Yeah, but here’s the very interesting thing about Maher. He has been a known lefty for decades. And yet over the last 15 years, he has been slowly moving towards the center, and even beginning to cross the centerline on a few issues. But more importantly, he is very fed up with the left as a whole.
His voice carries weight. His transition has been fascinating to watch, and it is representative of a journey that many are taking right now.
As far as the wacko sex change thing goes; why would any man want to become a woman? Men, think about this...A woman's work is never done...as the truthful saying goes.
Then we have the data collection and spy centers popping up like weeds. China has less than 500 while the US is closing in on 5,000. What's the rush? The only purpose of these dastardly things is to further depopulation and at some point they will become like old abandoned car manufacturing buildings in the city of Detroit...pointless and useless.
Because our society hates men, and adores women. Also, there's the "Oppression Olympics" effect. One of the easiest ways for a cis het white male to become lauded as "stunning and brave" is to suddenly become a trans lesbian.
We are well down the slope that takes us to the world portrayed in the movie. Maybe we are already there. One could imagine this is the opening sequences of a 21st century version of Atlas Shrugged. Galt's Gulch would be a Network State. Thanks for posting.
I hope you will be okay with there sometimes being a gap in time in my responses - I get embroiled in other things and I need to give myself time in order to respond in a way that's satisfactory for me. I'm not sure how substantial our difference is or whether it's a difference in terminology. For example, I agree with the notion of 'general principles' - i.e. principles that apply ;for the most part', but not with absolutes or objectives, and I don't think that the question of moral absolutes is one of 'sophistry'. In my understanding, you and I would agree about rape being wrong because of the way we were brought up - i.e. in our societies as they have developed. So yes, rape is wrong in that social sense, but I wouldn't want to talk about 'wrong' in an absolute sense, 'in and of itself', 'intrinsically', apart from any particular set of moral principles that a specific society has developed.
The time gap is fine. I appreciate the engagement anytime.
I think we do not agree. I am saying there are real principles, derivable from nature, with difficult edge cases. You appear to be saying (and please correct me if I am mistaken) that morality is solely a social decision, and what is immoral for one society may not be for another.
Thus, for you, rape would be wrong in our society, but not wrong in a society that does not have a chosen principle saying it is wrong. (Again, I hope I am correctly interpreting; I do not wish to put words in your mouth.)
I hold that rape is wrong, and that a society that lacks a chosen principle saying it is wrong is an immoral society that has failed to recognize a foundational and natural truth.
Now, it is important to note that though I am saying that rights are derivable from the facts of nature, I am not saying that they are magic force fields. The premises are simply evident in nature, and the conclusions derivable therefrom.
They are also evident as inductive conclusions about what produces beneficial results. That helps make rights natural too. However, I will focus on the deductive aspect.
Here are some inescapable facts of nature.
As the autonomous locus of your own actions and choices, you exercise naturally exclusive and inalienable authority over yourself.
Others can forcibly interfere with this self-authority, but they themselves cannot exercise it.
No one in the universe has a rightful license to forcibly interfere with self-authority. (They arrogate such “licenses” through various legal fictions, but you cannot actually find evidence of such a license anywhere in nature.)
As a result, all external authority must either be granted or imposed by force.
Since there is no rightful license to use force, authority—that is, any encroachment upon the person, property, or liberty of another—is only legitimate when it is consented to. (And such consent must be real/valid, i.e., voluntary, explicit, transparent, informed, and revocable.)
Therefore, valid consent is the fundamental unit of moral concern in all exchanges, agreements, impositions of authority, and encroachments upon person, property, and liberty.
That is not a formal proof, but you get the idea. It is an ontological fact that no one has a rightful license to force anyone else against their will. You cannot find such a license anywhere in the universe.
You can, however, find an individual’s license to self-authority. That is found in the reality of his self-authority plus the fact that no claim to the contrary exists anywhere.
Most of this is thus a natural argument, not a purely moral one. The notion of any form of authority or supremacy of one over another is factually incoherent. It does not exist. Something that is factually incoherent cannot become morally coherent. Forced supremacy cannot be rendered moral.
Thus, rape—which is forced supremacy over the body and liberty of another WITHOUT CONSENT—is naturally immoral.
I feel very comfortable saying that any culture that says rape is okay is WRONG—ontologically and epistemologically.
