is there. All Black Rock could do to stop you, is try to persuade your business partner.

Black Rock cannot force you to buy its products (like governments can) and they cannot stop you from competing on the market (like governments can).

Government and business function fundamentally differently.

What can happen is that government and business form an unholy alliance against the common man, which is exactly why specifically governments need to be kept small and relatively weak in their power over people and business.

They monopolise, cheat, steal, coerce, occasionally outright kill or violently oppress to make sure that you can only buy their product, that you have anything but a free choice. — Isaac

In an anarchy or corrupt system perhaps, which is not what I am advocating at all. In a world where businesses are also warlords I think it is safe to say we have departed from the context of this discussion.

Again, no government threatens you with violence. They just could. — Isaac

It threatens me with violence every day. Every law is enforced by threat of violence. If I don't pay my taxes I get thrown in jail - violence. If I don't stay indoors during the pandemic, I get thrown in jail - violence. Etc.

They're overt threats of violence too, it is all written down in laws so no one has to guess whether the government will get violent if one of its laws are broken - they basically guarantee it. Those are threats.

But what's immoral about imposing on a gamete? — Isaac

For one, the intention to force a human being to live.

One is about impositions, the other about consequences. — Isaac

It seems to me imposing on someone and forcing someone to undergo consequences is the same thing.

I think what argues is that impositions are immoral based on the intention to impose, thereby the intention is all that is needed, and it doesn't depend on the consequences.

Yes. Their employment practices, pricing policies, procurement policies, supply chain decisions, environmental policies... all contribution to the destitution of those suffering from their decisions. — Isaac

What concrete example do you have of either of those companies making people destitute?

Nice. so you just make your argument true by redefining 'government' to 'anything which forces' — Isaac

Governments are essentially bodies that hold monopolies on violence. There was no need to redefine.

It matters because the opposite of anarchy is government intervention. the one thing you're arguing against. — Isaac

On the whole I am highly critical of government interventions, but I'm not categorically against it.

We've just been through this. This isn't going to work if you're just going to ignore what I write an repeat the same thing over again. — Isaac

What you wrote makes no sense, equating a body that protects its monopoly on violence with violence to a body that protects its market position through the free will of its customers.

Of course it does. Government's are elected. — Isaac

Democracy does not mean a government depends on the free will of its people. It means it seeks to gain some form of legitimacy by seeking approval for its coercive practices among a section of its citizens.

Governments can be overthrown. — Isaac

Companies do not need to be overthrown. If people are fed up, they stop buying products and the company will go out of business or offer its services some place else. No violence necessary, just people making decisions freely.

It's that you're judging governments on what they would do, but corporations only on what they do do. — Isaac

I'm judging governments for threatening me with violence to comply with its wishes - something it does every day, by its very nature. That is what law is.

I'm not judging companies for the same, because I've never been threatened by one.

What is the difference between imposing on someone and forcing a consequent someone to undergo consequences?

They can basically make you destitute. — Isaac

Theoretically, perhaps. I don't think we see that in practice. Are Amazon or Pfizer making people destitute?

The reason Pfizer couldn't force me to buy their vaccine is because the government have made such actions illegal. — Isaac

In a situation where a company is able to force me to buy their products through violence or threats thereof, they're no longer a company - they've become a de-facto government.

But I'm not advocating anarchy anyway, so I don't see why it matters.

So try harder, get a bigger army. That's the advice given to would-be entrepreneurs going up against the likes of Black Rock. If they say, "it's impossible, Black Rock just have too big a percentage of all the available assets" - try harder, be the American Dream! Gather your own army! — Isaac

Companies depend on the free will of people to buy their products. If people are fed up with Black Rock they can stop buying their products, and if they want to take care of their own insurance, nothing's stopping them. Black Rock can't do anything about that except try to sway the people back to their side.

With governments and armies it is clearly different. It doesn't depend on people's free will, and governments will protect their monopoly on violence with violence.

So how do you know that corporations wouldn't also do those things if their coercions are ignored? — Isaac

In most countries companies aren't allowed to coerce. What can a company threaten you with? That it will no longer serve you? I don't see how that is all that threatening, unless they have monopolized basic needs.

Seems now you're condemning institutions for future crimes they've not yet committed. — Isaac

That's a pretty common way to deal with threats of violence.

If I threaten you, I will be sent to court for it.

Like...? — Isaac

Beating down peaceful protesters, for example.

