Welcome! These forums will be deactivated by the end of this year. The conversation continues in a new morph over on Discord! Please join us there for a more active conversation and the occasional opportunity to ask developers questions directly! Go to the PS+ Discord Server.

New political views

210 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Last post

Mon, 2014-02-17 07:07

#202

Smokeskin

LatwPIAT wrote:Smokeskin

LatwPIAT wrote:
Smokeskin wrote:
No, this is verbatim what you wrote: The problem is not that anarchist men like women who wear underwear, but that there is an undercurrent of opinion in anarchism where men actively seek to create an "anarchist" society where women have no options other than to be subject to men. And again you write that men "force women into subservient and sexual roles". So I ask you, how do men do this?
Smokeskin, this passage here is the one that talks about lingerine and high heels: [i]"If women in anarchy want to quit serving men and being reduced to our genitals and breasts, and men in anarchy really secretly want women to make their food, watch their kids, not attend school, and to be sexually available and made up in chemicals, lingerie, heels and diet aids to sexually titillate them at all times, while doing men’s laundry and washing most of their dishes, we have a problem. A HUGE problem."[/i] It does [i]not[/i], all your waffling to the contrary, say anything about "men women wearing lingerie" being a problem. The essayist further says: [i]"I feel when men say things like women want to clean up after them or do their dishes and cooking and childcare, that they are just oppressing the woman further, even if it is subtle, and that type of behaviour does not empower her, but further beat her down, reinforcing servitude as her most prominent and useful talent."[/i] Why then, when the essay you're talking about clearly describes systematic (lest we start nitpicking about individual cases) sexism and oppression, through forcing women into subservient (domestic work in traditionally feminine roles) and sexual (the imposed demand for sexual titillation) roles, do you continue to insist that this has no merit to it? Do you deny that there is a problem with men expecting and forcing women into subservient and sexual roles, or deny that this is a problem in anarchist movements - these testimonials to the contrary?

The thing I'm objecting to is your continued insistence that men somehow force women to do these things. Of course men want their women to be sexually titillating and do house chores. Of course women want their men to do house chores and help them redecorate with flowery wallpaper and listen to their feelings (and no that's no more sexual stereotyping that what you're claiming about men). And most couples find some sort of balance where they both do stuff for each other. And if they don't, either can just leave. This isn't the 19th century, or Pakistan.

LatwPIAT wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:
The problem is that you seem to consider male sexuality to be harassment. You're saying we can't flirt with other women, even in an equal setting.
What I've [I]actually[/i] said is that come ons (not "flirting", a word that never appears anywhere in any of the essays) are usually harassment. And then you say "Why do you consider male sexuality so inappropriate?" Your argument seems to hinge on the harassment experienced by the essay-writing anarcha-feminists being a necessary component of "male sexuality", equivocating "male sexuality" with "freedom to harass". I [i]don't[/i] hate male sexuality, because I [i]don't[/i] believe that making women feel uncomfortable with come ons has anything to do with a free expression of male sexuality. I fully believe that men are free to express their sexualities on an equal basis with everyone else, because [i]nobody[/i] needs to harass anyone. Yet when women complain about come ons, apparently that complaint has little merit. Why it is you think that when women complain about come ons, that's proof they're being unreasonable, rather than proof that come ons are a problem for women in anarchism?

When you're defining "come ons" as harassment, yes you have a problem with male sexuality. You are very free to say no or ridicule the guy if that's what you want, but saying that its harassment because it makes you feel uncomfortable, that's far out. What's next, we have to take it seriously when racists complain that "well officer it made me very uncomfortable, he was surely threatening me, I mean he talked to me and he was black and had a hoodie on, that's what muggers wear so they can't get recognized in a line up, you know!". It's nothing but a justification for bigotry.

LatwPIAT wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:
Do you really see women as being so inferior in even an equal situation that they're victims of harassment?
Ah, yes, of course, I'm the real sexist here.

I'm being serious. In an equal situation, why do you consider the women to be victims of harassment?

