Response to ummmm, re The Idiot's philosophy.

Posted on: March 30, 2021 at 12:18:03 CT

Y'day, you initiated a thread with the following post:

"So, if I understand this correctly, pickle espouses that individuals are paramount, that each individual should have a superior right to his life, property, and liberty, and that individuals should not infringe upon that superior right of others to their own life, property, and liberty. In this regard, pickle denigrates ideologues and those looking usurp and exert power over other people, and elevates free trade/exchange as one of the highest human virtues.

I gotta tell you, that sounds like the worst cult ever. Usually cults break down and squeeze out the individualism, for purposes of exerting power over what remains. This cult suggests that people should mind their own business? That people should freely and voluntarily exchange goods and services on their own volition? That individuals maintain unimpeachable agency over their life and property?

Pickle may have to go back to cult school."

..................

I responded saying that like the whitewash defense of The Idiot that you provided, "Communists could also describe their philosophy as one that values the individual OVER EVIL CORPORATIONS and aspires to equality and fairness."

Not that what they say is true, only that they would say it.

Contrary to what some read into that, i was not describing my view or opinion of communism but rather how they themselves spin their belief system into something that appears pure, wholesome and beneficial. In much the same way that Ummmm described The Idiot's ridiculous philosophy as,

"...pickle espouses that individuals are paramount, that each individual should have a superior right to his life, property, and liberty, and that individuals should not infringe upon that superior right of others to their own life, property, and liberty."

Is that the sum total of what The Idiot espouses or are you providing the cliff's notes, abridged version, sanitized for our protection?

My point was that your defense of The Idiot was on the same juvenile, incomplete and biased level as the communists’ defense and description of communism. I was not attempting to describe or discuss communism, only comparing your whitewashed version by The Idiot with the deceitful description that communists give communism.

................

I then offered a lengthy (tl;dr for asstray, heifer and most of the idiots) which included several points.

You responded very civilly with a point by point rebuttal to my argument. Rather than repost my dissertation here in its entirety, i will quote your rebuttal and attempt to discuss where we differ.

.............

1. MY POINT: The communists could also describe their philosophy as one that values the individual over evil corporations and aspires to equality and fairness.

YOUR REBUTTAL: This has been addressed in numerous places today, but no, this is patently untrue. Communism may be sold as being best for the "people" and may even suggest that corporations are the enemies of the "people", but communism on paper and in practice is antithetical to "the individual" and individualism.

Moreover, central aspirations of "equality and fairness" are also antithetical to "the individual" and individualism. Any central entity/ism that seeks equality and fairness among people will necessarily assassinate individualism in the process.

So, your comment is 100% inaccurate here.

MY THOUGHTS NOW:

You boldly state that my comment is 100% inaccurate, ignoring the fact that i was not offering my opinion of communism but only the way in which the communists deceitfully describe their system.

You did say that, "Communism may be sold as being best for the "people" and may even suggest that corporations are the enemies of the "people", ..." Which is all i said in my post. But you continued to say that the statement that we both agreed the communists make, is 100% inaccurate.

You are arguing against a point i did not offer.

2. MY COMMENT:

Lenin's people just wanted Peace, Land and Bread. That's all. Doesn't sound too bad.

YOUR REBUTTAL: Yeah, but it also doesn't sound like a theory that espouses individualism as the central tenet (like pickle's philosophy). Pickle wouldn't entitle anyone to anything, other than a recognition of their negative natural rights to their own life, liberty, and property.

Just because they both sound good doesn't mean they are alike. By the way, I presume you have paid enough attention to not suggest that pickle and Lenin are alike in thought?

MY THOUGHTS NOW:

Once again you argue a point i did not make. I said clearly (to all except The Idiot and probably asstray) that what lenin SAID HE WANTED was not bad. I offered it as a further example of the duplicitous nature of the communist left spinning a part of what they want as the sum total of what they want and holding it up as good and virtuous.

You contrasted lenin's peace land and bread advocacy with The Idiot's espousal of individual rights. That was not the issue.

3. MY COMMENT:

The Idiot and his cult want no borders, no laws, no government "interference" in their daily existence. You forgot to mention that.

YOUR REBUTTAL:

Correct on borders, as it relates to big nation-state borders. But not to borders of privately-owned property, also known as "property lines".

I posted earlier on the "no laws" comment. Go back and read that.