Still, if your take on the matter is right, then we need to explain how come not everyone thinks that way (and what to do with the differences). — baker

Okay, but I fear I will get no further than a psycho-analysis.

And while those may sometimes be interesting and handy, they don't carry much weight as I am not a mind reader.

I'm also going to inevitably step on a lot of toes, but lets try:

- Primacy effect: a type of cognitive bias that favors the position we are told first. And almost everyone is taught the pronatalist position, implicitly and explicitly, from a young age.

- Normalcy bias: a type of cognitive bias that favors what is considered normal. Procreation is considered 'normal'. Humans do it, all living creatures do it, so it must be ok.

- Confirmation bias: many people desire to have children, and thus they might be biased towards an interpretation of reality in which having children is good.

- Retroactive justification: many people have already had children, so they might be biased towards an interpretation of reality in which their choice was justified.


Honorable mention:

- Savior image: one reason I have often seen espoused here is that humanity would cease to exist without procreation. While that is undeniably true, it also suggests that they see the inherent problem with procreation, but choose to procreate anyway as a sort of personal sacrifice to the greater good of humanity. I've always found this one quite humorous, because it suggests the person views themselves as carrying the weight of humanity's survival on their shoulders - a savior figure, if you will. I also don't think there's anyone who genuinely believes this, and that it is more likely a variation on confirmation bias.


Anyway, this is a fun exercise, but it's also a bit cheap. Don't take it too serious.

While I find myself leaning strongly towards the antinatalist side (when compelled by reason, I find I have no choice in that matter), I am still very much part of the active debate and don't consider myself "an antinatalist". I respect everyone who continues to weigh arguments from both sides.

No, but they can make your life extremely difficult if you don't. Just like governments can. — Isaac

I'm not so sure about that.

They can refuse to serve you, which can be problematic. They cannot take your lunch money, or throw you in jail, or send you off to war to kill people for them.

I would argue the evils of government are a whole order of magnitude worse. That isn't to say monopolistic or extremely large cooperations aren't a problem. The question is whether more powerful governments are the solution to that problem. Governments seem more likely to jump in bed with powerful cooperations than they are to curb their power.

Pfizer couldn't force me to buy their vaccine. The government could.

Indeed, just like there's no restriction on you setting up your own government and vying for power. — Isaac

Of course there's a restriction for that. Governments have a monopoly on the use of force, and laws against its use.

If on the other hand you want to get together with your pals to cover each other's insurance, can Black Rock stop you?

OK, so if the Thai government used other means - theft, coercion, bullying, grooming, punitive treatment... You'd be OK. — Isaac

No of course not. But it will do all those things if its threats are ignored. Every government functions that way. It's only tools are violence and coercion.

And just because I can threaten you into complying with my wishes, and thereby don't have to be forced violently, that does not change the nature of my act.

When was the last time you know of that the Thai government used violence to enforce its laws? What about the UK government? — Isaac

I don't live in those countries. But wherever you live, the answer is probably all the time.

I live in what most consider a 'civilized' country, and even here the government uses overt violence against law-abiding citizens with frightening regularity.

In Thailand it is now impossible to get insurance without your provider being ultimately Black Rock. They own every single insurance provider in Thailand. — Isaac

Monopolies and large, centralized power whether in the hands of governments or cooperations is mostly bad. I think at least we can agree on that.

However, Black Rock cannot force you to buy its products, or stop you from getting together with other people who are fed up with their business practices and start something new.

you don't like the Thai government's laws, your only choice is vote or move.

If you don't like the Thai 'free market' insurance deals, your only choice is move.

Explain to me the difference. — Isaac

The Thai government forces me through threat of violence to comply with its wishes and buy its services. Black Rock doesn't.

Further, the fact that my family could move to make the schoolyard bully stop taking my lunch money does not change the coercive nature of his act. Neither does whether people vote on whether he gets to take my lunch money. For one, why does anyone get to vote on that, and second, if my voting power is not enough to protect my interests, voting does nothing to relieve the coercion I am subjected to.

governments are not coercive because agents can either vote or move. — Isaac

:snicker:

Well, people have had some silly ideas about right and wrong, so I don't see why that should be any concern of mine unless their ideas are supported by arguments that can be scrutinized.

I also don't see how my stance, if it can even be called that, could be genuinely classified as evil.

Sure. But one is the result of the voluntary exchange and association, the other of coercion.

