Yeah I like your threads.

Well yes, I don’t like starving to death so I work. Having a place to work and receive payment for my work is therefor a benefit. Living off the land is at the time too difficult.

We already know what happens after death, have the cadaver farms to prove it, and it ain’t pretty.

Problem is origination of capital. Not everyone starts equally. Not everyone has the chances to put the resources together. The Marxist would ask, by what right does one human own the means of production over another if we all have the same goal of survival? In other words besides words like freedom, do you like the idea that some people own how we survive and some people have to sell their labor to them?

Sometimes I envy them, sure, but envy is a great motivator. To me it’s very kind that they would start an enterprise at which I can work and be rendered payment for my services. The right by which someone usually comes to own the means of production is through purchase or gift or labor, though there are nefarious means.

We know that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics wrote socialism into law and declared in their constitutions the abolition of capitalism, private property, and economic exploitation. Every country that has ever declared these kinds of things have often struggled, imploded, or gone the way of the dodo bird. Is this system so worth it, even if many countries have hardly risen from its rubble?

But the so-called liberal democracies are not much better, in my mind, to the point that I can only differentiate them by rhetoric and other superficialities these days. They’ve turned every contingency into a resource for accruing power in the government, as Madison once wrote. They’re all strands of the same collectivist statism—I don’t know what else to call it. At least there are some encouraging signs of people thinking in terms of freedom again.

I swear that if I ever saw something like your kind of socialism I would applaud it, at least as a feat of organization, and because it isn’t of the German variety. What I’d worry about, though, is what you’d do to those who don’t want to take part in it, or seek to make their living from your property. There is always that problem of individuals believing they know how to run their own lives better than some central committee.

Absolutely. A socialist system would have to manage it's capital resources too -- mines, factories, land, ports, and so on. The difference is that socialists manage resources for the common wealth, and capitalists manage resources for the creation of their own wealth.

The act of managing resources for the common wealth would require a monopoly on the resources, a cabal of managers to govern it, and an army of workers to till for it. I’d prefer the voluntary system, myself.

It seems to me that that the category “those incapable of non-lethal self-defense” would also include those who lack the strength and numbers to defend themselves in certain situations, which could be anyone of any level of strength and ability. Accordingly the same ethical justification should extend to them—everyone—and not just the disabled.

“Capitalism” has always been a collectivist bugaboo, anyways, forced into the economic lexicon and seemingly left there. So it’s strange to see those who abhor collectivist projects fall into using it to describe the present system. But really, a system that doesn’t consider managing capital is unimaginable, and a system that is not capitalist has never existed. Had they named it better the problems with the present system might be more apparent. At least we’d know, as you said, what about the present system is the more important enemy, and we could work to rectify it. Until then I guess we have to engage in a naive form of class struggle.

I’ve always understood that suicides make up a majority of firearm fatalities.

But as far as I can tell the right to self-defense arguments still stand, and for the same reasons countries employ armed soldiers and police. Sometimes people need to protect themselves and others. Sometimes using a gun is the best way to do that. I’m not aware of any new arguments, nor do I think new ones are required.

Leader of Oath Keepers and 10 Other Individuals Indicted in Federal Court for Seditious Conspiracy and Other Offenses Related to U.S. Capitol Breach

These are the first sedition-related charges in the capitol riot. Apparently one of the defendants is actually on Tucker Carlson right now, which is stupid if you care to beat the charges.

Scientists believed Covid leaked from Wuhan lab - but feared debate could hurt ‘international harmony’

Leading British and US scientists thought it was likely that Covid accidentally leaked from a laboratory but were concerned that further debate would harm science in China, emails show.

An email from Sir Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust, on February 2 2020 said that “a likely explanation” was that Covid had rapidly evolved from a Sars-like virus inside human tissue in a low-security lab.

The email, to Dr Anthony Fauci and Dr Francis Collins of the US National Institutes of Health, went on to say that such evolution may have “accidentally created a virus primed for rapid transmission between humans”.

But a leading scientist told Sir Jeremy that “further debate would do unnecessary harm to science in general and science in China in particular”. Dr Collins, the former director of the US National Institutes of Health, warned it could damage “international harmony”.

If I’m ever the last man on Earth I’ll be sure to remember your penetrating insight and denounce all ownership as meaningless. Thanks for that.

If I own something, someone else does not. Wow. The clouds part and I am finally enlightened.

That’s exactly why I said there no justice in expropriating someone’s wealth and giving it to others.

Ignorance prevents one from giving reasons for his assertions. What role is played by others in ownership?

I don’t get the point. I do not own anything except in relation to those around me because…

Your furtive attempts to further a conspiracy theory in a country that is not your own is the going rate, ssu. Get in line.

Pure contextomy. He’s not insistent on anything to do with the military, and you pretended that he insisted Trump should get the military to seize voting machines. You furtively left out what exactly it was he was insistent about (appointing a special counsel and investigating the machines and elections) in favor of pretending his hypotheticals were some form of advice to Trump. But the hosts questions clearly distinguish between what Flynn thinks Trump should do and what he could do. You took from the “could” pile and pretended it belonged on the “should” pile. Even now you can’t even post the whole interview!! Utter lies.

ssu - “Yeah, just an ex-National Security Advisor (and former US general) of Trump insisting that Trump should use the military to confiscate the voting machines.”

NOS4A2 = “No, Michael Flynn insisted Trump should appoint a special counsel to investigate the voting machines and exactly what happened in swing states.”

ssu - “You simply cannot deny that he asked for the military to be used do this, to confiscate the voting machines.”