As for "government interference" in daily life, yes, he does advocate for the elimination of that. And for good reason. The free market and voluntary exchange are better at organizing daily affairs, and they do it organically and without the possibility that a demagogue will take the central reins and exert power in an unworkable way.

MY COMMENTS NOW:

Again you're spinning like a dreidel on chanukah. You say i am correct on borders and than AGAIN argue against something i didn't say. I never said anything about privately owned property or property lines.

You agreed with my comment about The Idiot and his belief in non government interference with everyday life and you did offer a defense of his idea. You said, "The free market and voluntary exchange are better at organizing daily affairs, and they do it organically and without the possibility that a demagogue will take the central reins and exert power in an unworkable way."

Very vague, very simplistic and you argue the extremes rather than the practical implication of what he believes.

4. MY COMMENT

And they proclaim anyone who disagrees to be immoral.

YOUR REBUTTAL:

Incorrect. They proclaim that any action that contravenes the natural law and infringes upon the natural rights of another is immoral.

Disagreement is not immoral and neither is the person who asserts the disagreement. Immorality comes into play with infringements on rights.

MY COMMENTS NOW:

OK, fine. You pick at a nit and argue the difference between mere disagreement NOT BEING immoral and the actions stemming from that as being immoral.

My argument was that The Idiot seems to believe that THE PERSON who disagrees is immoral, not the act of disagreeing.

Nit for nit.

5. MY COMMENT

And we would face no dangers from hordes of illiterate criminals from mexico, no threat from the peace loving communists in china or russia or north korea, no threats from the diaper heads in arabia, if we just dissolve our government and let people do whatever the hell they want.

YOUR REBUTTAL:

Much of these dangers exist because the US govt's military seeks out the danger abroad. A voluntary society could exist in one part of the globe, irrespective of brutal govt regimes. Also, defense and security are pretty darn high on the hierarchy of needs, so it's unreasonable to believe that those in a voluntary society wouldn't devote their resources to it (and remember, this is a world where 33-40% of your annual production isn't stolen by a govt to provide things like "security").

My COMMENTS NOW:

First you argue another point not made. You say we have problems because the US military seeks out danger abroad. No one argued the contrary.

Then you say that, "A voluntary society could exist in one part of the globe, irrespective of brutal govt regimes."

But the same military that you despise that has gotten us into all the problems around the globe is needed to defend against non believers. How will The Idiot make sure the evil military is no longer evil and willing to follow and enforce the laws of The Idiot?


6. My COMMENT

Communist china, the hell's angels and the bloods and crips would certainly not violate your sacred property rights or your natural rights. Would they?

YOUR REBUTTAL

You may not realize this, but your recognition of these groups as "bad" is an implicit recognition of natural rights. The hell's angels, bloods, and crips are maligned because they steal, rob, assault, rape, and murder. Those malum per se acts are in line with natural rights. A voluntary society organizes in line with those.

MY COMMENTS NOW:

First of all i believe you meant malem in se, instead of malem per se.

You do not make an argument here but rather explain some mamby pamby BS about how a voluntary society organizes in line with those.

What the hell are you talking about? I was arguing that the bad guys will likely not behave, merely because The Idiot has installed a new set of platitudes, policies and proclamations.

Once again, your rebuttal has nothing to do with my point. Would the hell's angels violate property rights in The Idiot's world or not?

7. MY COMMENT

Because once the idiots take over, not biden's idiots, The Idiot's idiots, there will be no crime. Everyone will love everyone.

YOUR REBUTTAL:

Again, this is an utter strawman. You could not find 1 post out pickle's 200,000+ that states that "crime" would not exist in a voluntary society. He also doesn't suggest that "everyone will love everyone", and in fact, notes constantly that people should mind their own business and not force associations between people. Pickle supports the rights of organizations/businesses to exclude whoever they want for whatever reason they want. Does that sound like "everyone will love everyone" to you?

On the contrary, you talk about the dream of a "united country" and the importance of this goal. That is far more like "everyone will love everyone" than anything pickle has ever stated.

MY COMMENTS NOW:

The Idiot wants everyone to "mind their own business". That's nice. And what if they don't? Once again you miss the point. What if ... let's just say, the hell's angels rape a few women, rob a few stores and murder a couple dozen people.

Will they get a lecture about minding their own business? You often lecture about what you want the ideal utopian society to be. Fine.

But what of those who disobey? What of those who commit crimes and hurt people? Are there laws, who writes them? Are there punishments for breaking the laws, who decides?

Your fantasy ignores that without laws, cops and punishment, bad things will happen to good people. I have never seen that addressed. Instead we get a lot of pap about property rights and minding your own busness.