Thanks for your understanding about my delay. Yes, I think there is a difference in our conceptions, and you are correct to interpret me as positing that morality is derived from the society we grow up in, so in principle different societies can have different moralities. Perhaps it might help if I ask you to clarify what you mean by 'principles derivable from nature'. I don't think, though I may be wrong, that you want or need to bring 'God' into your account. Would I be right about that, and if so, what are the moral principles that we inherit or imbibe in respect of being parts of nature?
That big long piece I sent you a while back lays it out. The facts of reality + deductive reasoning lead to moral conclusions. I will work to create a simplified version over the next few weeks.
Before I get to it, here are a couple of things to chew on.
1. Here is a down-and-dirty version:
Authority over oneself exists as a natural fact.
It is also a natural fact that no human has a rightful license to attempt to interfere with the self-authority of another (adult) human. Such license simply does not exist anywhere in the universe.
No moral principle can be derived from something that does not exist. The individual thus has both a factual and a just moral claim to his self-authority.
Therefore, it is a moral violation to interfere with the self-authority of another.
2. And a question to ponder:
If a woman is raped in a culture that deems rape acceptable, was she wronged?
I've been chewing, but there are a couple of things I'm finding difficult to swallow. 1. I guess I agree that humans, qua living things, have a natural tendency to preserve their autonomy, and that's a 'natural fact', yes. I'm not sure though what, if any, moral principles follow from that natural fact. 2. According to the culture that deems rape acceptable, no, by definition she wasn't wronged. According to a different culture with different ethics - ethics in which rape is unacceptable, and judging it from that perspective - yes, she was wronged. It doesn't feel that we've made much progress.
I don't disagree with your depiction of ideological lefties. The problem I have is with the idea that there isn't an equally ideological right, and that they aren't as would-be totalitarian as the left is. My view is that when it comes down to it both left and right are on the same side - the side of authority. Didn't we see just that a few years ago with Covid? Aren't we seeing exactly that right now when it comes to regime-change forever wars?
Yes, some Republicans were bad on these issues, but twice as many Democrats were. In other words, as I was saying below, Red and Blue are in far too narrow a range, but they are not the same. There is far more of a chance of a mainstream R moving in the correct direction (they have a shorter distance to go) than a mainstream D.
I agree with you that overall the left was more restrictive than the right during covid. And I might even agree that the right moves 'in the correct direction' if it weren't for the fact that the right are just as gung-ho about American interventionism as the left are.
My first response is that the definition of "right" is rather muddied. It has come to mean too many different things: monarchists and anti-monarchists, reactionaries and radicals, socialists and capitalists. It's too confusing. (Meanwhile, the definition of "left" is fairly stable.)
So, let us define terms. What is the right? I contend that the spectrum ought to be measured by degree of individual freedom (in inverse proportion to amount of government). That would make totalitarian communists and authoritarian national socialists far left; other flavors of socialism a tad to the right (but still well to the left overall); progressives and social democrats next, etc. On the other side of the center would be core conservatives, libertarians, minarchists, and finally anarchists.
The center, rather than being an amorphous gray, can have a rather precise definition. There is a set of basic questions that determines which side you're on. Is power a desirable good (to do "good things") or at best a necessary evil? Is your distributive objective equality of outcome or equality of opportunity? Does the tribe/state/collective have a claim upon the property of the individual or not?
One's views on these put one to either side of the centerline—and the degree to which the answer is nuanced determines how far. So, for example, if you resent the state's taxing power, but think that it should have *some* ability to tax, you're likely on the right side of the centerline (because of the resentment) but not all the way towards the minarchist/anarchist end. If you think that taxes are a good thing (because it helps government do good things) but don't want to see the government in charge of every aspect of human life, then you are to the left of the centerline, but not all the way down at the totalitarian end. It's all about these presuppositions.
Thus, properly understood, the right is a classical liberal phenomenon. Core conservatives, libertarians, and anarchists share the same basic presuppositions, albeit to varying degrees.
I say "core conservatives" because obviously some of the more "moderate" ones stray to the wrong side of the ledger on things like war and national power. But if we base the poles of the political spectrum on America's Red vs. Blue, we end up with a tiny spectrum that does not take into account the rest of the possibilities. America's blue is entirely left of the centerline. America's red is partially to the left of the centerline and partially to the right. And they overlap on a bunch of stuff (as you rightly note). But I would hesitate to use the terms "left" and "right" to describe them, or to judge other ideologies that are further right (on the freedom scale I described above) like libertarians, anarchists, and the more austere/core conservatives.
