Was Trump stupid for claiming credit for "the vaccine" , will Democrats use that to fuck him in his fat ass as their own vaccine regret intensifies?

[PJ Diaz]

Care to supply a proper link to this data?
My country is at about 85% of the population fully vaccinated- yes the whole population, so there must be data out there that supports what you are saying.
Not something i've seen or heard of.

Rise in Non-Covid-19 Deaths Hits Life Insurers

Death-benefit claims not tied directly to Covid-19 rose last year, and insurance executives think the deferral of medical treatment during the pandemic was a contributing factor.

www.wsj.com

 

[CunningCanuk]

Today's kids are not taught to think but to recite what they hear and people like Max is the result.

Max is the result of cousin sex.

 

[Rob Roy]

I think of it as libertarianism in action, with the endpoint potentially straight out of The Road Warrior.

Ahem. Caccaganda indeed sir!

Libertarianism is an oft maligned and misunderstood word. What would you say are the defining characteristics of Libertarians and libertarians ?

 

[cannabineer]

Ahem. Caccaganda indeed sir!

Libertarianism is an oft maligned and misunderstood word. What would you say are the defining characteristics of Libertarians and libertarians ?


View attachment 5190809

1) a belief that small government is beneficial
2) a belief that unregulated markets seek an optimum for all, and not only shareholders.
3) that such a community is capable of national defense against neighbors with a large central government.

 

[Rob Roy]

1) a belief that small government is beneficial
2) a belief that unregulated markets seek an optimum for all, and not only shareholders.
3) that such a community is capable of national defense against neighbors with a large central government.

Thank you for your concise reply.

What would you say are the differences between a Libertarian and libertarian ?

Also, if National defense is a concern, shouldn't defense against conscripted nationalism also be a concern ?

 

[cannabineer]

Thank you for your concise reply.

What would you say are the differences between a Libertarian and libertarian ?

Also, if National defense is a concern, shouldn't defense against conscripted nationalism also be a concern ?

I do not see a significant difference between small or large L.

As for the second, I do not know what exactly that means. Please provide examples from history to illustrate both conditions.

 

[CunningCanuk]

I do not see a significant difference between small or large L.

As for the second, I do not know what exactly that means. Please provide examples from history to illustrate both conditions.

Fish on!

 

[Rob Roy]

I do not see a significant difference between small or large L.

As for the second, I do not know what exactly that means. Please provide examples from history to illustrate both conditions.

Some people think of a big L, Libertarian, as a "small government type" , which means they accept at least a little bit of a coercion based government as being necessary. Smaller and less coercive than most politico types, but still some coercion.

A small l, libertarian is more of a "no coercion based government" type. An Anarchist and possibly more of a Voluntarist, sometimes spelled Voluntaryist.

In your first response you mentioned "national defense". In my reply I referred to a more realistic definition of actual defense. Since I think the term "national defense" is oft misused or misunderstood. Nation states aren't in a position to be defended, they are by default in a position of something for other people to defend against. Much the same way as all slaves from different plantations have a right to defend against all slave masters who assume consent or don't care if an individual consents or not.

Since nearly every place we could name has a kind of coercion based nationalism, shouldn't the proper use of the word "defend" (apply defensive force) be to reject that which removes consent ? Since the removal of consent, a feature of all coercion based national governments, is an offensive gesture. That was where I was going with my question.

I think it's important to defend the right things and not defend the wrong things...things which take your consent for granted or don't care if you consented or not, you are claimed as a subject anyway. Why is that a thing to defend, shouldn't that be a thing to end?

That was the area of thought my inquiry sprang from. I realize you, a more fervent believer in the necessity of government will probably not view this from a reality based point of view and perhaps default to the more ingrained faith based, but not evidence based. beliefs you have been inculcated with. Sigh.

 

[Rob Roy]

Fish on!

 

[Rob Roy]

Max is the result of cousin sex.

In a sense we are all cousins, it's just how far removed. Now how about a hug ?

 

[cannabineer]

Some people think of a big L, Libertarian, as a "small government type" , which means they accept at least a little bit of a coercion based government as being necessary. Smaller and less coercive than most politico types, but still some coercion.