LatwPIAT wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:
So a woman sides with her boyfriend in a political discussion and badmouths his opponents and from that you infer Battered-Person Syndrome and Learned Helplessness? How do you make that leap?
I make that "leap" because the essayist wrote an essay telling me that the woman only sided with her boyfriend because she was emotionally manipulated by an abusive boyfriend. I am literally reading the book here; it's not as if I'm making giant leaps of logic.

Look, you can't read like that. If we were discussing something written by a conspiracy theorist or a creationist, should we also just accept everything they say without thinking critically, without evaluating the evidence? The author made a HUGE leap that was not explained or justified in any way, and you're going along with it. I'm asking why?

LatwPIAT wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:
It seems that a recurring theme is that you find women to always be a victim of the circumstances. I just don't recognize that in the women I know. I see them standing up to men in many ways. I see them demanding a lot from their men and succeeding. Could what you're seeing be a problem with a certain subculture rather than a general problem?
You're basically saying that women couldn't be emotionally manipulated or abused into doing something against their will, and claiming that any claims to the contrary are mistaken.

No, I'm saying that interpreting everything as a sign of abusive is far out. I'm saying that in normal relationships, both the man and the woman do things for eachother, and sometimes people are just nice - but you interpret any favor or act of kindness from the woman as a sign of male oppression.

LatwPIAT wrote:
Especially, given the context, the claims of women. Here, you're even using a claim about a very small group of women that you know personally based on dubious anecdotal data to make large, sweeping statements that the personal experiences, interpretations, and analysis of the essayists [i]can't have been true[/i]. I mean, wow.

I am presenting exactly the same type of anecdotal evidence as the essayists. In fact I'd argue that their anecdotal evidence doesn't even demonstrate what they're claiming. The burden of proof is on them and you. They and you are the ones claiming widespread abuse, and all you have is some anecdotes that I'd argue that normal people recognize as something that could easily happen in equal, non-abusive relationships. Of course, abusive relationships can and do happen. But what is described in those essays is either a) actual cases of abuse but not widespread or b) widespread but not abusive. They just haven't even remotely made their case unless we adopt some feministic redefinition of normal relationship behavior to make it seem abusive.

Mon, 2014-02-17 07:40

#203

nezumi.hebereke nezumi.hebereke's picture

Smokeskin wrote:Seriously, no

Smokeskin wrote:
Seriously, no one is able to defend democracy? You can go on and on nitpicking at ancap, but give even a basic justification for democracy and the oppression that comes with it, you don't want to do that?

Sure, I'll take a whack at it. Representational democracy isn't necessarily my favorite system, but I'm still a fan of it. Democracy is a state of compromise. Imagine you have five people in the room and they have to agree on pizza toppings. I'm sure you've been through this, so I won't elucidate further. Ideally, democracy comes out with a solution which is at least tolerable for everyone. Other topping-selection methods tend not to be very popular for obvious reasons. The Ancap solution would be 'you want sardines? Buy your own damn pizza.' Even in an ancap society, most people will find the cost-benefits of democracy to be most competitive in joint-pizza-purchasing. Now expand the pizza to three hundred million people. One might argue 'well I don't have problems with a centrally-managed infrastructure, but why can't I opt out of particular pieces I don't use?' (This isn't an ancap-specific question, since plenty of pro-democracy people have asked the same.) The honest answer is because it's just how we've always done it. In 1800 you couldn't send a note up to your representative saying "I'm not a fan of this trade delegation to Spain, so I won't be paying for that bit." Organizational immaturity couldn't support that level of financial tracking. Today it's a mixed bag. The issue with an opt-out tax system like this is you always run the risk of free-loaders. If you say "I'm not going to pay into public education, it doesn't benefit me", that is a lie. Even if you have no kids, the entire nation's economy and politics benefits from an educated population. That sort of thing permeates the entire nation. If you opt-out, you are still getting the benefits without paying the cost. Same with things like highways; the highway system is a huge value to almost everyone. Even if you don't own a car, you get your goods via the highway system. Again, opting out means you're a freeloader. I'd argue social security should be opt-out-able. If I don't believe the government's promise, or if I'm saving that money already, I should be able to back out. I believe Bush was talking about a program like that, but it died. We also get into horse-trading, which is weird. I don't think I should be paying a subsidy to West Virginian shrimp ranches. But that was used as social capital in order for my legislators to win a new NASA facility in my home state. Should pork-barrelling be opt-out? I don't know. That question is more complex than it appears. But pork-barrel is something like 1% of my tax bill, so I'm not losing sleep over it either. Now, how do we handle things like the war on drugs? Officially, I benefit from it, so even I would argue it shouldn't be opt-out. IMO, this is a failure of leadership. I've never voted for anyone due to their anti-drug stance. Yet we're pouring billions into it. There is a pretty easy fix for it; move towards direct democracy. Every year in my state we have 3-9 referendums (last year including homosexual marriage and legalizing casinos). The U.S. government has never relied on referendums, but there's no reason they can't. This sort of thing would at least partially alleviate your issues.