Because of the largely shared ideological provenance of conservatives and libertarians, they share the same basic presuppositions and principles. But most conservatives A) have not carried those principles to their logical conclusions and B) are a lot more instinctive/pragmatic, so they make a lot more compromises. But this shared provenance is why you will go to Freedom Fest and find libertarians, anarchists, conservatives, and some Republicans, but zero lefties or democrats. Red and Blue may be with a comparatively narrow range, but they are not the same.
I agree that the definition of 'right' is muddled, but I would argue that essentially the same goes for left. But rather than argue about that right now I'd rather address the questions you posed, and try to answer them directly: 1/ I'd say that power is a desirable good when used with heart, as exemplified by good parenting; 2/ I favour equality of opportunity; 3/ In any situation where the individual is not making a claim on the tribe/state/collective themselves - as a criminal does, for example - then the collective should have no right on the property of the individual.
Of course right and left aren't the same, and yes, during covid those who objected to the restrictions tended to be more on the libertarian side of things, which is more associated with right than left. That's why I can't personally adopt a left over right position. But on the other hand - and maybe it's only because I live in a place where I don't have to worry about making sure I have enough insurance to pay my health bills if or when I get sick - I'm grateful to live in a society that considers free health care and free education - no matter how inadequate they both undoubtedly are - to be conducive with the idea of 'good power', equal opportunity, and individual rights.
Free health care and free education can only be "provided" if one person is threatened with violence via taxation.
Moreover, this does not even involve taxing to provide things that everyone uses roughly equally (security and justice, e.g.). Rather, free healthcare and free education require that property be taken from one person for the sole and exclusive use of another. One person is forced, at the threat of a government gun, to become the means to another's ends.
How is that conducive to respecting the rights of the individual human person?
I guess I would have to say that I don't consider the idea of taxation, in itself, to be 'violent' - i.e. to be a 'violation'. Seeing that you go on to describe examples where you don't think that taxation is a violation - security and justice - so you don't object to taxation in principle - I would say that the only 'property' that is taken from me is the taxation out of my wages. And I would also ask: How is it NOT conducive to respecting individual rights for me to know that I'm not going to be charged a penny for the upcoming hernia operation I'm shortly going to have?
I do object to taxation for all purposes and in all forms. Unless one lives in a polity in which one freely signs a contract—wherein their consent is voluntary, explicit, transparent, informed, and revocable—all taxation is morally criminal.
Think of it this way: You do not have a moral right to go to your neighbor and demand that he pay for your operation or your cousin's or a friend's or a stranger's. You do not have a moral right to threaten him if he refuses, lock him in your basement if he does not pay, or take his home. You do not have a moral right to harm or kill him if he resists when you are taking his home.
So how does a government official acquire that right? The answer cannot be that we vote to delegate the right to government officials, because it is morally impossible to delegate a right you do not have. So where does the government official get that right?
Where does the government official get that right? I would answer from the same place as the town Marshal gets the right to enforce the law in the town that they're marshal of. And they get that right because the townsfolk agree that it's worth it for their own safety and security to pay someone to do this enforcing for them. That collective payment that the people make could be called 'taxation'.
Crixcyon - I agree about the man-woman thing. I know a young man, quite handsome, who is transitioning, thankfully not a kid anymore - but he will make an ugly woman, and how about that voice? can they change that? (I recently read about the DES hormone that has been given to pregnant women, and that causes males to become females in fish and chickens! They checked and found, that 1 in 4 male descendants from these women felt trans. So they might be poisoned before birth - an awful thing to think!).
I hate cell phones and if possible leave it home where it sits all day on the table. I only have one because it is the only way to reach my overseas family. Landline was way too expensive.
I would not want any talking device in my home, I am already agitated when I have to wait 20 minutes on the phone for some service (let us first go ever everything that does not matter LOL)
Thankfully I recently found out, that the phone co has another, way less used number, where I only waited 4 or 5 minutes!
This reply ended up in the main thread rather than directly to Crixcyon’s comment. Thus, I don’t think he will see it. However, I will reply to him and ask him to look for your comment.
