When did I pretend something like that existed? Never once. And I disagree with your assertions.



I love when you start gossiping about me. The “more or less” lies increase in proportion to your sanctimony and race-thinking. An ugly combo.



The problem is once you sacrifice some individuals to “collective objectives” you ruin the collective whole in favor of certain individual members of it. You divided it, fracture it, subordinate some of it. So any talk of “collective objectives” or society over the individual is a ruse designed to disguise that you would submit to discrimination and human rights abuse in order to protect your vision of society. Just come out and say it.

You didn’t deliver. The United States did not form to protect rights, but to seize power, coordinate war, and to exploit the wealth of the people in order to serve those ends. Every ideal you claim the American state has was violated by the American state. This is because ideals belong to individuals, not states.

And the moment individuals with these ideals wield your tool, they violate those ideals. They utilize organized monopoly and the right to distribute property that is not theirs. The preside over institutions designed to protect their right to do so. They are no longer ideal men, but officials.

The Declaration of Independence was to announce independence from state rule and to dissolve their political allegiances. Rather, the American state came together under the articles of confederation and the constitution, not because it could better protect human rights, but because it needed a way to acquire money and prepare for war. As soon as confederation began and the state seized power and aggrandized itself, the government became destructive to the ends of the declaration, and the right of the people to abolish it quickly disappeared. Now look at her, the poor bloated thing.

Do you have any examples of a state that has came about to protect the rights of its subjects?

I’ve never stated there was a society without a centralised government that had an excellent human rights record. So I’m not sure why I would have to demonstrate it.

Any bill of rights was formed in spite of the state, mostly to protect the individual from infringement by state authority. The UN declaration, for example, was brought about because various “centralized governments” had the bright idea to submerge the earth in war and genocide. Bills of rights don’t come about because centralized government is the best protector of them, but because they are the worst violators of them.

Yes, I’d rather not wield the tool.

I’d rather not.

I didn’t mention any noble savages.

If you can mention any “centralized government” that has not violated the very human rights it purports to protect I’ll be very surprised. The history of states since time immemorial prove otherwise.

Perhaps the probability of being surprised in conditions where a creature is unable to use its senses overrides the probability of being surprised in conditions where it can.

There is no un-curated information

My point, I guess, is the choice between curating your own information or letting others do it for you.

I fear that most are concerned with whom the wealth is given to rather than the fact that it is stolen in the first place. In effect they accept that state institutions are above and beyond common morality.

Good article.

To me, the problem lies in the utilization of these principles.

From an information theory or statistical perspective, free-energy minimization lies at the heart of variational Bayesian procedures (Hinton and van Camp, 1993) and has been proposed as a modus operandi for the brain (Dayan et al., 1995) – a modus operandi that appeals to Helmholtz’s unconscious inference (Helmholtz, 1866/1962). This leads naturally to the notion of perception as hypothesis testing (Gregory, 1968) and the Bayesian brain (Yuille and Kersten, 2006). Indeed, some specific neurobiological proposals for the computational anatomy of the brain are based on this formulation of perception (Mumford, 1992). Perhaps the most popular incarnation of these schemes is predictive coding (Rao and Ballard, 1999). The free-energy principle simply gathers these ideas together and summarizes their imperative in terms of minimizing free energy (or surprise).

The computational theory of mind and the conflation of brains and creatures invariably leads to such problems.

Observation, trial and error, scientific method, logic, principle—foundational critical thinking skills can suffice to help navigate information.

You’re a big boy. Figure it out.

Lies, misinformation, errors, superseded theories, pseudoscience. If you need someone to differentiate between truth and falsity then you are a part of the problem.

Your case against independent media reads like it was written by CNN. But to derive your info from the legacy, fake news media, is too puerile an approach to informing oneself. It’s narrow, curated, doesn’t involve much thinking, and is subject to the whims of someone else.

Much better that all information is provided, true or false, and to learn to navigate it. Not everything is meant to be curated and disseminated for us. We ought to wean ourselves from curated information or we will never learn.