General Flynn - “The things he needs to do right now is he needs to appoint a special counsel immediately; he needs to seize all of these dominion and these other voting machines we have across the country; he needs to go ahead and prioritize by state and probably by county—Fulton county and Maricopa county for example—exactly what they did up in Antrim county, Michigan, and what they discovered; I think if he looks at probably a couple of random sampling of these counties he’s going to find exactly the same problem.”

https://www.newsmax.com/amp/politics/trump-election-flynn-martiallaw/2020/12/17/id/1002139/

Why won’t you state exactly what he did insist, instead of making it up?

Altruism is when you act with the interests of everyone in mind. Everyone votes for some decision or group because they believe that they will benefit the interests of everyone. Whether or not what or who they have voted for succeeds at that does not change the fact that the voter was well-intentioned.

I don’t think altruism is when you act with the interests of everyone in mind, especially when it comes to voting. To me, to suppose that one can know what the best interests of everyone in mind are, and that a vote can help to bring them about, is the height of egoism.

I took a rare look on Twitter yesterday just to analyze the cringe and I wasn’t disappointed. True believers and CNN talking heads were practically begging people to believe the narrative, speaking about their trauma, pretending those who died that day were not all Trump supporters.

They had a remembrance ceremony in Congress, of course, because a show must be made of it. Crypt-keeper Nancy Pelosi brought in musical guests during her remembrance of January 6th. The cringe makes it hard to watch.

The fact is exactly how I stated it, and you’ve done nothing to refute it.

That’s rich. I neither brought up the interview nor shared it. I only used it to show what was said, and only because I couldn’t find it anywhere else. You might have to use other fallacies to refute it.

I was linking to the interview.

Yea, an irresponsible fear.

No, Michael Flynn insisted Trump should appoint a special counsel to investigate the voting machines and exactly what happened in swing states. The rest was purely theoretical.

“These people out there talking about martial law like it’s something we’ve never done,'' Flynn told Kelly. ''Martial law has been instituted 64 times. I’m not calling for that. We have a constitutional process. … That has to be followed.”

https://www.newsmax.com/amp/politics/trump-election-flynn-martiallaw/2020/12/17/id/1002139/

But you might had known that if propaganda didn’t sway your thinking, like it did with everything else.

It’s not like medicine or anything else has advanced in a century. No, it was surely the fact that we outlawed dancing and meddled in everyone’s lives that saved them. Bless the government for taking our rights.

Yeah, one wasn’t a pity party for celebrities and had a little more balls to it.

Never forget: it was ok to take over Capitol Hill when Hillary-supporters did it.

You don’t know right from wrong? You can study laws until the cows come home, but if you do not know right from wrong, just from unjust, you could not know whether the laws are right or wrong or just and unjust. You’re simply abiding by dictate, not reason or any sense of justice. The idea that law dictates right or wrong, Justice or injustice, is not only absolutist, but an appeal to authority.

I’m not speaking about the state, though it is certainly one arbiter of justice. Anyone can be just and any amount of people can determine whether an act is just or not. To leave all that to the state is not too bright, for the reasons you mention.

Do you suppose that a man who murders an innocent person deserves the same treatment as the man who kills the murderer?

The principle is justice. With his actions he has proven he isn’t deserving of human life and dignity.

I suppose if a crime shows such a disregard for human life and dignity the perpetrator deserves nothing less than to be put down.

I mean specifically to protect the innocent from violence, to counter one act of violence with another. But I also believe violent reciprocation is often warranted. Sometimes it just isn’t right that someone should get away with certain acts without a comeuppance.

Violence is ethical if it is used to counter unjust violence. I would even say it is ethical when used in the service of justice, for instance, with the death penalty. So an ethical violence would have to be a just violence.

Yes, it’s a state-managed collectivist economy through-and-through, and the current seizure is only evidence of how far it is willing to go. But forcing businesses to limit capacity, to enforce mandates, to close early, to adopt shifting policies, to collect subsidies, to outlaw dancing, gathering, walking to the bathroom without a mask etc. is unprecedented, especially in countries that haven’t quite swallowed the socialist pill yet.

The fact that a slave could choose to escape his masters doesn't make him any more free. Perhaps we have different conceptions of freedom.

I much rather stay and convince you to stop stealing my wealth. It’s in both of our interests.

No agreement here. I register my vehicle, get a license, drive on their roads because I have no other option. :down:

Around here the government has seized the economy, effectively denying many people to conduct businesses, and in some cases to leave their homes, to enter businesses, to gather with others.

Unfortunately, these aren’t market forces at work here, but legislation that favors those who can afford to adapt to capricious government policy, those who who can afford to work from home, those who work on the internet, and so on.

None of this would have been possible without a vast segment of corporate interest, as large telecommunication companies, social media companies, multinational technology companies, media companies, have already provided the infrastructure required to pull it all off. We have effectively been forced to use their products and services, if not to survive, than to retain some sanity during isolation. Our loss, in fact, is their gain.

I would not be stealing if I use them because the roads are available to use by anyone, including those that don’t pay their taxes and foreigners. I would not be stealing anything because I have not taken anything that is not mine.

It sounds about right, to me. Combine this with the fact that no other force, being, or object can be shown to cause or direct a person’s decisions but the person himself.

No. Even in areas where I think the state is legitimate, I have never once thought to myself “the government sure did a good job.”