Well, from My perspective... The "left" (and the "right") is contrived. Part of the performance They put on for Us to cast sandy hooks into Our emotions and drag Us where They want Us. That what We see in the "news" is literally scripted, actors cast, directed from the wings.
We know the Joe Biden character was played by (at least!) two actors. I have a comparison image showing the original, with tattoos, and the most recent without... Wish I could post it here.
You said, "Do not acknowledge the rash of trans mass shooters."
I would place high probability those were virtually - if not literally - all psyops. Create divide while offering yet another excuse to disarm Us.
Seriously, if it's in the "news," it's part of Their play, Their production on the cave wall. Plato gave Us a clue.
I don't disagree with your depiction of ideological lefties. The problem I have is with the idea that there isn't an equally ideological right, and that they aren't as would-be totalitarian as the left is. My view is that when it comes down to it both left and right are on the same side - the side of authority. Didn't we see exactly that a few years ago with Covid? Aren't we seeing exactly that right now when it comes to supporting Ukraine over Russia, and Israel over Palestine and Iran?
"How long before they start saying #We’reAllBillMaherNow?"
SPAT THE COVFEFE 🤣
Well that's terrifying. Turning off my phone now. 👋
👋💪
I am so much of a hermit I do not know who Bill Maher is, I will look him up now. Oh it is another of these Colberts LOL
Yeah, but here’s the very interesting thing about Maher. He has been a known lefty for decades. And yet over the last 15 years, he has been slowly moving towards the center, and even beginning to cross the centerline on a few issues. But more importantly, he is very fed up with the left as a whole.
His voice carries weight. His transition has been fascinating to watch, and it is representative of a journey that many are taking right now.
Heavens, I hope you're correct that many are taking the journey. We're really screwed if not.
I hope so. I think so. I have heard some lifelong lefties make some serious progress just in the last few years.
Ingrid, I envy your lack of attention to PopCultureLLC™ 😃
You are surely better off for it.
I often wish I had moved to Amish country after high school...
I am looking at land in Amish country.
That's where I am and it's heaven.
🔥
not sure if I would move that far into back to the past, but I love it here in rather simple small village in GA, cabin in the woods.
Hahaha!
As far as the wacko sex change thing goes; why would any man want to become a woman? Men, think about this...A woman's work is never done...as the truthful saying goes.
Then we have the data collection and spy centers popping up like weeds. China has less than 500 while the US is closing in on 5,000. What's the rush? The only purpose of these dastardly things is to further depopulation and at some point they will become like old abandoned car manufacturing buildings in the city of Detroit...pointless and useless.
Personally, the challenge of writing my name in the snow with a bad prostate keeps me going!
> why would any man want to become a woman?
Because our society hates men, and adores women. Also, there's the "Oppression Olympics" effect. One of the easiest ways for a cis het white male to become lauded as "stunning and brave" is to suddenly become a trans lesbian.
Ingrid Durden replied to you, but her reply ended up in the main thread rather than directly to you. So feel free to look for it below.
We have already let listening devices into our homes, on purpose. And for those of us that have not, it's happening on our cell phones, 100%!!
It’s a freakshow!
We are well down the slope that takes us to the world portrayed in the movie. Maybe we are already there. One could imagine this is the opening sequences of a 21st century version of Atlas Shrugged. Galt's Gulch would be a Network State. Thanks for posting.
Keep up the fight.
I hope you will be okay with there sometimes being a gap in time in my responses - I get embroiled in other things and I need to give myself time in order to respond in a way that's satisfactory for me. I'm not sure how substantial our difference is or whether it's a difference in terminology. For example, I agree with the notion of 'general principles' - i.e. principles that apply ;for the most part', but not with absolutes or objectives, and I don't think that the question of moral absolutes is one of 'sophistry'. In my understanding, you and I would agree about rape being wrong because of the way we were brought up - i.e. in our societies as they have developed. So yes, rape is wrong in that social sense, but I wouldn't want to talk about 'wrong' in an absolute sense, 'in and of itself', 'intrinsically', apart from any particular set of moral principles that a specific society has developed.
The time gap is fine. I appreciate the engagement anytime.
I think we do not agree. I am saying there are real principles, derivable from nature, with difficult edge cases. You appear to be saying (and please correct me if I am mistaken) that morality is solely a social decision, and what is immoral for one society may not be for another.