But what if people don't mind their own business....?

8. MY COMMENT

And i have inquired many times as to what happens to criminals, assuming they still exist is a world with no laws, and who decides what if any punishment is handed out for oh, murder?

YOUR REBUTTAL

And you've had your question answered many times. It's impossible to know how it would work out, because a voluntary society is not centrally planned.

MY THOUGHTS NOW:

What a total cop out. "It's impossible to know" ..... because society is not centrally planned. THAT is the reason it's impossible to know? So if society were in fact centrally planned, you would know how the crime and punishment thing would work out?

I think we know how it would work out if there were only admonishments to "mind your own business" and "property rights uber alles" would work out with regard to criminal activity.

Not too well, imo. Do you have an opinion you'd care to share?

9. MY COMMENT

And what of the people who disagree? Clearly you are against "forcing your opinions on others" so what would happen to dissenters in your utopian world?

YOUR REBUTTAL:

Dissent in which way? If they simply disagree, but go about their life in a way that doesn't infringe on others' rights (i.e. how 99% of people go about their lives anyways), then there is no problem with their verbal/philosophical disagreement.

If they dissent by acting and infringing on others' rights, then they should be ready to be held accountable for that. If they don't want to voluntarily participate in the accountability process, then they may have trouble functioning and persisting within the voluntary society because producers will refuse to contract with them. So, general civility will be rewarded and the opposite will not.

But again, try not to get caught up in the specifics of how it would work, and instead focus on the philosophy and why it makes rational sense. The practical goal should be to move the Overton Window and actually shrink govt today. If the Overton Window isn't moved, govt will not shrink until it implodes. I repeat, it will not shrink.

MY COMMENTS NOW:

What a load of crap.

Be held accountable...how? I'm certain the hell's angels will rue the day they chose to not voluntary participate in the accountability process because, "they may have trouble functioning and persisting within the voluntary society because producers will refuse to contract with them."

Whoa, that'll keep 'em straight.

You say as you suggest throughout your lectures, "But again, try not to get caught up in the specifics of how it would work, and instead focus on the philosophy and why it makes rational sense."

EVERYTHING DEPENDS ON HOW IT WOULD WORK.

Take this loaded gun, stick it in your mouth and pull the trigger. But try not to get caught up in the specifics of how it would work and instead focus on the philosophy and why it makes sense....if you want to get rid of your tummy ache.

You are disconnected from reality. Don't worry about how it will work, focus on the philosophy. We are back to the communist spin of their philosophy.

Peace, land and bread.
No more racism.
No inequality.
Fairness.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

Don't get caught up in how it's going to work, just focus on the philosophy. That is what you say.

That is what lenin said.
That is what black lives matter says.

That is what charlatans with something to hide and a scam to perpetrate, say.

Don't focus on how i turn this lead into gold. Just concentrate on the philosophy and invest your life savings into it.

10. MY COMMENT

There will be no need for borders because The Idiot has stated (right off a bumper sticker) that "no human being is illegal".

YOUR REBUTTAL

I think I've seen that bumper sticker in the same section as the "Build the Wall" and "Close the Borders" ones. You'd have to have a lot of faith in the efficiency and efficacy of government to think it can adequately close a 2,000 mile border. I guess I just don't share the faith you have in that.

As far as "no human being is illegal", under the natural law, that is of course true. All human beings have a superior right to their life, liberty, and property. Their existence alone is not a crime. Only actions can be crimes.

MY COMMENTs NOW:

You denounce someone who believes in government's ability to protect our borders and keep us secure. Instead, you trust bumper sticker slogans, fourth grade phrases and woke idiots who believe if we are just nice to everyone and everyone minds their own business we will be fine.

But don't get caught up in how it works. Just trust the righteousness of the philosophy.

Sounds almost...cultish.


...................

It would seem that you are either a huckster or a fool.

And it confuses me because i don't believe you're stupid like asstray and you have too much integrity to try and knowingly persuade something that is so obviously against all of human nature and the human experience.

You separate the fantastic from the realistic because you know the fantasy you want cannot stand the scrutiny of the real world.

And still you say, "I operate 100% in reality. You don't even know the basics of communism, so you shouldn't be lobbing any insults about inhabiting reality."

......

I appreciate the dialogue. I am sure you and i are the only ones who actually read it.

Nonetheless, thanx.

Edited by hokie at 14:34:01 on 03/30/21