The main problem is those who acquiesce, grovel, and alter the world according to the woke vision, mostly for fear of losing some profits or reputation. This behavior has exacerbated the problem, and if it were to end, the whole scheme would collapse.

That’s not necessary, pal. If I wanted high-fives and consensus I’d probably be on some dark corner of the internet by now.

I feel zero pain from the digs—they’re as soft and brittle as imagine their chins are—and I just dig them right back anyways. C’est la vie. Besides, testing your ideas against the grindstone of criticism and free speech is a great way to pass the time during lulls in work. Unlike these vectors of propaganda that’s all I’m here for.

As for the remarks about my sanity I fear you’re projecting. So I’ll be sure to tread lightly around you just in case.

I’d love to see this common sense in action, but I have asked for proof of Trump’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in this thread for years now with nothing to show for it, so I don’t expect much.

Maybe I’m jaded. We were promised the next Hitler, nuclear war, economic collapse, race wars, fascism, the Kremlin, and a litany of other bogeymen, none of which materialized. So I doubt such accusations as a matter of course. I can only imagine how the world would be today had those tasked with informing us warned us about real threats. Now we find ourselves under the yoke of every leader and bureaucrat but Donald Trump. Sad.

Me too. Not yet to NOS's satisfaction though.

I’m rooting for you.

Begrudgingly, they did. But I also think the principle of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt need not apply only to those concerned with law, but also to those who believe in justice, human rights and common sense. You either believe in it or you don’t.

No one would know. (Hence the location.)
Greenland has been autonomous for half a century or so (from unreliable memory).

True, except in matters of immigration. The Kingdom of Denmark gets to pick and choose who gets a permit to reside in Greenland. No so autonomous, I suppose.

True, but it is a tried and true principle. I can’t think of any reason we’d assume the opposite, but here we are.

That’s more a presumption of guilt than innocence, and there are reasons we avoid such tyranny in free society.

It looks like the case against Trump’s supposed hush-money payments was dropped.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/06/us/politics/trump-michael-cohen-fec.html

The dreams of Trump’s perp-walk slowly dwindle.

I fact-checked the link you sent and read the story. It was determined to be fake news. Want to know how I found out?

By all means.

The “third camp” should reject statism, collectivism, totalitarianism, and embrace freedom. Only then could they resist using human beings as the brick and mortar of their projects. Unfortunately this means their vision must come about voluntarily.

In your lifetime? Doubtful. You'll be meddle-free.

Moving to Greenland and occupying land there is a problem because I’d have to contend with the Danish state’s monopolization of it all. I wager that had the Danes left the Inuit alone there wouldn’t be this problem. But they meddled and claimed the land as their own.

I want to talk about the “consciousness” people talk about when they discuss “The hard problem of consciousness.”

It’s an ambiguous term, says Chalmers. This is before he sprinkled in a little experience, feelings, and quality to make it worse. But it becomes more and more apparent that the “consciousness” he speaks of is the organism itself. So when he says “It is undeniable that some organisms are subjects of experience”, he is descending into tautology.

He is an intellectual disease vector. Fortunately many here have been inoculated.

The inoculation of fake fallacies and quibbling.

It's really hard, I think! What if you become a disease vector?

All the more reason to go bother someone else.

Not bad. But I fear it will be prime real estate once you’ve had your way with the rest of the world.

Not an AN anymore but I keep hearing this. This would imply that having children is never wrong. It would also imply that genetically modifying someone to be blind and deaf is not wrong since you're not forcing anything on anyone, therefore morality doesn't factor in (assuming you don't think a sperm or egg is a person). It would also imply that if a certain couple, upon hearing that their child would have dozens of severe genetic illnesses due to hidden genes that they have, would not be doing anything immoral by having said child.

Do you agree with each of the above 3? If not then why?

I think positions that attempt to say that having children is not a moral issue, and can never be wrong are ridiculous.

I think there is a difference between moral behavior towards flesh-and-blood beings and moral behavior between abstract beings. Claiming moral behavior towards flesh-and-blood beings is one thing, measurable and visible, while moral behavior towards abstract beings is another, little more than a feat of imagination.

