Messages

This isn't Jeopardy; the content of your post is basically unchanged.

I am labeling your opinions as libertarian in nature, yes.  Because they are.  And if I assume you think a certain way, it's because you have demonstrated so.

Fair enough. I just never saw myself, nor my ideas as Libertarian. So your reaction surprised me.

You've labeled me a Libertarian, and so you assume I think a certain way.

Oh, come on.

You're right, I practically did the same thing. I should've said it in the form of a question: Are you labeling me a Libertarian and assuming I think a certain way?

If the Free Market is so impressive, why do you refuse to acknowledge that libertarianism was rejected by the marketplace of ideas decades ago?

I'm pretty sure it was much longer ago than that.

I'm not saying I want all of us to live under Libertarian ideas. I'm not very complicated. You've labeled me a Libertarian, and so you assume I think a certain way.

All restrictions are illusory. I don't ask that we get rid of certain Leftist legislation on the economy because it "limits" us. Some of it just doesn't fucking work. I'm not saying ALL of it, but SOME of it. I think most of you will agree that BOTH SIDES have made legislative attempts that hurt our system. Obviously, an only partially free-market is what has seemed to work the best for the US. That doesn't mean that that is THE RIGHT and JUST way of going about an economy. I won't thrust my free-market shit at you, and you shouldn't thrust anything at me. I will trade/exchange however I want, with whomever I want, and with whatever restrictions I want.

Laws and restrictions are agreements that are enforced by people who make the agreements. I'm recently 18 years old, and I haven't agreed to shit yet. So I'm not trying to enforce shit.

Summary: A partially free-market system works for the US when it's implemented properly. But I won't follow all restrictions put in place by other people if they hurt me. Imma do me, you do you.

You assume under a free market you would still have a choice of outlets to use.

However, history and economic theory have shown that, absent of regulations, monpolies can easily form, using their superior economic power to undercut competition and drive them out of business.  Indeed, even with regulations, cartels have undertaken price-fixing and wage setting through secret agreements with each other - agreements which are illegal under existing law, but would not be in a deregulated pure market economy.

You assume a freedom of choice which would not last long in such conditions.

The way I see it, there's always a choice. It all comes back to consequences. Now you may see why I was so obsessed with achieving immunity to consequences to achieve freedom.

Have you ever considered reading thoroughly and making sure you understand a particular issue before expressing an opinion on it?

I did read thoroughly and I understand the issue. If YOU read thoroughly, you'd see that I simply had a case of the derps. Something in my head, kept me from seeing something that was completely obvious and practically stated outright. The connection was not made because I WENT FULL RETARD for a moment. Makes me wonder if it's a mental disability.

Now, if you're referring to the fact that I didn't know about private contractors being protected by the Whistleblower Act, that's because of misinformation. The descriptions and general versions of the Act that I've read were so general, that they left out that important part. I guess that's my fault for not reading non-general/abstracted versions of the Act though. I'll try to make it happen less 

People saying "please" and "thank you" you are assuming it is done out of "obligation", therefore SHEEPLE (or whatever iteration or representation); now, your interpretation of a social phenomena is very much rigid, and its open for multiple interpretations: 1) people can be genuinely kind instead of being rampant assholes because they genuinely are nice people 2) i myself are very kind because not only is it a dignified way of treating your fellow humans, but its also practical, people are more willing to cooperate thru kindness than thru imperatives and demands. So your SHEEPLE reasoning goes out the window with those two reasons on why people are kind.

Yes, some people I meet are genuinely kind and would say "please" and "thank you" without obligation. But most of the people I interact with on a day-to-day basis don't say those things and, in fact, would feel offended to say those things. We'll attribute that part to the people around me, specifically, being shitty people. I'm glad to hear that people in other places think much more highly of other humans. Most of the people around me, are ones I'd consider to be SHEEPLE.

Friends are allies. Allies support and look out for each other - otherwise they are acquaintances or strangers. Or maybe you are a self-centered douche that gets favours and doesnt reciprocate.

Most of my "allies" try to get out of reciprocating anything. Maybe we shouldn't call them allies. We'll also attribute this one to biased interpretations based on the environment as well.