I'd say people who seek to coerce have a much larger burden to defend their actions than people who interact voluntarily.

But how come you're different than those people? — baker

No idea. I may just be very dumb and fail to see how their logic adds up.

You don't believe in, for example, "souls" and "life after death", do you? — baker

Insofar as is relevant to this discussion, no.

Don't you find it odd that different people have so widely differing ideas about some topics, specifically, procreation? — baker

Why would that be odd? Isn't widely differing ideas pretty much the norm for humanity?

For a lot of those it is debatable whether they were achieved by government meddling, or whether their results were at all desirable.

Anyway, my point was never that governments shouldn't do anything.

But if we're going to keep score, shall we also list the many evils governments have perpetrated?

How do you explain that not everyone thinks the way you do about procreation? — baker

I can't read people's minds.

My impression based on the arguments that have been put forward suggest to me most are comfortable with keeping a double standard, and feel no necessity to apply their moral principles consistently.

If your position is one of materialism or something similar (as it seems to be), ... — baker

I never thought of my position of having to do with materialism. You'll need to elaborate on that one.

And on what grounds do you justify the relevance of those differences? — baker

I don't find the other arguments logically coherent and consistent. I am not seeking to change people's minds or judge them in some way, I am just putting forward and testing ideas to the best of my ability. I don't see what there is to justify.

Governments have been trying to solve socio-economic issues for ages, and they always fail. While not necessarily fixing the problems, the free exchange of goods and ideas has done more to improve the lot of the common man than any attempt by governments.

I don't think opponents of government intervention are not in favor of improving the lives of their fellow man, they simply see governments as a flawed means of getting there. In fact, you could say that the opponents believe that seeking to solve many such issues is inherently in vain and causes more harm than good.

This characterization to classify people who generally are not in favor of government intervention as selfish is just naive and arrogant.

Proponents of government intervention tend to look at issues very one-sidedly, pointing at one group as the clear victim and thereby justifying their actions, not understanding that government intervention almost always creates new victims elsewhere.

There is no free lunch.

If someone is just advocating widening our understanding, we should not feel threatened by that. There's nothing wrong with that. — Tate

The trouble is that widening our understanding may lead to some of us having to concede they had no understanding to begin with, and that's an extremely threatening proposition to those who have been attempting to claim the moral high ground for years.

The entity that was forced had no will, no moral status, nothing more than forcing a rock to roll downhill. — Isaac

By willfully rolling that rock downhill, one caused an entity to come to be, whose will was disregarded. It's an act of force.

You're attempting to hide in the fuzzy cracks, but we've progressed. You've admitted an embryo has been forced. The next step is admitting that by forcing the embryo, one also willfully forces the person that the embryo develops into.

You've already admitted to pulling the trigger. Now it's time to take responsibility for the bullet, and the person it killed.

The person being born was not forced to live. they cannot have been because they didn't exist until after that event. — Isaac

That's irrelevant. The parents know that by their direct actions a child will come to be, and that child has no choice in whether it does or not. It's an intentional act that disregards the wills of whom it affects - an act of force.

If I recall, that's your argument. Your the one who wants to avoid all responsibility for anything you didn't directly cause. — Isaac

You recall incorrectly.

In the case of procreation the parents cause the child to be born. In the examples we discussed the moral agent doesn't cause anything and therefore does not bear responsibility.

You could claim that the parents forced a gamete to become a person. — Isaac

The parents willfully initiated a process which they knew would result in a person being born and thus forced to live.

An act of force.

Note that your argument is about causal chains, and that, apparently, one can only be responsible for the first step.

I only pulled a trigger, I never shot the gun. It's the bullet that killed him, but I am innocent!

And more importantly still, what difference does it make? Clearly an act of force took place.

Can one be born without being alive? :chin:

To be born is to be forced by one's parents to live.

That seems like such an obvious statement of fact that I'm struggling to understand why this is still under debate.

But are you going to argue that we cannot consider the baby's well-being before the baby was born because there was no baby yet to be born into the lava pit? — schopenhauer1

It's a shame that after so many pages of discussion (including those in the other threads) we've essentially not moved beyond this point.

No sane person would act in the way described. No sane person would try to defend someone who acts in the way described, for reasons that are obvious.

It's just rhetorical. That's why I stopped engaging with this position. What's the point in engaging with ideas that no one applies consistently or genuinely believes in?