Mon, 2014-02-17 08:54

#204

Smokeskin

nezumi.hebereke wrote:

nezumi.hebereke wrote:
Democracy is a state of compromise. Imagine you have five people in the room and they have to agree on pizza toppings. I'm sure you've been through this, so I won't elucidate further. Ideally, democracy comes out with a solution which is at least tolerable for everyone. Other topping-selection methods tend not to be very popular for obvious reasons. The Ancap solution would be 'you want sardines? Buy your own damn pizza.' Even in an ancap society, most people will find the cost-benefits of democracy to be most competitive in joint-pizza-purchasing. Now expand the pizza to three hundred million people.

I think that is a poor metaphor. The situation you're describing is one we associate with voluntary cooperation, not coercion. For example, I hate raw onions. I can't eat anything with raw onions on it. If I said that before we chose pizza, if it was nice people they'd avoid choosing something with onions. At the very least, they wouldn't order a pizza with raw onion and still force me to pay my share. They'd respect that I said "if that's what you want, I'm not joining the pizza purchase club". In democracy, it doesn't work like that. People can complain all they want, but the statists will just say "we voted for it" and not give a damn beyond that. Often they're even proud at how they force people to do things against their will.

nezumi.hebereke wrote:
One might argue 'well I don't have problems with a centrally-managed infrastructure, but why can't I opt out of particular pieces I don't use?' (This isn't an ancap-specific question, since plenty of pro-democracy people have asked the same.) The honest answer is because it's just how we've always done it.

I agree. Just like inferior rights for women and black people, it was how it had always been. It's not much a justification though.

nezumi.hebereke wrote:
Today it's a mixed bag. The issue with an opt-out tax system like this is you always run the risk of free-loaders. If you say "I'm not going to pay into public education, it doesn't benefit me", that is a lie. Even if you have no kids, the entire nation's economy and politics benefits from an educated population. That sort of thing permeates the entire nation. If you opt-out, you are still getting the benefits without paying the cost. Same with things like highways; the highway system is a huge value to almost everyone. Even if you don't own a car, you get your goods via the highway system. Again, opting out means you're a freeloader.

There are two options if you allow opting out: either some people are willing to pay the entire cost and don't care about freeloading, or more likely we get rid of freeloading by having the users pay for it. And at any rate, isn't the freeloading argument much less relevant than the oppression argument? Let us take it the other way around - some guy pays for his own education and pays for his own use of a private freeway, and then afterwards he goes around demanding subsidiaries from everyone because of the benefit they get from him having an education and driving around. It's absurd, isn't it? And if you have him extort people at gunpoint it becomes criminal. But when the state does it, freeloading is more of a problem than the extortion? The only sense I can make of that is if you start out by accepting that the state has an absolute moral right in everything it does.

nezumi.hebereke wrote:
Now, how do we handle things like the war on drugs? Officially, I benefit from it, so even I would argue it shouldn't be opt-out.