Thus, for you, rape would be wrong in our society, but not wrong in a society that does not have a chosen principle saying it is wrong. (Again, I hope I am correctly interpreting; I do not wish to put words in your mouth.)
I hold that rape is wrong, and that a society that lacks a chosen principle saying it is wrong is an immoral society that has failed to recognize a foundational and natural truth.
Now, it is important to note that though I am saying that rights are derivable from the facts of nature, I am not saying that they are magic force fields. The premises are simply evident in nature, and the conclusions derivable therefrom.
They are also evident as inductive conclusions about what produces beneficial results. That helps make rights natural too. However, I will focus on the deductive aspect.
Here are some inescapable facts of nature.
As the autonomous locus of your own actions and choices, you exercise naturally exclusive and inalienable authority over yourself.
Others can forcibly interfere with this self-authority, but they themselves cannot exercise it.
No one in the universe has a rightful license to forcibly interfere with self-authority. (They arrogate such “licenses” through various legal fictions, but you cannot actually find evidence of such a license anywhere in nature.)
As a result, all external authority must either be granted or imposed by force.
Since there is no rightful license to use force, authority—that is, any encroachment upon the person, property, or liberty of another—is only legitimate when it is consented to. (And such consent must be real/valid, i.e., voluntary, explicit, transparent, informed, and revocable.)
Therefore, valid consent is the fundamental unit of moral concern in all exchanges, agreements, impositions of authority, and encroachments upon person, property, and liberty.
That is not a formal proof, but you get the idea. It is an ontological fact that no one has a rightful license to force anyone else against their will. You cannot find such a license anywhere in the universe.
You can, however, find an individual’s license to self-authority. That is found in the reality of his self-authority plus the fact that no claim to the contrary exists anywhere.
Most of this is thus a natural argument, not a purely moral one. The notion of any form of authority or supremacy of one over another is factually incoherent. It does not exist. Something that is factually incoherent cannot become morally coherent. Forced supremacy cannot be rendered moral.
Thus, rape—which is forced supremacy over the body and liberty of another WITHOUT CONSENT—is naturally immoral.
I feel very comfortable saying that any culture that says rape is okay is WRONG—ontologically and epistemologically.
Thanks for your understanding about my delay. Yes, I think there is a difference in our conceptions, and you are correct to interpret me as positing that morality is derived from the society we grow up in, so in principle different societies can have different moralities. Perhaps it might help if I ask you to clarify what you mean by 'principles derivable from nature'. I don't think, though I may be wrong, that you want or need to bring 'God' into your account. Would I be right about that, and if so, what are the moral principles that we inherit or imbibe in respect of being parts of nature?
That big long piece I sent you a while back lays it out. The facts of reality + deductive reasoning lead to moral conclusions. I will work to create a simplified version over the next few weeks.
Okay, thanks - maybe I should wait for that. By the way, I felt that the butterfly was female.
Before I get to it, here are a couple of things to chew on.
1. Here is a down-and-dirty version:
Authority over oneself exists as a natural fact.
It is also a natural fact that no human has a rightful license to attempt to interfere with the self-authority of another (adult) human. Such license simply does not exist anywhere in the universe.
No moral principle can be derived from something that does not exist. The individual thus has both a factual and a just moral claim to his self-authority.
Therefore, it is a moral violation to interfere with the self-authority of another.
2. And a question to ponder:
If a woman is raped in a culture that deems rape acceptable, was she wronged?
I've been chewing, but there are a couple of things I'm finding difficult to swallow. 1. I guess I agree that humans, qua living things, have a natural tendency to preserve their autonomy, and that's a 'natural fact', yes. I'm not sure though what, if any, moral principles follow from that natural fact. 2. According to the culture that deems rape acceptable, no, by definition she wasn't wronged. According to a different culture with different ethics - ethics in which rape is unacceptable, and judging it from that perspective - yes, she was wronged. It doesn't feel that we've made much progress.
I did too.
Great short!
💯
I don't disagree with your depiction of ideological lefties. The problem I have is with the idea that there isn't an equally ideological right, and that they aren't as would-be totalitarian as the left is. My view is that when it comes down to it both left and right are on the same side - the side of authority. Didn't we see just that a few years ago with Covid? Aren't we seeing exactly that right now when it comes to regime-change forever wars?