Collectivism may have some merit at the local level, where people cooperate voluntarily and the ties that group them together are tangible.

However, the larger the scope becomes, the more abstract these supposed ties become, the more imaginary (that is to say, non-existent) the group, the more it must rely on coercion and generally the more problematic the results become.

At a certain point it seems that collectivism no longer cares about its (supposed) members, and it becomes an exercise in what is essentially slavery - the subjugation of its (supposed) members to the group ideal, regardless of their individual wishes.


Suppose I find myself in my local recruiter's office, and he intends to draft me for the Vietnam War.
I look at the Vietnam War and conclude that based on what I see, there's no way I have anything in common with the nation that conducts it - I am not an American.

How does the recruiter solve this? What tangible link can the recruiter point to that would save his case, that I am indeed an American and have a duty to go to Vietnam and fight there?

Unless one voluntarily took upon themselves the responsibility to take care of another's well-being, or is themselves the cause of another's suffering, non-interference is always a morally neutral option.

Scenario 1 and 3 essentially portray that this idea about morality involves freedom of choice.

The moral agent is free to involve themselves, or not. Involving oneself can give an opportunity to do good, however one may also pass up on an opportunity to do good.

As for scenario 2, that one cannot simply force others to cater to one's needs should go without saying. If we were to consider that acceptable we'd be back in the jungle.

My problem is that if I say that, for example, murder is unethical then the result, if my view were ever to universally applied (unlikely), would be a happier and safer world. If I say that procreation is unethical then the result, if my view were applied universally (unlikely, again, as you say), would be an empty world. And an empty world, I cannot help feeling, might be a bad thing. I would be promoting an ethical principle which, if applied generally, would lead to a world without humans. That's my problem. — Cuthbert

These worries are fair and understandable. Let me say the following:

The prospect of no humans doesn't appeal to most humans. It doesn't appeal to me either. Yet, when we ask whether something is universalizable or not, we must ask ourselves if the situation that arises is immoral.

Is an empty world an immoral outcome, or just one that we as humans don't find very appealing?

My only qualm is this: if we all do the right thing and refrain from procreating then the human race will quickly cease to exist. And that (I'm tempted to believe, rightly or wrongly) is a bad thing. So by everyone behaving in a way that is beneficial, right and just - that is, by not procreating - then we would collectively create an empty world. — Cuthbert

Why would the existence of the human race even be on the individual's radar? They don't have an influence on whether the human race exists or not, nor will they be around to appreciate how the human race exists or not.

Ultimately moral behavior needs to be guided by rational ideas, and for humans to base their behavior on things they have no control over is, in my opinion, irrational.


Look around you. Is the extinction of the human race even a remote possibility today?

Clearly it is not, and it won't be tomorrow either.

If it even becomes a possibility, let the individuals that live then make their choices to avoid it, if they wish.


Finally, if by some unimaginable fluke all of mankind were to voluntarily decide that not procreating is indeed the moral thing to do, on what basis would you object to them making that voluntary decision?

If the human race is to continue .... — Cuthbert

Perhaps it's a scent of self-righteous free-loading hypocritical nonsense, or did I forget my after-shave? — Cuthbert

That's usually the idea I get when people claim their actions are motivated towards the survival of the human race. What benevolent and great beings to aspire to such lofty ideals!

If you really believe that the US military might stand back while China invades Taiwan because they "recognize" the "One China policy" then I got some people you need to talk to who have some beachfront property in Arizona they wish to sell to you at a great price. — dclements

It should be obvious that in such a scenario the United States may not want to defend Taiwan if it means sparking WWIII, hence they pursue strategic ambiguity.

Your argument is a strawman since I have said nothing to indicate that I believe that either Taiwan, Ukraine or Crimea have only symbolic value. In fact, nowhere have I even mentioned anything about Ukraine or Crimea in this thread so it is a given that you can only assume I might have such a position (just as you might assume that of anyone else on this forum) since I have said nothing on such matters. — dclements

You called Taiwan a trivial issue for the Chinese, which it clearly is not.

Thereby you are making the same mistake as the West has made in Ukraine. Assuming things to be trivial, when the reality is that Russia was prepared to go to war. Taiwan is of similar importance to China. The fact that the issue has been hot for over half a century should tell you enough.

You need to read my posts more carefully.

If they really want to go to war why should they wait till 2027, ... — dclements

Because countries cannot make navies out of thin air.