You benefit from the war on drugs? How? Are you a criminal drug dealer who are happy that the state keeps legitimate businessmen from competiting against you and drives the price of your product up? Or a private prison owner who is happy at the revenue stream? Otherwise, I don't get it. How can you benefit from millions in prison for victimless "crimes"? How can you benefit from all the drug gang violence? I also don't get your focus on what you're paying for it. That's only a very small part of the problem. People are being thrown in jail for many years for consensual activity. Don't you have a moral problem with that? Should you really go to jail for selling weed? Why? And how does that argument work for someone in favor of banning alcohol, or premarital sex?

nezumi.hebereke wrote:
There is a pretty easy fix for it; move towards direct democracy. Every year in my state we have 3-9 referendums (last year including homosexual marriage and legalizing casinos). The U.S. government has never relied on referendums, but there's no reason they can't. This sort of thing would at least partially alleviate your issues.

Direct democracy fixes some things. It goes some way towards removing the principal-agent problem. But it is still oppressive, and sometimes people want the wrong things. What if the majority wants homosexuality to be a criminal offense (that's how some people feel in parts of the world)? What if the majority wants to imprison people for victimless "crimes" like drinking alcohol, doing drugs or premarital sex? What if the majority wants to launch a democracy crusade and kill thousands of people to spread their ideology to foreign nations?

Mon, 2014-02-17 10:50

#205

bibliophile20 bibliophile20's picture

Smokeskin wrote:Seriously, no

Smokeskin wrote:
Seriously, no one is able to defend democracy? You can go on and on nitpicking at ancap, but give even a basic justification for democracy and the oppression that comes with it, you don't want to do that? What goes wrong when you try to form an argument for democracy? You try and fail and then the cognitive dissonance kicks in and you just stop thinking about the issue? Is your belief in democracy just a cultural tradition, you were raised with it so that's what you like, and everyone should live the same way as you of course? Democracy awards you privileges at the expense of others and you want to keep those, but you can't admit openly that you're in it for selfish reasons? Is it the societal version of Learned Helplessness and Battered Person Syndrom that LawtPIAT believes cause women to accept abusive relationships?

[color=orange]Smokeskin, you are making ad hominem attacks on your fellow forumites. You are not even insinuating, you outright accuse them of "you're in it [democracy] for selfish reasons" or of being brainwashed and unable to articulate a defense due to "cognitive dissonance." You also accuse them of not having put any thought into democracy and make unsubstantiated claims regarding their intents and desires, accusing them of just following a cultural tradition and being raised with the system being the sole reason for their acceptance, essentially accusing them of having never examined the systems that they follow, but instead simply accept them out of cattle-like docility. In addition, you accuse them, completely without foundation, that they believe that "everyone should live the same way as you of course". All of these statements are attacks on your fellow forumites, accusing and implying them of being selfish, stupid, unthinking bovines for their own decisions not to engage you in debate.[/color] [color=orange]And then, for good measure, you double down and, in a single sentence, try to both dismiss domestic violence and flat out accuse everyone else of being the abused and battered party in their relationships with their governments, which you perceive as being abusive. You insinuate that "Learned Helplessness" and "Battered Person Syndrome" are somehow false and formulated by LawtPIAT for some reason or other, by stating that "LawtPIAT believes causes women to accept abusive relationships." This statement attempts to dismiss the fact that, yes, women--and men, too!--can get trapped within a pattern of abusive relationships, with that pattern being documented by those two concepts. Using the word "believes", which I emphasized in the quote, insinuates that these two psychological concepts are "not substantiated fact", thereby dismissing the evidence presented as mere unsubstantiated belief, when there is considerable evidence for the existence of both patterns of behavior--in the form of the millions of injuries and the thousands of dead bodies produced by domestic violence each year. While this is technically not an ad hominem attack on LawtPIAT, you are also using this to insinuate that all of the forumites in democratic countries are somehow locked into this pattern of behavior as well, which is an attack on them. [/color] [color=orange]Strike Two.[/color]

