The Wish They Were All Dead Tory Cunt Thread

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

What do you mean I concede? Libertarianism is not anarchy. I think this is the key idea you are missing. And I'm not talking about state sponsored violence against other nations (although that's a major organising principle of the state), I'm talking about the violence the state commits against it's own citizens. Robbery, prohibition, child abuse, etc. Plus all the other undesirable baggage not least of which is waste. I not against an organised society at all, provided it isn't organised by force and using violence to fund it and control it. The state is superfluous, a completely unnecessary burden on the society and the progress of that society.

No I'm not missing anything I'm just not conceding a fundamental difference between libertarianism and anarchy (which for a state of chaos does take many varied structural forms), what you seem to be arguing for is a form of dilettante libertarianism, because unless you are saying that healthcare, education are all privatised than some form of even localised administration is called for.

Pure Libertarianism on the other hand is defined as a state of Anarchy, but you don't believe in Pure Libertarianism it seems to me.

[Niall_Quinn]

No I'm not missing anything I'm just not conceding a fundamental difference between libertarianism and anarchy (which for a state of chaos does take many varied structural forms), what you seem to be arguing for is a form of dilettante libertarianism, because unless you are saying that healthcare, education are all privatised than some form of even localised administration is called for.

Pure Libertarianism on the other hand is defined as a state of Anarchy, but you don't believe in Pure Libertarianism it seems to me.

I never mentioned Pure Libertarianism. You have slipped into the habit of substituting my definitions with your own and then using the latter to discredit the former.

I said Libertarianism - advocating individual freedom and opposing in all circumstances and without exception the initiation of force against an individual or their property by any other individual or group of individuals for any reason. Logically and rationally under such a principle the state becomes impossible as it is impossible for the state to operate without a form of government and it is impossible for a government to operate without initiating coercion against the individual.

Libertarianism does not disqualify organisation between individuals. And of course any markets operating under a libertarian system must be free markets, including healthcare and education. Indeed especially healthcare and education.

From my reading of what you have presented over time it seems to me you imagine the human species as hopelessly flawed, naturally belligerent, inherently self-serving on an individual level and therefore worthy of the tightest restriction and control at all time - despite the fact the controllers must be drawn from the fatally flawed pool of human beings. Under your imaginations of society we take fatally flawed individuals and grant them superior rights. This act, I suppose, transforms them into virtuous and benevolent individuals separate from the inferior masses. I may be completely wrong, but that's how you come across in what you say. It may or may not be a coincidence that this is also the foundation argument used by statists in defence of their model. Human beings are, in the main, incapable of interacting in a constructive and equitable manner and therefore must be marshalled and directed under the threat of punishment should they resist. Children for their entire lives, so to speak.

I disagree with the statist summary of the human condition because they avoid two key factors that for me are critical in shaping human interaction. Environment and dignity. They are almost the same thing in a human context. Those afforded dignity are far more likely to respect the dignity of others. And those who enjoy favourable environments are far more likely to be able to live and thrive with a measure of dignity. There can never be absolute dignity when one individual is under the control of another. Slavery, poverty, disenfranchisement in any of its forms, slums, subsistence living, being herded through shitty state provided monopolies, tagged, numbered, expressed as a percentage of the mass, labelled. These are the methods and devices of government and the state.

At the top tier, reserved for those who accept the system without question (in fact without thought) exists an environment where dignity allows the collaboration and cooperation that we might term as civilised behaviour. As you step down the tiers so the environment becomes more harsh and dignity is stripped away. When you reach the underclass (does anyone seriously imagine the denizens of this class exist there by choice?) you see a fearful confirmation of the statist's primary argument - these sub-people must be controlled or else (and this is the part I laugh at) there will be "anarchy". But it's a carefully manufactured environment and the undignified manner in which the victims are managed is carefully formulated. The self fulfilling prophecy. All people, except the special people, must be controlled for their own good. The state, preserved by the misdeeds it visits on the citizenry under the disguise of a helping hand.

Trust me, Conservatives taking away £10 a week or Labour adding a tenner makes no difference to the prospects of these people at all, beyond the slight improvement in their undignified existences played out in their dystopian environments. Take a step up and what you really find is an increase in compliance. Climb further and you reach total compliance. This shit is baked right in. One way, always. And the impossibility of any other way. It could never work, could never happen. People are bad news. That's just the way it is. The bleak self indictment of a system that delivers war, famine, pestilence and anything else the four riders can haul in, all the while blaming the victims and glorifying the perpetrators. Welcome to the state.

It's not for me. I'm only here because they'd kill me if I tried anything else. True or false?

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

If human beings were incapable of rational, reasonable behaviour than no state could ever have formed in the first place

I'm stating that in a world where have scarcity of resources and that we as human beings even though we are more rational, compassionate and open minded this civilised behaviour is still dependent on favourable circumstances. In times of desperation and fear people can act in all sorts of ways because our instinct overpowers our reason.