There is nothing abstract about genetic modifications, sperms and eggs, couples choosing between the life and extirpation of their child. These decisions have demonstrable effects and involve real behavior. So I'm not saying having children is not a moral issue; I'm saying not having children on the basis of protecting an abstract being from being forced into suffering is not a moral issue. It's an imaginary one. When a sense of morality extends no further than the skull, can be accomplished in the comfort of one's home and without any interaction with real beings, I would argue it isn't morality at all.

What happens if someone is not happy with the arrangement- everything from work, homelessness, and suicide options?

Also, what makes forcing the participants into the world moral vs. immoral? Is just the fact that people are sometimes positive at certain moments justifiable really? So are slaves, etc. The only difference is the range of options is larger, that I agree. It's still a bounded set of conditions and rules nonetheless.

I would tell him happiness isn't all its cracked up to be.

If Wonka forcibly removes them from their home and imprisons him in his place it would be immoral. If he creates them, or if they grow from the stuff of his world, he is forcing nothing and morality doesn't factor into it at all.

Point taken. How much joy, laughter, etc. does it take to ameliorate that Wonka has forced people into this world with the conditions explained in the OP (work, homelessness, etc.)?

It wouldn't take much if he sacrifices a great deal of his time to provide, protect, and raise us to thrive in his world. I would be quite grateful, personally.

Wonka is cruel because unlike the real world he never added things that cause joy, pleasure, laughter, play, and so on.

I'm just thinking that to meet your needs we'd have to clear an area for you, which you could farm or hunt and gather or whatever, so you could live unbothered by others and without bothering them. There's a decreasing number of spaces of dwindling size and resources, unfortunately. Perhaps colonising another planet would suit you.

This sounds to me like meddling. Surely it cannot be that difficult to leave someone alone.

Virtue out of one side of the mouth, pettiness out the other. Perhaps the stoicism isn’t working.

An odd statement considering deeply imbedded it is in Western, or at least American culture.

I'm not so sure about that anymore.

I imagine there could be if you were to present one.

Is a critic still a critic if he is unfamiliar with the literature?

I guess there is nothing for the individualist to whine, worry, or ring their hands about in consternation. Time to get back to individualizing while sucking the tit of civilization.

P.S. Revolutionary France is, like, two seconds ago in the scheme of things.

One can see, even from this thread alone, that individualism is held in fear or contempt. Yet there have been zero refutations of actual individualist argument. So I have to wonder how much of it is premised on the typical misrepresentation, and further, how much ignorance mounts because of it. This to me is worthy of whining about.

Critics have been promising the failure of individualism since revolutionary France. Any day now, I guess.

I was merely explaining theory of state formation, and where our differences might lie. This was right before you called it a resentment-fuelled fantasy and tacitly threatening me if I was to act on it. When I try to show I have justification for my beliefs you submit what I wrote to contextomy, then quibble about my use of one word, while avoiding any and all arguments I present. So I no longer care about your analysis of what I wrote.

I never suggested disobedience to the state. I never suggested all conquest and confiscation in history was the result of the state.

What you most fear, the state taking over what used to be provided by the collective.

I wouldn't say the state provided me with any moral framework. Has it done so in your case?

What is the thing that gave rise to this moral framework? In my own case, it was writers such as Humboldt, Mill, Smith, Locke, Hume, Popper, Orwell, AJ Nock, de Cleyre.

First it was a resentment-fuelled fantasy, and now all you can do is quibble about my use of the word "any".

Sure. The United States.

Tell that to the people who lived there. There was once a statue (The Rescue) that existed outside the capitol building depicting the white man's domination of the natives. Maybe that too was a fantasy, but "Indian Removal" wasn't.

You will be able to give a more reasoned response if you change my words, but I said nothing about your fantasy being "absent any example".

The absence of reason is evident in the assumption that what holds true for one state holds true for all.

That was my poor writing. I was trying to say your conclusion about my conclusion was absent any example or reason, implying you were guilty of that which you accused me of.

So what is it that led to your conclusion about "the state" and "all states"? One example is not sufficient. Examples are not sufficient unless you include the example includes all states.

More examples would be the Middle eastern partition, colonialism, slave states, every empire that expanded beyond its own borders. Any counter examples?

Do you really not understand or are you just being obstinate?

You said "the state" and "any state" These are all inclusive claims about all states, each and every state. To conclude something about any state from one state is a logical fallacy. We cannot conclude that all dogs have three legs because Tripod does.

I do understand, but I didn’t make the conclusion from one example. I provided one example after you concluded it was a resentment-filled fantasy absent any example or reason altogether.