—

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -Benjamin Franklin

Mon, 2014-02-17 11:25

#206

Smokeskin

bibliophile20 wrote:Smokeskin

bibliophile20 wrote:
Smokeskin wrote:
Seriously, no one is able to defend democracy? You can go on and on nitpicking at ancap, but give even a basic justification for democracy and the oppression that comes with it, you don't want to do that? What goes wrong when you try to form an argument for democracy? You try and fail and then the cognitive dissonance kicks in and you just stop thinking about the issue? Is your belief in democracy just a cultural tradition, you were raised with it so that's what you like, and everyone should live the same way as you of course? Democracy awards you privileges at the expense of others and you want to keep those, but you can't admit openly that you're in it for selfish reasons? Is it the societal version of Learned Helplessness and Battered Person Syndrom that LawtPIAT believes cause women to accept abusive relationships?
[color=orange]Smokeskin, you are making ad hominem attacks on your fellow forumites. You are not even insinuating, you outright accuse them of "you're in it [democracy] for selfish reasons" or of being brainwashed and unable to articulate a defense due to "cognitive dissonance." You also accuse them of not having put any thought into democracy and make unsubstantiated claims regarding their intents and desires, accusing them of just following a cultural tradition and being raised with the system being the sole reason for their acceptance, essentially accusing them of having never examined the systems that they follow, but instead simply accept them out of cattle-like docility. In addition, you accuse them, completely without foundation, that they believe that "everyone should live the same way as you of course". All of these statements are attacks on your fellow forumites, accusing and implying them of being selfish, stupid, unthinking bovines for their own decisions not to engage you in debate.[/color]

I ask them, giving them several options, after they have accused me of much viler things, and then refused to answer a simple request of justifying their position. Your bias is showing. Try to go back and read what they accuse me off and then come and tell me that they don't deserve a strike and I do.

Quote:
[color=orange]And then, for good measure, you double down and, in a single sentence, try to both dismiss domestic violence and flat out accuse everyone else of being the abused and battered party in their relationships with their governments, which you perceive as being abusive. You insinuate that "Learned Helplessness" and "Battered Person Syndrome" are somehow false and formulated by LawtPIAT for some reason or other, by stating that "LawtPIAT believes causes women to accept abusive relationships." This statement attempts to dismiss the fact that, yes, women--and men, too!--can get trapped within a pattern of abusive relationships, with that pattern being documented by those two concepts. Using the word "believes", which I emphasized in the quote, insinuates that these two psychological concepts are "not substantiated fact", thereby dismissing the evidence presented as mere unsubstantiated belief, when there is considerable evidence for the existence of both patterns of behavior--in the form of the millions of injuries and the thousands of dead bodies produced by domestic violence each year. While this is technically not an ad hominem attack on LawtPIAT, you are also using this to insinuate that all of the forumites in democratic countries are somehow locked into this pattern of behavior as well, which is an attack on them. [/color]

I have very clearly stated that violence of any form is wrong, and that abuse happens and is obviously wrong. I have also made it clear that the my objections to the cases presented was that they not show widespread abuse in the anarchism movement, not that abuse never happened. As to the "indirect" ad hominem attack on LatwPIAT, that's strike worthy, but her claim that I and other men sexually harass women by coming on to them, that's not?

Quote:
[color=orange]Strike Two.[/color]

If you're going to be dishing out strikes, how about being a little fair about it? Your first strike against me was borderline but you justified it with someone else doing something worse but similar. Now this time, people shoot at me forever and the second I step just a little bit out of line and "what I said could be interpreted as..." or "that could be viewed as an indirect ad hominem" then you get out the orange text? I think I'm going to go back through this thread and dig up all the direct and indrect ad hominems made against me and ancaps, and then we'll see how the fair and equal treatment stacks up.

Mon, 2014-02-17 15:37

#207

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture

Not at all

Smokeskin wrote:
I hope there is something more to your post then what is apparent. Because it reads like you're going to hide your opinions because some people go nuts when their beliefs are challenged. Fighting for rights and freedoms has just never been popular. Those with undeserved privilege, those who oppress others, or those who want to, have always been those who were most extreme in how they lash out when challenged.

I still believe in Anarcho-Capitalism and hold that it best serves individual liberty and prosperity. I'm just going to try to be a bit more tactful with my postings from now on.