In that sense the internet has brought us closer to informed democracy.

There is nothing disproved about the fact that men can afford other men rights. History is blood-soaked with states denying rights, so I’m not sure you know what you’re talking about.

Exactly, they stole the land and gave it to their friends. It’s an organized monopoly. Now you say I should become their friend, to enjoy “all they’ve given you”, which turns out to be no more than the fruits of their robbery.



I’m not an anarchist when it comes to the organization of defence. Though I believe people should protect their communities, they are at risk being wiped out and subject to the worst that man can offer. So I agree with Paine that government may be a necessary evil in that regard, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world.

No, it didn’t earn it. First it begged for it, as with war bonds, then it took it, as with income tax. Only after the money is seized could it provide for you the things you claim it does. It doesn’t just start providing services in wait for some true-believer like James to tell everyone it is deserving of some payment for its services. Hilarious.

The government created the problem by imposing lockdowns, shuttering businesses, forcing people in their homes, thereby altering consumption and shopping patterns.

The government didn’t earn that money, that’s for sure. It won’t give to anyone but itself.

Brilliant. If taxes go up on shipping then shipping raises the prices, and, as usual, the cost is left up to the citizen. It makes no sense, if true. But also as usual, government sees itself to the solution to a problem it created, like any protection racket.

That’s a strange conception of freedom.

Voltaire was right: In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to another.

Note that they skipped the letter xi and went straight to omicron.

Slavery exists too, ssu.



Any man can afford another man a right, and anyone can defend someone else’s rights. It’s as simple as that. If you need a state to tell you what rights are important and when you should defend them, they can get you to do anything.

I’m well aware of that. Might makes right. The state can do no wrong. We’ve seen countless examples of it.k throughout history.

I don’t like that view because it limits application of rights, and makes them subject to abridgement or suppression by the authority that confers them. But all men can grant rights.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

Everyone has the right to education.

Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

I don’t think democratic policy change should entail the violation of basic human rights.

No you miss and evade my point, Tim.

Yeah, I know nothing about emissions control tech, but any tech that lasts for mere months ain’t worth it.

Do you need an authority to tell you when and where to shit, or are you an adult?

If your emissions control technology for automobiles worked for 3 to 6 months only you might think of a better solution.

It’s easier to ask instead of making things up. Just looking out for you.

I whined about forced covid vaccines and their shit efficacy.

Let’s get those facts straight, pal.

It was a very clear cut case. Rittenhouse went to Kenosha to shoot black people, did so, but was acquitted by a jury instructed to ignore anything Rittenhouse did to cause concern to others.

How many black people did he shoot? And why would you assume their skin-color?

Here’s a recent case that ticks all the racial boxes for you. This case in particular shows how malicious the State is. They tried to convict him for murder even though it was the police who gunned her down.

https://weartv.com/news/local/florida-man-acquitted-of-shooting-at-deputies-in-raid-that-led-to-death-of-girlfriend

You couldn’t point to a single soul that you’ve protected save for yourself.



A poll or appeal to majority is no repudiation of rights being violated, I’m afraid. Neither is it an example of democratic policy. But you’re right. There is no reason to think they’ll change so long as they are bolstered by public opinion and motivated to retain political power.

We agree. Maybe somewhere people are voting for these policies, but none that I have seen. I also don’t think democratic policy change should entail the violation of basic human rights.

Of course there is a problem, but the puerile and weak solution is to let the state dictate how to solve it. All they’ve done, apparently, is to completely dismiss human rights in favor of regimenting society and treating the populace as prisoners in their own countries. This will be the greatest peace-time policy failure in human history.

When the state forces you indoors, orders you to close your business, prohibits you from travel, do you tell yourself it’s like mum making you go to your room?

A jury of your peers, the evidence, and the trial all disagree with you. One was armed and then subsequently, quite literally, disarmed. Rittenhouse provoked none of it. The pedophile and other rioters who attacked him should have known better.