— SteemCN

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!

Sort Order:

Trending

joeyarnoldvn (61) · 6 years ago

You want America to die? So, you love Soros because he is helping with that via Open Borders in Europe and America. You are against Brexit and Americana. You are promoting Globalism which agrees with you that people should be able to live anywhere they want in the world.

3 votes

a-non-e-moose (49) · 6 years ago

"You want America to die?"

I do, along with all the other states.

joeyarnoldvn (61) · 6 years ago (edited)

We don't live in an isolated vacuum in the world. I want tyranny to decrease; if possible, eliminated altogether. But, how do we get there? What is the path, the transition? If a country dissolves from authoritarianism towards real free markets (anarchy), that's a step in the right direction. However, with that said, there are still external empires, nations, technocracy, etc, outside of America, or outside of a given country, and these outside threats is the vulnerability of being isolated from a federal government. We see this in the Middle East and through the course of human history and animal history as well for thousands of years.

$0.00

a-non-e-moose (49) · 6 years ago

"...there are still external empires, nations, technocracy, etc, outside of America, or outside of a given country..."

That's why I include the '...along with all the other states.' part. As far as a path to transition goes, I have no idea. I do however recognize that states, like most everything else, won't last forever. For now I stick to doing my part to help erode confidence in the concept among my peers through critical thinking and discourse thereof. In my eye's it's a public service.

I also think there's quite a bit more to anarchy than free markets.

One last thing. I don't quite understand how we see "...the vulnerability of being isolated from a federal government." in animal history. Care to elaborate?

Thanks for your comments @joeyarnoldvn!

$0.00

joeyarnoldvn (61) · 6 years ago

States have been lasting forever so far. Why would that change? The Middle East has power vacuums which then causes big things to happen. It is called divide & conquer and it is called destabilization. I agree with trying to minimize tyranny which exist now and it also exists within power vacuums as well. When you eliminate states, you create power vacuums for other people to come in to replace those states. Generally, in history, that is what happened. When an empire or republic or whatever fell, other things rose up to replace them. Anarchy is only good as long as it keeps the balance enforced. Well, the enforcement part is the tricky part, basically. People are evil until they choose to make better choices. Most of the world prefer that the government keeps them safe. That's why there are open borders, because then those people come into Europe and America and they vote and demand for bigger government because they prefer safety over freedom. America has had smaller government, generally. It's tough as America was infiltrated by globalists and by other people and groups. So, they've been trying to kill America since the 1800's in so many ways which means that America is not really America and is not really entirely free markets but actually crony capitalism and other things. So, we try to drain the swamp as we seek after free markets and smaller government.

In the animal kingdom, when a prey is isolated, they become more vulnerable to predators. In the human world, predators are all around us, all the time, in a variety of ways. That is why we have the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments in America especially.

$0.00

a-non-e-moose (49) · 6 years ago (edited)

States have certainly not been lasting forever. The stars don't last forever, even though the sun has hung in the daytime sky for as long as anyone has lived. Forever is quite a bit of time, to say the least.

Moreover I don't think that people are intrinsically good. I also don't think they're evil, but I'm a moral nihilist and I categorically reject both of the concepts.

Hopefully we'll get something figured out before the cosmic lights fizzle out and we still have time to enjoy it.

$0.00

joeyarnoldvn (61) · 6 years ago

If people are not good or evil, then what is or who is and why do we have these words, good and evil, if they are hypothetical, theoretical, excessively, that is if we do not have connection to neither of the two, and what would a third option mean? If we are neither, does that mean we are partly good and evil? Are we more good or more evil?

$0.00

a-non-e-moose (49) · 5 years ago

I like all these questions. Sorry for such a late reply, if you're even still interested.

As for the first part about why we have the words, I see a lot of words out there that don't map directly to any real thing. Words like 'unicorn' or 'elf' come to mind as well as grammatical tools like 'the' or 'of', granted those last two aren't even nouns.

I also don't really consider any third option, like you mention. Moreover I don't think we are partly both, given that I categorically deny each of them.

One crux of the issue is that moral terms like good, bad, right and wrong seem to me to enable intellectual laziness and promote unexamined worldviews while serving as ready vehicles to manipulate the minds of those who get emotional about these moral concepts or believe in them for whatever reason.

It's kind of like how writing instructors sometimes advise that one avoid cursory one word descriptions of feelings ('happy' or 'sad') in favor of more articulate and thoughtful descriptors. In a similar way to making one's writing more effective I think that discarding moral terms (and indeed morality in total) in favor of more elaborate reflection can help make one's cognition and perspective considerations more effective.

I'm saying almost nothing of the epistemological concerns I have with morality and ethics, mind you, which I find stickier still. Instead here I argue against their use, which seems to me a bit more tangible and approachable position, if not quite as defensible.

freebornangel (73) · 6 years ago

Hold up, chuck.
I dont drink any particular flavor of koolaid.

I am an insurrectionary anarchist, retired.
I think folks should be free to do whatever they want to do.

I don't choose this master over that master.
No gods, no masters.

I think they need to all jump in a lake and get their nose out of my business.
And take their uniformed, armed thugs with them.

So, no, i don't love soros, nor hate 'murica.

joeyarnoldvn (61) · 6 years ago

If you don't choose a master, then will masters choose you? In other words, if you fail to plan, then are you not planning to fail? I believe in seeking after free market anarchy but it is a question of how do get there in the mist of a world full of tyrannies, empires, etc. Look at what happens in the Middle East for example.

freebornangel (73) · 6 years ago

Nobody rules where none obey.
Stop being their best cop, cross the street in the middle of the block,....
(Look both ways.)

As long as your utopia requires forcing folks to do things, it sucks.
Likely you suck, too.

Read through my tuesday posts if you want to see a path out.

joeyarnoldvn (61) · 6 years ago

Will the Yellow Vests or Yellow Jackets win in Europe?

freebornangel (73) · 6 years ago

If the people want to be autonomous, and exert that will, they will know freedom.
It's unlikely that that actually happens, imo.
Maybe.

$0.00

joeyarnoldvn (61) · 6 years ago

I do like blockchain and that can help like you said.