Someone who tries to bully others on the internet, miles away from any accountability, shouldn't try to lecture others on virtue. You're the asshole, Tim, and about as useful as one on an elbow.

to the Islamic State. Is it necessary to explain the logical fallacy to you?

I recall you dismissing the theory and resorting to ridicule. So please, explain the logical fallacy.

Yes, mine is based on actual regimes, your's on a resentment fueled fantasy. If that is far as it goes then that is your problem. If you act on it it becomes our problem. And then you may lose whatever precious little freedom you now have. You no doubt will call this injustice but I call it justice.

We watched just recently as the Islamic State (an actual regime) formed before our eyes. This was not due to any absurd notion of a social contract or anything else, but by expropriation, terror, murder and the enslavement of the people who lived there. Anyone who resisted were met with your kind of justice, stoned to death or murdered on the spot. So what a complacent and statist fantasy you have there.

I've read research that the original intentions were pretty much as you describe, and only relatively recently has civilazation been worth the price of forced admission for the average Joe. That's history though, today we could emigrate to any country that would have us and perhaps find ourselves in a better situation than where we came from. You're an expatriate yourself, aren't you?

It’s been over a year since the government seized the economy. Just a week or so ago we’ve been told we cannot leave our health authority, and if we leave we should expect roadblocks and fines. My right to work, to travel, gone with the stroke of a pen. So I’m a little salty.



That was a good story. Thanks for writing and sharing. But I’ve stated numerous times no one is suggesting doing it alone. It’s more refusing to be a drain on others than escaping others.

You don’t have to, yet you do, 180proof. If you ever care to know don’t hesitate to ask. I don’t hide my views.

It means that we work from within the system to make necessary corrections to promote justice. Justice, as I understand it, goes beyond your desire to be left alone or the absolute protection of every right you might claim.

We probably have different conceptions of the state. I see any state system as an imposition, formed by conquest and confiscation, designed to enrich the conquerors by exploiting the vanquished. To me it is fundamentally criminal and anti-social institution no matter how far it has strayed from its original intentions.

Yeah, NOS, you must be one of those disingenuous damn Incel-fools running around with MAGA hats & rebel flags on your pick-up trucks and blaming "Antifi & BLM" for looting during mass protests against unaccountable killer cops and "Islamic terrorists" for waging asymmetric warfare against globalist, client-state, manifestations of the American Empire all the while ignoring (or materially supporting and/or participating with) Alt-Right/Proud Boys/QAnon and ethno-tribal White Supremacist "free men" have been, respectively, looting the US Capitol and terrorizing unarmed, fellow American citizens with near-daily mass-shootings. That you're freely using this site's bandwidth with your (I'll be charitable) deplorably trollish commentary, NOS, testifies to the eusociality of accessible commons and, therefore, of your infantile "individualist" demand to be "left alone" which you aren't wo/man enough to reciprocate by leaving this site, or any public commons, alone.

Oh sure, I must be—or these are the fantasies you like to tell yourself. I don't need to pop your bubble as you've already accepted your status as drone.

Your obedience is apparent. But appeals to law and authority mean nothing when that authority is questionable, abused and leads to injustice.

Tough titty, fella. Move as far off the grid as you can then (i.e. for consistancy sake, treat society / civilization itself as the egregious "externality" that you believe it is). And good luck with that! For the rest of us, however, the synergistic benefits of eusociality still far-outweigh the notional costs.

No thanks. We've seen your "eusociality" descend into rank tribalism and murder too many for it to be something to be proud of. I'll seek the company of free men.

...and yet here you are.

Note: discussing topics on the internet is meddling in someone's life to Banno.

I think there was a discussion on reincarnation some time ago. However, supposing we accept reincarnation either as fact or as theoretical possibility, how would we convincingly justify it in philosophical terms?

It isn't possible. We have the cadaver farms to prove what happens to us after death, and as far as I know, exactly zero of those cadavers have been reborn. I suppose the only way to justify reincarnation is to posit a sort of dualism between that which is proven to turn to dust and that which is hoped, fantasized, imagined to arrive in another body.

Would my extended parking be a violation of the laws of the state or municipality? Are you authorized by a government agency to collect fines?

Obviously I have no authority.

It depends on what I am doing and how it affects others.

What if I came over and demanded you pay a fine for parking too long?