BF2S Forums DAST Chat

Superior Mind wrote:

Jay wrote:

Spark wrote:

Money is not the only representation of impact.

No, of course not. Some people eschew money altogether (Mother Theresa comes to mind).


Look ken, stop getting your panties in a twist. I don't value a person by their paycheck. I have a whole slew of values that I judge people by: loyalty, being good at heart, not fucking people over etc. But society as a whole cares nothing for that or they wouldn't worship pop celebrities and politicians. Society judges people by their impact, money being the easiest representation. And that is why I believe in small government libertarianism. No one really gives a fuck about anyone outside of their own locale, and you're less likely to screw over your neighbor and get away with it. Large democracies do not work well. Small ones can. I prefer a million small ones to one giant cesspool.

If society were structured like that, a million local and independent democracies, we would have to contend with the potential for tribal warfare/"Greek on Greek" fighting. Due to our present thirst for fast information and goods exchange, each independent group would be forced to have constant contact with others. Trusting each other not to devolve into bandits and raiders would be hard. Societies cannot be forced to be insular or self sufficient unless there are geographic barriers between them and others. Since the Eastern forest is mostly cut down in the US and we have highways everywhere, there is no hope of becoming a land of city states or the like. The only way would be in the case of massive decrease in the population.

I'm not suggesting we completely destroy the unifying structure of country->state->county->town/city, I'm just saying that power should be pushed down as far as possible in every case to empower the people living at the town/city level to make decisions that are best for them and their situation. The further up you go on the chain, the less efficient everything becomes because 'one size fits all' is the order of the day.

You absolutely need some unifying structure as you go up, or you will devolve into competing city-states. Having a federal government that enforces free trade between the various parties involved, punishes and/or prevents 'downstream' damage etc.

The solution doesn't come from the federal government, however, it comes from the people themselves deciding to pay more attention to local issues and elections, ignoring the national media political bullshit, and to stop expecting national politicians to solve local issues. This is real grassroots democracy, not the stupid PACs with their limited issues.

It would also require each level of the hierarchy to respect the lower levels 'home rule'. Yes, that means states rights.

Last edited by Jay (2012-09-13 08:10:40)

Superior Mind wrote:

How do you suppose the media and her allies can be destroyed?

Turning off your tv.

Superior Mind wrote:

How do you convince 300 million people to do that? And then how do you free people from the rest of the addictions of our present society?

You can't. It's completely unrealistic. The scenario I described can't happen outside of very small windows in time. People don't give a fuck about issues or education, they care about getting through the day/week/month/life with minimal hassle. Look at the garbage that is on tv every night. People simply don't care.


(people meaning 'most people')

Superior Mind wrote:

Jay, you might enjoy life in the interior of Papua New Guinea.

I wanted to join the Free State Project for a while. Google it

It would be too hard to leave all my friends and family behind

Well, from what I saw those tasks exist for the average person on top of whatever their job may be.

Last edited by Superior Mind (2012-09-13 08:47:56)

Almost every property I passed had a sign for wood for sale. The rich animal populations means that hunting and fishing is a viable means of acquiring all your animal food needs. And the distance to grocery stores and limited economy means having a garden on your land is also sensible.

Ah, I was near Mt. Washington.

Yea I did lol. It was pretty cool.

Also the assumption that people worship "pop celebrities and politicians" because of their net worth is absolutely laughable. Nobody is attracted to the sensationalism of Kanye West because of his bank balance. People are attracted to celebrity because our culture worships fame and 'being in the limelight', as well as all the accoutrements of fame - high-fashion, bling, the so-called 'celebrity lifestyle'. But nobody thinks a celebrity is worth more as a person because of their actual monetary wealth. That's laughable. People's impact, even the celebrities you talk about, is not measured by their annual gross. That's a truly idiotic idea. It's even more idiotic coming from someone of a lower-class background, who by all means should know that people with no money to their name are as deserving of respect, treatment and the basic rights and amenities of a citizen. It's like you're so desperate to forget your background that you espouse these nutjob far-far-right bastardized libertarian views... even to spite yourself and your own family.