I kind of get your idea of not doing favours out of self-interest, but calling it corrupt to me its a bit of a stretch. Doing a "free favour" can mean doing "the right or humane thing", sure. But doing a favour could also be within the context of friendship, in which, both look out for each other - theres certain reciprocation expected in an undeterminate frame scope with an undeterminate favour coming back.

Even if I do something for a friend, I don't expect anything in return. I see that as unfair. Is that just my way of escaping being let-down?

You also have a certain solipsist thing goin on as in "I are the Determinator of mine reality" which seems an overcompensation or a cover up of a lack of power in your personal life. Friendship is a choice of two people, not your own to make (and sure, enemies are yours to choose).

Shouting really loudly "I AM FREE" doesn't make you any freer.

I've had a dominant personality my whole life, in a world that I was told I had no power in. That is, until I started reading people like Robert Anton Wilson and the like. I must say, I've not felt the urge to exert control over other people since I started reading people like him. It's all kind of combined to give me a God-Complex, in which I don't have to do shit to be in control.

Sadly, it seems, the rest of everything I know other than those ideologies points to living life via reaction to consequences. The way I saw it, you could be free if you could be immune to consequences, either their temptation (I want to make this deal because it helps me) or negative affects (I stole something, so I got arrested). I just can't believe it took me so long to realize that all that was just occultist mumbo jumbo or, at least, that it was based off of it.

Also, i think i like the notion of "compatibilism"  Has that been broached in a certain thread?

I don't know, has the search bar been fixed? Nvm, I can use Google I guess, with inurl:principiadiscordia.com/forum. BTW, is that shit ever gonna get fixed?

We are also a social species and need to be around each other in order to survive... in fact, our large social networks are largely responsible for the development of our high intelligence.

Human beings who are isolated have a nasty habit of just simply dying, and even if they live a full life-span, they are a dead end as the isolated human leaves no offspring.

So, you know, the daydream of total self-reliance is pretty much pure fantasy.

I never proposed total physical separation from other people. That would be awful. I would want to die. Although, I've been mentally isolated my whole life until recently. I think I may have resembled a SHEEPLE during that time though. Probably makes sense.

I guess the self-reliance thing is an illusion anyways, seeing as how humans have to rely on the environment for their survival, not just other people to keep them sane.

Well, I was just sayin'.  Both ideologies require that people behave in predictable, machine-like ways.  This is why both ideologies are complete and utter failures, and result in a very few people having it all at the expense of, you know, everyone else.

Can you give me one factual reason why a free market system as proposed by libertarianism is desirable?

I couldn't possibly argue that either system would be desirable for anyone but myself. Bitch, I don't know yo life. I'd simply say that I'd trade/exchange in a free-market manner regardless of what everyone else wants, because it's what works for me. The way I see it, people already trade/exchange in whatever way they want to, whether it be with restriction, or without it. If you choose to limit yourself with constructs and laws, be my guest. If I want to limit my trade with different constructs and laws than you do, that's my choice, and it shouldn't affect any of yours. I don't think anyone should be pressing their trade/exchange restrictions on anyone else. Free-market, to me, implies that all possible sides are accounted for.

If you find out that a company is doing something in a way that you don't like, you can boycott them. I see the argument for that being a massive inconvenience for everyone involved (Or only for you, if you're the only one who disagrees), but that just means you need to decide which consequence is more in your favor: Buying from a shitneck company and having the things you want/need, or finding other more inconvenient ways to get what you want/need or not having everything you want/need. And now it all comes back to consequences. FUCK ME, I HAD IT WRONG ALL ALONG. CONSEQUENCES DICTATE BOTH SIDES' ACTIONS.

Sigh, see underlined ^

Well, you want to be bound, which is the opposite of being free anyhow, so there you go. 

Why I oughta!! 

Libertarianism/Free Market Tard is the same bad signal that makes people think communism is a good idea.  In fact, the two are more or less identical.

I see why you would say that, but I think that is because we view things differently on a fundamental level. I'm ok with that though. I disagree with many people in a very similar way. We tend to get along fine now that I've come to see that.

It's kinda mentioned right in the link I provided.  Contractors (non-government employees) are specifically mentioned and protected.

I was referring to the link. There are government contractors made up of government employees, and there are government contractors made up of private employees from private entities. I was asking if this law made a linguistic separation of these two, but I now realize that would be stupid, considering there's no reason to mention public contractors in this subpart if they are automatically protected by the main section.