In terms of creating desires for useless stuff— “fashionable consumption,” etc. — this has a long history, has been studied, documented; not a controversial remark. — Xtrix

Useless by what measure? Obviously they must find some use for it - entertainment or otherwise. Why else would people spend money on it?

You’re free to ask me what I believe directly — Xtrix

What do you believe?

And yes, China is communist. — Xtrix

It's definitely not. Communism explicitly aims to socialize the bourgeoisie, that is to say, repress and steal from the upper middle and rich classes and (supposedly) give to the poor working class.

There's nothing communist about China anymore. Like Russia, China has more in common with a classic dictatorship.

Lol. Food, water, shelter, family, community. I view these as needs, or at least different than a new gadget every 2 years. — Xtrix

Those darned advertisers convincing people they need pointless luxuries!

Wouldn't it be nice if we could take all of that money and instead use it for useful things?

I guess I’m part of a communist conspiracy. — Xtrix

Unlikely, but your characterization of advertising as a means to sell people things they don't need suggests you both consider people too stupid to make such choices for themselves and yourself an expert on determining what is best for others.

You may be a closet authoritarian, I'm afraid. Something which is not at all uncommon among those who harbor collectivist fantasies.

If you're the hippie commune type I take all of that back, but something tells me you're not.

I don’t think China is an example of communism at all, as I understand it. — Xtrix

Collectivism isn't the same as communism, and China isn't communist (anymore). However it is collectivist, since the individual has been completely subjugated to the whims of the CCP.

But I’m using your meaning, not mine. — Xtrix

You're using it poorly.

Yes, the United States has its problems — Xtrix

If you think I'm a fan of the United States then you are sadly mistaken. But if you want to compare the domestic policies of the US with China and suggest they're similar then that is laughable.

Xi Jinping is constantly getting upset about everything that goes on outside of his country that he can't do anything about. — dclements

Taiwan, even according to official United States policy, is a part of China. This has been United States policy since 1972 was reaffirmed explicitly as recently as 2017.

One China Policy

I think the language used in describing the situation is something like that if China attacks Taiwan, then the US will help Taiwan but not if Taiwan attacks China. — dclements

No. It's not like that. The United States has not made it clear whether it will protect Taiwan in case of a military invasion and explicitly has made no guarantees to do so. But it still might. That's the idea behind strategic ambiguity.

As I said before when a country like China is constantly threating to start World War III for trivial reasons... — dclements

Again, you're falling into the same trap the United States and Europe have fallen into with Russia. You assume that Taiwan, just like Ukraine and Crimea, has only symbolic value, and that those symbolic values only matter to crazy dictators in power.

This is plain short-sighted and wrong. The fact that both of these issues have been hot topics for decades, Taiwan for over half a century, should tell you that we're not talking about benign matters, but in fact matters that a country like China could actually go to war over.


Will they go to war now? It's not likely, I'll grant you that. According to some projections China is not expected to be ready to invade Taiwan until 2027. But projections can be wrong, and China could just be waiting for a pretense to strike. Consider also that China may have more instruments to start a conflict besides an all-out military invasion, and that retaliations against Taiwan or the United States may take a different form.

In fact the entire advertising industry operates on the complete opposite goal: create desires for things not needed. — Xtrix

Ah, one styles themselves the arbiter of who needs what. Spoken like a true 'collectivist'.

They can’t? China seems to be doing just fine. — Xtrix

China is an autocratic dictatorship. A big mess of repression, surveillance, authoritarianism, genocide, etc.

Please don't use China as an example for successful collectivism. It's a powerful state. So were Nazi-Germany and the USSR. Were they successful collectivists by your standards?

A strange definition of collectivism, but OK. — Xtrix

That was not a definition, obviously. :roll:

Unlike Ukraine, the US has pledged that if China invades Taiwan we will get involved and help defend them against China. — dclements

As far as I know, the United States pursues a strategy of 'strategic ambiguity' in regards to Taiwan, meaning that they haven't made it explicitly clear whether they will defend Taiwan or not.

Didn't Biden say recently during a press conference they were committed to defending Taiwan, only for that statement to be recalled, reasserting their position was ambiguous as per the Taiwan Relations Act?