aynrandroolz wrote:

Also the assumption that people worship "pop celebrities and politicians" because of their net worth is absolutely laughable. Nobody is attracted to the sensationalism of Kanye West because of his bank balance. People are attracted to celebrity because our culture worships fame and 'being in the limelight', as well as all the accoutrements of fame - high-fashion, bling, the so-called 'celebrity lifestyle'. But nobody thinks a celebrity is worth more as a person because of their actual monetary wealth. That's laughable. People's impact, even the celebrities you talk about, is not measured by their annual gross. That's a truly idiotic idea. It's even more idiotic coming from someone of a lower-class background, who by all means should know that people with no money to their name are as deserving of respect, treatment and the basic rights and amenities of a citizen. It's like you're so desperate to forget your background that you espouse these nutjob far-far-right bastardized libertarian views... even to spite yourself and your own family.

You missed the whole point of what I wrote. I didn't say that I held those values dear, but that society as a whole does. Does the media reflect or dictate reality? Personally, I think it's a reflection, I don't envision some puppet-master telling people to spend half their lives watching television shows about who can sing the best, who can get the best antiques at a yard sale, or who can kick a soccer ball into a net. Yes, to a certain extent, people are limited to being entertained by what is available, and certain people do control that availability, but the market generally dictates what's popular.

The arguments that I made previously were made from the standpoint of pure reason, emotion having been stripped away, and society analyzed in that context. I am no machine. I have emotions just like anyone else. I feel sad when I see people struggling to cross the street or failing to put food on the table, I do. But if you're looking at the world from above, like members of national governments do, they do not see or care to see those individuals outside of using them as an anecdote in a political speech. They deal with numbers, spreadsheets etc because there is no other way for them to do their job.

What I said was meant to be horrifying, because it is the entire foundation of the scientific view of politics. People are merely pieces to be moved around on a board. When their models break they then try to place constraints on their pieces' freedom in order to force it to conform to predetermined parameters. Is this not terrifying? It happens all the time here and is generally defined as being 'for the greater good'. My mayor recently banned soft drinks over 16 oz in size because his goal of reducing obesity was not reached. He banned smoking indoors and doubled the price of a pack of cigarettes because people weren't quitting smoking fast enough to please him. He banned trans fats because he blamed them for obesity. He tried to ban restaurants from using salt in the preparation of food. He ignored two popular votes requiring a mayor to only hold two terms and ran and won a third term. His justification was that New York was in a recession and 'who better than a billionaire knows how to fix it?'.

Spark posted this a few months ago and I thought it was an insightful line of thinking:


Modern libertarianism is in direct counter to, and was caused by, the Progressive movement and the dehumanizing bureaucracies it created. Understand that, and you'll understand why I made those arguments yesterday. At it's heart, Progressivism is not the touchy feely help the poor, save the middle class bullshit that people attach to it. It began with the primary goal of reforming government, applying scientific principles to make it more efficient, and to thus expand the power and scope of government. All the rest of it was just a way to win votes.

Jay wrote:

It was a job that people dictated needed to be done, like being a cop or a firefighter (whom I don't see you accusing of having workfare jobs).

If the govt was employing 10 times as many firefighters as were realistically needed to spend most of their time either sitting on their bums or doing pointless tasks, and setting neighbourhoods on fire now and then to justify having hired so many firefighters - yes I'd be accusing them of having workfare jobs.

I don't have a problem with workfare, its much better than simple handouts. To say the bulk of the US military isn't just a socialist tax-and-spend alternative to dole is daft - unless you're really expecting the Russians and Chinese to invade mainland America - and on foot.

Its a shame nations of brown people have to obliterated on a regular basis to reinforce the myth.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-09-14 06:05:59)

U. of Texas orders evacuation after bomb threats

University of Texas spokeswoman Rhonda Weldon said the university received a call about 8:35 a.m. from a man with a Middle Eastern accent claiming to be with al-Qaida.

well. that's one way to get out of a Friday class.