Case of the derps. Soz.

Being free is always a metaphor, because we are always bound to something.

Being free from the constraints of reality is called schizophrenia or psychosis, and is that true freedom or is it an avoidance?

That could only be answered on an individual basis (Am I still around, consciously, after I die?) or by occultist dogmas. Currently, I have to remain agnostic on that question, because I want nothing to do with either at the moment.

Sad to say I was hoping for mind-body separation, but it's looking less and less likely/optimistic 

I want to be bound to SOMETHING, as you put it. But I want to choose what that SOMETHING is, without outside influence. Then comes the question, is that possible? Fuckin looks like a no, from here 

Nobody does anything for "no reason at all".  They don't typically have material gain in mind most of the time, if that's what you mean.

Yeah, I over-thought that one again.

Oh.  I hope you get better.

Thanks, me too

Now, now, you do bring up a point. One I touched on in the "Rugged Individualism" thread. But, I would like to point out, that the way I see it, there is Freedom in disregard of obligation or societal constraint.

If you view isolation as freedom, I suppose.

But Crowley, so while I don't mean to be rude, I am leaving this thread.

Haha, fair enough.

Yeah, last I checked, there were whistle-blower avenues for public employees, not private contractors.

Um, you checked wrong.  The Whistleblower act is being blatantly ignored in the Snowden case.

https://acquisition.gov/far/current/html/Subpart%203_9.html

Oh, well fuck.

Are you sure this part of the Whistleblower Act accounts for PRIVATE contractors, and not just governmental/public contractors? There are parts of the bureaucracy that are dedicated to contract work for more than one agency, that would obviously be protected by this Whistleblower Act. Maybe it's my lack of understanding of law semantics, but I don't see anywhere where it specifies that these protected "contractors" can belong to a private entity. Maybe it's assumed by some other law or section mentioned in the definitions main section?

Why do we brush our hair or use deoderant?

Why do we wear clothes that are not 100% purely functional?

What do you mean by pure? Where does "me" come from? Where does it reside?

Again, too much Crowley. I've been thinking a lot about "The Magick Will," apparently, without realizing until earlier.

It appears to me that we do those things because of societal influences, as Nigel pointed out.

I would like to think that I reside in my consciousness, which appears to come from the brain, which is influenced by an infinite number of things, including genetic hard-wiring, environmental or conditioned predispositions, etc.. Where things go beyond that is mostly occult. Some say hivemind, some say soul, some say we're dreaming. I have no fucking clue, that's why I'm soaking up shit like this so easily. I want an answer that makes sense, and every time someone convinces me theirs makes sense, it's hard as fuck to see anything else. Answers that make sense make it hard to ask questions. That's why I come to people like you, to get my skepticism back. I need to stop losing it. Thanks all!

And I thought myself an optimist. Care to expand? A possible negative connotation to this would interest me greatly. I imagine it's the reason why others disagree with me.

If there's nobody you're tied to by duty, obligation, or other social constraints, then you aren't "free", you're "a hermit".

There is a subtle but very real difference, which can usually be detected by which person has any friends by age 40 or so.

Maybe I've been reading too much Crowley

Whoops, never mind.  I'll just see my way out.

Now, now, you do bring up a point. One I touched on in the "Rugged Individualism" thread. But, I would like to point out, that the way I see it, there is Freedom in disregard of obligation or societal constraint. But, I do see the argument that acting on "pure" will is, in a sense, a form of slavery. Maybe that's where the balance you spoke of in the "Rugged Individualism" thread comes into play?

Separating being a "hermit" from being "free," brings me to semantics. What if you were a hermit by will, and didn't need other people to live the rest of your life (Not even trying to say I would be ok with being completely alone and away from people. I love being around people. And, if it weren't for other people throughout my life, I would be dead.)? But then again, with that logic, one could argue that one is freely choosing to be influenced by society and their environment.

Fuck me, back where I started again. This ALWAYS happens.

Yeah, last I checked, there were whistle-blower avenues for public employees, not private contractors. My government teacher tried to tell me these protections applied to Snowden, but I'm pretty sure he was wrong.

My government teacher also left out what Cain said. Time to go look it up!