It's good that you brought up covid, because it further makes the point. Check out these crosstabs: https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/partner_surveys/jan_2022/crosstabs_heartland_covid_january_5_2022
Yes, some Republicans were bad on these issues, but twice as many Democrats were. In other words, as I was saying below, Red and Blue are in far too narrow a range, but they are not the same. There is far more of a chance of a mainstream R moving in the correct direction (they have a shorter distance to go) than a mainstream D.
I agree with you that overall the left was more restrictive than the right during covid. And I might even agree that the right moves 'in the correct direction' if it weren't for the fact that the right are just as gung-ho about American interventionism as the left are.
As I said, only if you define right very narrowly as mainstream Republicans. That leaves out quite a lot.
Well I reckon that there are quite a few 'lefties' who would take issue with what they would call your 'narrow' definition of 'left'.
My definition of left is incredibly broad. There are dozens of branches of the leftist tree.
Indeed, fair enough
Those are reasonable points to consider.
My first response is that the definition of "right" is rather muddied. It has come to mean too many different things: monarchists and anti-monarchists, reactionaries and radicals, socialists and capitalists. It's too confusing. (Meanwhile, the definition of "left" is fairly stable.)
So, let us define terms. What is the right? I contend that the spectrum ought to be measured by degree of individual freedom (in inverse proportion to amount of government). That would make totalitarian communists and authoritarian national socialists far left; other flavors of socialism a tad to the right (but still well to the left overall); progressives and social democrats next, etc. On the other side of the center would be core conservatives, libertarians, minarchists, and finally anarchists.
The center, rather than being an amorphous gray, can have a rather precise definition. There is a set of basic questions that determines which side you're on. Is power a desirable good (to do "good things") or at best a necessary evil? Is your distributive objective equality of outcome or equality of opportunity? Does the tribe/state/collective have a claim upon the property of the individual or not?
One's views on these put one to either side of the centerline—and the degree to which the answer is nuanced determines how far. So, for example, if you resent the state's taxing power, but think that it should have *some* ability to tax, you're likely on the right side of the centerline (because of the resentment) but not all the way towards the minarchist/anarchist end. If you think that taxes are a good thing (because it helps government do good things) but don't want to see the government in charge of every aspect of human life, then you are to the left of the centerline, but not all the way down at the totalitarian end. It's all about these presuppositions.
Thus, properly understood, the right is a classical liberal phenomenon. Core conservatives, libertarians, and anarchists share the same basic presuppositions, albeit to varying degrees.
I say "core conservatives" because obviously some of the more "moderate" ones stray to the wrong side of the ledger on things like war and national power. But if we base the poles of the political spectrum on America's Red vs. Blue, we end up with a tiny spectrum that does not take into account the rest of the possibilities. America's blue is entirely left of the centerline. America's red is partially to the left of the centerline and partially to the right. And they overlap on a bunch of stuff (as you rightly note). But I would hesitate to use the terms "left" and "right" to describe them, or to judge other ideologies that are further right (on the freedom scale I described above) like libertarians, anarchists, and the more austere/core conservatives.
Because of the largely shared ideological provenance of conservatives and libertarians, they share the same basic presuppositions and principles. But most conservatives A) have not carried those principles to their logical conclusions and B) are a lot more instinctive/pragmatic, so they make a lot more compromises. But this shared provenance is why you will go to Freedom Fest and find libertarians, anarchists, conservatives, and some Republicans, but zero lefties or democrats. Red and Blue may be with a comparatively narrow range, but they are not the same.
I agree that the definition of 'right' is muddled, but I would argue that essentially the same goes for left. But rather than argue about that right now I'd rather address the questions you posed, and try to answer them directly: 1/ I'd say that power is a desirable good when used with heart, as exemplified by good parenting; 2/ I favour equality of opportunity; 3/ In any situation where the individual is not making a claim on the tribe/state/collective themselves - as a criminal does, for example - then the collective should have no right on the property of the individual.
Of course right and left aren't the same, and yes, during covid those who objected to the restrictions tended to be more on the libertarian side of things, which is more associated with right than left. That's why I can't personally adopt a left over right position. But on the other hand - and maybe it's only because I live in a place where I don't have to worry about making sure I have enough insurance to pay my health bills if or when I get sick - I'm grateful to live in a society that considers free health care and free education - no matter how inadequate they both undoubtedly are - to be conducive with the idea of 'good power', equal opportunity, and individual rights.