—

Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Mon, 2014-02-17 17:51

#208

Smokeskin

I'm happy to hear that you

I'm happy to hear that you haven't been deterred. Other than that, I've had it. I was going to just leave the forum, having a mod stalking you just plain sucks, but this is too much. Steel Accord, what is this? You're calling yourself intellect dishonest suddenly, but you're one of the few people who will calmly consider the opposing side's point of view. You say you'll try to be more tactful when you're already always so polite and soft spoken. Is this because of the PM's that bibliophile has been sending you? He did that to me too:

bibliophile20 wrote:
You are a True Believer in AnCap. [...] You have faith in the belief of AnCap on the same scale and extent as a Born Again Christian has faith in the power of Christ. [...] I have noticed that I could easily swap out AnCap for Jesus/God/Hashem/Allah (figuratively speaking) and get the same results as arguing with a fundamentalist religionist. I say this not as an insult--I, of all people, know how easily it could be taken as such--but as a warning for the cognitive traps you are falling into and have fallen into. [...] Now, I recognize that calling any atheist a True Believer is one of the most vicious insults possible.

Yeah that is insulting. Comparing that to what the mod just gave me a strike for is making me even more pissed off, but let's not make this about me and him. Did he suggest something similar to make you think you were intellectually dishonest? And then follow it up with some "I'm just here to help" topped up with some good ol' "no one likes you" shaming?

bibliophile20 wrote:
Insulting you was not my intent, nor my desire. Instead, what I intended and wanted to do is to let you know how you are perceived by others, privately, so as to avoid the appearance of insulting you in public. [...] I am trying to give you that gift, to see yourself as others see you. It is not pleasant, enjoyable or any less shocking, but I think that it is needful

Did you get something like that, along the same formula? I talked some more to biblio, and he seems like a nice guy, and he explained why he hates ancap from the bottom of his heart, so in a way it is understandable, but still, don't let shit like that make you embarassed of your opinion. Is everyone getting these types of PMs, or is it just us ancaps? PS: I don't want to be accused of misrepresenting biblio's first PM with the edits, so here is the full text and my reply (we talked longer and it became much more civil after that maybe even friendly)