A small l, libertarian is more of a "no coercion based government" type. An Anarchist and possibly more of a Voluntarist, sometimes spelled Voluntaryist.

In your first response you mentioned "national defense". In my reply I referred to a more realistic definition of actual defense. Since I think the term "national defense" is oft misused or misunderstood. Nation states aren't in a position to be defended, they are by default in a position of something for other people to defend against. Much the same way as all slaves from different plantations have a right to defend against all slave masters who assume consent or don't care if an individual consents or not.

Since nearly every place we could name has a kind of coercion based nationalism, shouldn't the proper use of the word "defend" (apply defensive force) be to reject that which removes consent ? Since the removal of consent, a feature of all coercion based national governments, is an offensive gesture. That was where I was going with my question.

I think it's important to defend the right things and not defend the wrong things...things which take your consent for granted or don't care if you consented or not, you are claimed as a subject anyway. Why is that a thing to defend, shouldn't that be a thing to end?

That was the area of thought my inquiry sprang from. I realize you, a more fervent believer in the necessity of government will probably not view this from a reality based point of view and perhaps default to the more ingrained faith based, but not evidence based. beliefs you have been inculcated with. Sigh.

I ask again that you illustrate the concept using historical examples. I am looking at this from the viewpoint of practicability. If you cannot point to postindustrial historic examples that are not hypothetical, I take that as strongly suggestive of a mismatch between philosophy and reality.

I ask you to treat the request as an opportunity. Show me that it isn’t the utopian fantasy I currently believe it to be. Specifically I am asking you not to heed the impulse to descend into frivolity.

 

[Rob Roy]

I ask again that you illustrate the concept using historical examples. I am looking at this from the viewpoint of practicability. If you cannot point to postindustrial historic examples that are not hypothetical, I take that as strongly suggestive of a mismatch between philosophy and reality.

I ask you to treat the request as an opportunity. Show me that it isn’t the utopian fantasy I currently believe it to be. Specifically I am asking you not to heed the impulse to descend into frivolity.

Historically, a person or goup of people that claim you're their subject even without your individual consent are either "government" or enslavers, or both. That is self evident. There is no need to expound further or cite historical references. Those are non sequiturs to the defining of what is, "reality".

You see, the real definition of government necessarily includes the understanding that those are people who claim they are exempt when THEY use offensive force. To employ words with flexible meanings dependant upon who is the person doing an action is suspect, no? If it's wrong for you or me to do...it's wrong for them to do also. That's reality. Thats not a Utopian belief.

The actual question that isn't often asked, but should be is, "how can a thing which disregards individual consent also be a thing which protects individuals ? That is nonsensical. Pointing to history and saying, "that's the way we've always done it", while also claiming that this thing which routinely disregards consent as being vital to the protection of individuals is contradictory.

I ask you to explain how a thing which routinely uses offensive force can then also be the best system to protect people from those who might use offensive force against them? That's like them saying, I'm gonna be the only one allowed to rape you, but it will be a familar rape and we have colorful flags and nationalistic slogans etc. You don't want all those other Nations to rape you, do you" ?

Voluntarism isn't a system, it's based in the idea that none of us (human beings) have the right to employ offensive force and all of us have the right to employ defensive force. That you, run your life, but not others lives for them.

Nationalism is the inverse. it is based on the idea OTHER PEOPLE should run your life for you and it's okay if they employ offensive force and disregard consent as being vital to human relationships.

Of the two, Voluntarism and Natiotionalsim if they were individuals who would you hang out with ?

 

[PJ Diaz]

In a sense we are all cousins, it's just how far removed. Now how about a hug ?

View attachment 5190835

The other day I caught my cousin masturbating with a pickle. I was mad, I was going to eat that! Now it's going to taste like pickle.

 

[Rob Roy]

The other day I caught my cousin masturbating with a pickle. I was mad, I was going to eat that! Now it's going to taste like pickle.Oka

I made some quick pickles recently. Thanks for the reminder, they're chilling in the fridge, gonna go grab some!

Cousin ? Pickle? Are they, uhhh, firm enough?

 

[cannabineer]

Historically, a person or goup of people that claim you're their subject even without your individual consent are either "government" or enslavers, or both. That is self evident. There is no need to expound further or cite historical references. Those are non sequiturs to the defining of what is, "reality".