US State Department Walks Back Unusually Strong Comments on Taiwan

Taiwan Relations Act

It "may" be in China's best interest right now to look tough and do a lot of sabre rattling, but it isn't in their best interest to start a war with Taiwan and the US. — dclements

But they won't look very tough if the United States just goes ahead with their plan and they do not retaliate in any way. They'll look like chumps. And powerful nations do not like looking like chumps. Especially not China. Especially not now.

Because China's threats are nothing more than a lot of hot air it is the US best interest to go about business as usual and not pay any any attention to their empty threats. If you don't stand up to bullies on the world stage then the rest of the world will look at you as if you don't have any backbone. — dclements

They're nothing but hot air, until they're not. We've seen in Ukraine what it can lead to when the biggest bully on the block - the USA - ignores warnings from other nations they are going too far.

No, that would be capitalism. Brutal, inhumane, and reducing everyone and every thing to capital. — Xtrix

Sure, capitalism is far from perfect, but at least a successful capitalist has to produce something others want to buy, which is why its many evils also went along with many goods - history's collectivist projects cannot say the same.

You can have a collective without a state. — Xtrix

Two people can form a collective, technically. Though I understand collectivism to be a term to describe state policies (and in recent times also supranational organisations), and collectivist states to be states that act with collectivism as their goal.

But if one wishes to practice collectivism in a sort of hippie commune where everybody engages with each other on voluntary grounds, then who am I to oppose that?

If Pelosi visits and the Chinese government doesn't back up their threats, they will look weak.

But then again, what could they do? Attack?

Regardless, this will be a big event in China-US relations.

If China is forced to back down it will damage relations and fuel animostiy further, greatly increasing the likelihood of a military conflict over Taiwan in the near future. It could spark a Crimea/Ukraine-like situation where China, like Russia, is instilled with a sense of urgency to secure its outstanding claims before it's too late.

If China backs up their threats somehow, we could be looking at open war. The question is if in such a scenario Japan and South Korea would enter the war on the US-side, which would be a complete disaster and likely spark mass conflict, if not WWIII. For the US not to get involved military would be unlikely, considering their naval assets in the area, but they also never officially guaranteed Taiwan's independence (I think?), so perhaps there is a way out, though unlikely.

A very violatile situation. I don't think the United States is in a position to be waging any kind of war currently, and they are banking on the power of their deterrence to score a victory for the Biden administration - not unlike the Ukraine-situation. A dangerous gamble.

That despite having been tried and having produced by far the worst track record of any system in human history, collectivism still is supported shamelessly is truly a testament to mankind's ignorance.

The problem with collectivism is simple. It is the outright subjugation of the individual to the ideology of the state, and amounts to nothing less than slavery. And before anyone goes there, a slave who wears a fancy suit and is given priviledges by his slave owner is still a slave.

Every collectivist state pursues totalitarianism (whether explicitly, or by ignorance), and vilifies those who do not go along with their ideology. For the Third Reich it was the Jews that needed to be socialized. The USSR needed to sociailze the bourgoeisie.

Today it is man who the collectivists need socialized.

Man, with all his unfortunate ideas of individual freedom and rights.

Man, who by his unfortunate free will fails to fall into lockstep with the ideals of the state.

And their eagerness to forcefully subjugate those whom their arguments fail to persuade is evident. It took the western nations and institutions that are now openly flirting with tyranny hardly a year to turn from the world's leading proponents of individual liberty and justice, to states who took steps towards lawlessly socializing those who opposed them. Every excuse was grasped, every legislative loophole exploited, every repressive tool in the governmental toolkit utilized towards this end.

However, these aspiring Hitlerites also failed to see that their malpractices went unnoticed in the past precisely because they did not overtly display their power. The reason modern day tyranny may exist at all,(and precisely why it is so dangerous) is because it has become increasingly well adapted at hiding itself in the shadows. Deep inside institutions, lobby groups, academia and extrajudicial bodies.

Now the ugly beast has crawled out of its cave and showed the world its true face (not in the least because its rotten societal fruits could no longer be ignored either). And like all things vile and despicable, it does not withstand the light very well.

Bravo! :fire:

Any ideology that fails to take into account human (evolutionary) psychology & biology is going end up a magnificent failure! — Agent Smith

Attempting to turn people into worshippers of an ideology, which is what every ideology-based society tries to do, is a flawed endeavor to begin with. People and their ideas are flawed, and that goes double (nay triple) for governments.

The least flawed societies we have come up with are those that attempt to make these flawed people able to do the least amount of damage to each other, including and especially those who run the government.