Free health care and free education can only be "provided" if one person is threatened with violence via taxation.
Moreover, this does not even involve taxing to provide things that everyone uses roughly equally (security and justice, e.g.). Rather, free healthcare and free education require that property be taken from one person for the sole and exclusive use of another. One person is forced, at the threat of a government gun, to become the means to another's ends.
How is that conducive to respecting the rights of the individual human person?
I guess I would have to say that I don't consider the idea of taxation, in itself, to be 'violent' - i.e. to be a 'violation'. Seeing that you go on to describe examples where you don't think that taxation is a violation - security and justice - so you don't object to taxation in principle - I would say that the only 'property' that is taken from me is the taxation out of my wages. And I would also ask: How is it NOT conducive to respecting individual rights for me to know that I'm not going to be charged a penny for the upcoming hernia operation I'm shortly going to have?
I do object to taxation for all purposes and in all forms. Unless one lives in a polity in which one freely signs a contract—wherein their consent is voluntary, explicit, transparent, informed, and revocable—all taxation is morally criminal.
Think of it this way: You do not have a moral right to go to your neighbor and demand that he pay for your operation or your cousin's or a friend's or a stranger's. You do not have a moral right to threaten him if he refuses, lock him in your basement if he does not pay, or take his home. You do not have a moral right to harm or kill him if he resists when you are taking his home.
So how does a government official acquire that right? The answer cannot be that we vote to delegate the right to government officials, because it is morally impossible to delegate a right you do not have. So where does the government official get that right?
Where does the government official get that right? I would answer from the same place as the town Marshal gets the right to enforce the law in the town that they're marshal of. And they get that right because the townsfolk agree that it's worth it for their own safety and security to pay someone to do this enforcing for them. That collective payment that the people make could be called 'taxation'.
Good write up Christopher
🙏🏻
Strange Dream Tomorrow? Could well be,we're definitely not heading into MLK's dream.
Nope.
I don't expect I even need to actually watch this video to correctly predict that we're already on that path.
Probably not.
But it is reasonably well done.
I hope people will jettison tgeir 'convenience' for privacy. But I'm not sure...
People usually take the path of least resistance.
Crixcyon - I agree about the man-woman thing. I know a young man, quite handsome, who is transitioning, thankfully not a kid anymore - but he will make an ugly woman, and how about that voice? can they change that? (I recently read about the DES hormone that has been given to pregnant women, and that causes males to become females in fish and chickens! They checked and found, that 1 in 4 male descendants from these women felt trans. So they might be poisoned before birth - an awful thing to think!).
I hate cell phones and if possible leave it home where it sits all day on the table. I only have one because it is the only way to reach my overseas family. Landline was way too expensive.
I would not want any talking device in my home, I am already agitated when I have to wait 20 minutes on the phone for some service (let us first go ever everything that does not matter LOL)
Thankfully I recently found out, that the phone co has another, way less used number, where I only waited 4 or 5 minutes!
This reply ended up in the main thread rather than directly to Crixcyon’s comment. Thus, I don’t think he will see it. However, I will reply to him and ask him to look for your comment.
Well, from My perspective... The "left" (and the "right") is contrived. Part of the performance They put on for Us to cast sandy hooks into Our emotions and drag Us where They want Us. That what We see in the "news" is literally scripted, actors cast, directed from the wings.
We know the Joe Biden character was played by (at least!) two actors. I have a comparison image showing the original, with tattoos, and the most recent without... Wish I could post it here.
You said, "Do not acknowledge the rash of trans mass shooters."
I would place high probability those were virtually - if not literally - all psyops. Create divide while offering yet another excuse to disarm Us.
Seriously, if it's in the "news," it's part of Their play, Their production on the cave wall. Plato gave Us a clue.
Your Attention is Worth More to Them than Money (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/your-attention-is-worth-more-to-them
I don't disagree with your depiction of ideological lefties. The problem I have is with the idea that there isn't an equally ideological right, and that they aren't as would-be totalitarian as the left is. My view is that when it comes down to it both left and right are on the same side - the side of authority. Didn't we see exactly that a few years ago with Covid? Aren't we seeing exactly that right now when it comes to supporting Ukraine over Russia, and Israel over Palestine and Iran?