Spoiler: Highlight to view

BIBLIOPHILE20: Smokeskin, At this point, neither of us is going to convince the other, and I'm sorry that it took me this long to truly realize that. So I'm writing this in private message chat because I don't want to do what could be perceived as a direct attack in a public post. It is not intended as an attack, but instead as a final plea to hear what is being said. But once I write this, I am done with this debate. I have said my piece and I do not think I can ever convince you. And this is why I don't think I can convince you, and why I took this message to private: You are a True Believer in AnCap. You have convinced yourself that AnCap will solve all of the problems and have the same responses to every objection and that the problem is governmental coercion, not financial coercion. You have faith in the belief of AnCap on the same scale and extent as a Born Again Christian has faith in the power of Christ. AnCap can do no wrong, Government can do no right. This has been a consistent and repeated theme of your posts. I have noticed that I could easily swap out AnCap for Jesus/God/Hashem/Allah (figuratively speaking) and get the same results as arguing with a fundamentalist religionist. I say this not as an insult--I, of all people, know how easily it could be taken as such--but as a warning for the cognitive traps you are falling into and have fallen into. I've received messages--both from before I was made a mod, and since--from others who have noticed this as well. The general content has ranged between angry and dismissive from being "preached" at, as well as your refusal to acknowledge any possible flaws in AnCap. The one time I can recall you possibly acknowledging a possible flaw was when you admitted that anti-trust/cartel issues under AnCap would result in a more severe problem than under Real Life conditions and even then, you quickly reasserted your usual tactic of insisting on the power of AnCap contracts and the free market to solve all possible problems. Now, I recognize that calling any atheist a True Believer is one of the most vicious insults possible. Insulting you was not my intent, nor my desire. Instead, what I intended and wanted to do is to let you know how you are perceived by others, privately, so as to avoid the appearance of insulting you in public. My intent was closer to a lesson that I learned a long time ago from one of my father's favorite poems, Robert Burns' To A Louse: And would some Power the small gift give us To see ourselves as others see us! It would from many a blunder free us, And foolish notion: What airs in dress and gait would leave us, And even devotion! I am trying to give you that gift, to see yourself as others see you. It is not pleasant, enjoyable or any less shocking, but I think that it is needful, and I am sorry that it took me this long to build up the courage to say it. That is doing both of us a disservice, I think. Sincerely, xxx SMOKESKIN: I haven't read the last posts today, so bear that in mind, you might have replied with something significant. As to my True Believer status - have you read my opening post in the thread? http://www.eclipsephase.com/comment/41318#comment-41318. Does that strike you as a True Believer? I mention one of the real problems of freeloaders. As you mentioned, I also acknowledged the problem of cartels. Another serious problem is how to handle risk. So yes, I do acknowledge the problems. However, on the balance of things, there are much worse problems with democracy and statism. The war on drugs, imprisoning millions for victimless crimes and keeping legitimate businessmen from delivering cheap and pure drugs to people. Limited liability, shielding corporations from responsibility. A legal system engineered to be practically inaccessible for ordinary people who don't have the money for lawyers and the long game. Patent laws keeping competition from delivering cheap products to the market. Consumer protection laws with huge holes that no one cares about closing. Bailing out bankers. Etc. Etc. The problems you see with capitalism, however, are not with capitalism, and certainly not with ancap. They are political problems. When I point that out to you, you evade. You mention problems that stem from limited liability and patent laws, but somehow you don't see that these are not problems with capitalism - they come from the law. You're so focused on seeing capitalism as evil and politics and regulation as good that you can't even consider it for a moment, so you go into "he's probably preaching". You say that I can only see government as evil. Look in the thread http://www.eclipsephase.com/comment/41485#comment-41485 where I say: If we were down to a welfare state that took care of those too poor to afford basic necessities, I'm not sure I'd care [about the moral issue of using force to collect taxes]. Taxes for that would be one of those things that I maybe disagreed with in principle, but in actuality it worked out well enough. Does that sound like "government is only evil"? I think there is a real moral issue with forcing people to do anything as long as they're not hurting others, but I'm willing to let it slide if they just did welfare for the poor. It is very apparent to me that you have not thought or read very much about anarchocapitalism. You also seem very set in your thoughts on the state and capitalism, to the point that you don't consider what is being said. I try to avoid psychoanalyzing people, but since you did that to me, I guess the door is opened for that. I think you're so deep in either your statism or your anti-capitalism that you're open to full blown cognitive dissonance. You pull up some "he's a True Believer so I don't have to think" mental defense so you can spare your opinions from being challenged. It is even at the point where the points you made in this message are obviously at odds with what I actually wrote in the thread. The only thing you're right about is how other statist see me. I believe there are similar complaints about my atheism from religious people? But seriously, appeal to the masses is a fallacy. To me, you come across as dodging. Every serious question I've asked you and every counterargument I've presented, you've either ignored or twisted around. You seem totally unwilling to actually debate the issue, but instead you do the meta-debate dance. "Let's talk about if Smokeskin is defensive instead of the subject." I'm sure it doesn't feel that way to you though. It rarely does. Maybe you're the True Believer? Look back at the thread. Did I say what you claim in this message? Have you thought about what I replied to you in the thread and answered back, or did you go off track?

Mon, 2014-02-17 18:12

#209

Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture

I was being intellectually dishonest by making assumptions. I assumed that just having an opposite stance on an issue wouldn't be offensive to people. I was wrong. I'd like to state a caveat that I think being against someone for holding a principal while not acting on it is a bit extreme, but if that's a reality; I have no choice but to acknowledge it. Bibliophile simply called to my attention that my natural instinct was to retreat. Let you handle the heavy debates. That I took criticism as a personal attack because I consider my beliefs part of my identity. He was right. By "being more tactful" I simply mean I won't be so blatant and therefore inflammatory. (Although I'm refuse to change the Extropian label in my profile. THAT is where I draw the line!)

—

Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!

Mon, 2014-02-17 18:19

#210

AdamJury

I am closing this thread for

I am closing this thread for the time being. I am asking everyone not to start a thread or threads discussing this topic or the downward spiral of this thread.

Pages

Topic locked