You see, the real definition of government necessarily includes the understanding that those are people who claim they are exempt when THEY use offensive force. To employ words with flexible meanings dependant upon who is the person doing an action is suspect, no? If it's wrong for you or me to do...it's wrong for them to do also. That's reality. Thats not a Utopian belief.

The actual question that isn't often asked, but should be is, "how can a thing which disregards individual consent also be a thing which protects individuals ? That is nonsensical. Pointing to history and saying, "that's the way we've always done it", while also claiming that this thing which routinely disregards consent as being vital to the protection of individuals is contradictory.

I ask you to explain how a thing which routinely uses offensive force can then also be the best system to protect people from those who might use offensive force against them? That's like them saying, I'm gonna be the only one allowed to rape you, but it will be a familar rape and we have colorful flags and nationalistic slogans etc. You don't want all those other Nations to rape you, do you" ?

Voluntarism isn't a system, it's based in the idea that none of us (human beings) have the right to employ offensive force and all of us have the right to employ defensive force. That you, run your life, but not others lives for them.

Nationalism is the inverse. it is based on the idea OTHER PEOPLE should run your life for you and it's okay if they employ offensive force and disregard consent as being vital to human relationships.

Of the two, Voluntarism and Natiotionalsim if they were individuals who would you hang out with ?

I asked for concrete historical example.

Reducing this post to y/n, the answer is n; there are none.

The closing question is loaded.

 

[Rob Roy]

I asked for concrete historical example.

Nothing is more concrete than stating reality.

All coercion based Nation states and all people throughout history who employ coercion are doing it wrong. Aren't they?

Can you give me an example where people who employ coercion as the cornerstone of their actions, government or human associations are favorable to those who don't ?

You didn't answer the" loaded question" in the previous post, because it would reveal you DO grant an exception for some people to use offensive force. Is it, because you default to the idea that it's okay for SOME people to be like that? Evidently.

 

[cannabineer]

Nothing is more concrete than stating reality.

All coercion based Nation states and all people throughout history who employ coercion are doing it wrong. Aren't they?

Can you give me an example where people who employ coercion as the cornerstone of their actions, government or human associations are favorable to those who don't ?

You didn't answer the loaded question in the previous post, because it would reveal you DO grant an exception for some people to use offensive force. Is it, because you default to the idea that it's okay for SOME people to be like that? Evidently.

Loaded questions are a form of intellectual dishonesty. For me to answer it would be similarly dishonest.

The rest is characterized by your replacing my questions with others more in line with your agenda. That is concisely known as the straw man.

Trimming out all the irrelevancies, you cannot provide examples that validate your belief structure. As you already know, I have evaluated it as utopian.

Utopian efforts to govern reliably collapse into extreme authoritarian structure. Thus the valid argument is that your real goal, like that of the lLibertarian leadership, is to exploit the sentimental attractiveness of the idea to the intellectually vulnerable.

Libertarianism is in violation of basic human nature and history. Thus it appeals to three kinds of people: the weak of mind, the dishonest of principle, and the autocratically ambitious predators who use it as fascism’s midwife.

Your continued efforts to commandeer the narrative suggest you are in group B.

Partial credit: you did not descend into the frivolity with which you deflect when walked into a rational corner. For that, thank you.

 

[Rob Roy]

Loaded questions are a form of intellectual dishonesty. For me to answer it would be similarly dishonest.

Or intentionally evasive, because the obvious is obvious. You like most sane people would not want to hang out with a person who claimed they had the right tp run your life and if you disagreed they had the right to use offensive force. Why was that so hard for you to admit ?

 

[Rob Roy]

That is concisely known as the straw man.

No, the topic was born from my inquiry pertaining to what should be defended, those who employ offensive force or those who realize they only have the right to use defensive force. I haven't strawmanned that, I've elucidated that.

 

[Rob Roy]

Utopian efforts to govern reliably collapse into extreme authoritarian structure.

Yes, they do. And here we are. Irony.

I chuc.kle at your self inflicted indictment of coercion based governance. Thank you for running the ball into the wrong endzone.