What I do believe is that despite this talk of this dystopian totalitarian nightmare that apparently we live in, the human being has made amazing personal advances - universally slavery is reviled (well unless like you, you consider people being required to pay taxes on their salary is comparable to being the property of another human being), wars between neighbours in the more developed part of the world are fewer.

However globalism hasn't treated people well and there is a revolt against that towards populism, which shows that when the chips are down people take on a more authoritarian stance.

So no I don't think people are inherently bad, but neither do I see the state in the same way you do. I see it as the same as society the contract people enter into to live in that society, the reciprocation that you pay in what you take out, that if you do Ill onto others that you will suffer the consequences. I think there are services like transport, education, health which aren't naturally things that can be serviced by the market place, and require administration and not just to assume that people will cooperate in maintaining.

Do we deny a child an education as a result of their parents selfish desire to not pay into the system for education?

Yes I do agree in a minimum standard of defence (although not an arms race) to protect from other states who want to take the resources of ours, and I do believe otherwise benevolent states have an obligation to intervene to protect other people from tyranny and cruelty (yes often a manifestation of a state but just as often not dependent on it)

States do overstep their boundaries, do act in an authoritarian way towards its citizens that needs to be fought against. But yes I do believe an element of coercion (laws and taxation) are the only way to ensure that everyone is prepared to contribute to a society when they otherwise wouldn't.

I can accept that as human beings evolved the need for a codified state lessens as when people are more content they are more willing to cooperate and work together.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I'm only here because they'd kill me if I tried anything else

------

Depends what you tried. Frankly I think what you do is of less interest to most than you imagine

[Niall_Quinn]

I'm only here because they'd kill me if I tried anything else

------

Depends what you tried. Frankly I think what you do is of less interest to most than you imagine

If that's meant to be a put down then you missed wildly because that's the fucking point! If I chose to do my own thing without infringing the rights of any other individual then you're probably right, nobody would fucking notice! I think the problem would come if people DID notice. Do you see my point?

But what about your characterisation of my brand (there is only one "brand") of libertarianism? Do you stick by that or are you prepared to consider the idea I'm not looking to blow everything up? You end many debates (and I enjoy my debates with you) by agreeing not to agree. But we hardly ever reach the point of disagreeing on the conclusions because we can't seem to get the hypothesis straight.

Anyway, heavy debates are not going to get my heavy workload sorted. I need to get back to earning so the state can carry on thieving.

As an aside, that absolute cock Michael Moore just got picked up in a way that most missed, such was their eagerness to spin his recent comments this way or that. I used to fight backwards and forwards with Moore when he was "one of us" on the AOL chat boards. If anything, he's worse now than he was then.

He's also fat.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I never said there was a specific brand of libertarianism, call me a pedant if you like but my point is you were saying to me I'm a libertarian not an anarchist, and it's purest form there is no discernible difference and yes I stick to that.

I can be a stickler with these type of things, like when you get soppy sods calling themselves socialist and yet still thinking that socialism and Capatalism can co exist when they are totally competing philosophies.

And yes I'm sure libertarianism works on a spectrum, but yes I'd argue that what you've suggested is that of a stateless society than none the less maintains many though not all of the aspects you'd expect to find in an existing nation state.

I think there is an element of the defensive here, I'm not trying to mock you at all, I'm just saying as far as I'm aware there is little that you'd desire to do that would earn you too much attention from the figurative eye of sauron.

Not quite sure where Michael Moore figures in this all, it's very fitting that he's so fat because what he does in his films is the equivalent of fast food, simple, junk information and a narrative that releases the endorphins of self righteousness and it's us versus them.

Of course with all his films there are small chunks of truth buried beneath his simplistic, self serving bullshit. Just like there is with all films/documentaries that begin with an agenda. Documentaries on all strands of political thought tell you they want to tell you the truth, but just want to give you an embellished version of what they want think, it's less fact and more promotional literature.

That's the irony of the so called Information Age, facts are multiple choice.

But that's because the object is to entertain, not to instruct

[Niall_Quinn]

Wow, the Clinton Gang has gone up against Negan. Total annihilation. And apparently Assange has the 33,000 deleted emails still to come plus a shitload of stuff on Abedin's connections to Saudi. This is making House of Cards look tame.

[Niall_Quinn]

Breaking news...

[Niall_Quinn]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...g-warning.html

Propaganda and drivel that could be picked to pieces and annihilated line by line, but we expect that of the Daily Panzer. The comments is now the only useful section in these mainstream outlets and it is becoming increasingly apparent that fewer and fewer Brits are buying the lamestream bullshit. It really is encouraging to see people starting to snap out of this trance the likes of Thatcher and Blair seduced us into.

[adzzzbatch]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...b0ec3145f8af9e

They didn't want to run "nod in my name" again so they made this one up instead