Join Civilization

[NghtRppr]

There are two ways we can interact with other people, civilized or uncivilized. The civilized way to interact with other people is to interact voluntarily, meaning, you don't initiate violence against other people or their property. The uncivilized way, the barbaric way, is to interact involuntarily, meaning, you initiate violence against other people or their property, for any reason. If you support statist governments then you support barbarism. You're uncivilized.

Taxation is involuntary. Being a citizen is involuntary because we can't secede. We can't part ways with the government and keep our property. That's a form of slavery, extortion or theft depending on circumstances but it's always at least one of those. We need to leave our barbaric past behind us and fully embrace civilization. Stop advocating initiatory violence and stop supporting institutions that commit initiatory violence. Join civilization.

[1714824008]

1714824008

[billyjoeallen]

There are two ways we can interact with other people, civilized or uncivilized. The civilized way to interact with other people is to interact voluntarily, meaning, you don't initiate violence against other people or their property. The uncivilized way, the barbaric way, is to interact involuntarily, meaning, you initiate violence against other people or their property, for any reason. If you support statist governments then you support barbarism. You're uncivilized.

Taxation is involuntary. Being a citizen is involuntary because we can't secede. We can't part ways with the government and keep our property. That's a form of slavery, extortion or theft depending on circumstances but it's always at least one of those. We need to leave our barbaric past behind us and fully embrace civilization. Stop advocating initiatory violence and stop supporting institutions that commit initiatory violence. Join civilization.

+1

[myrkul]

I Joined:
http://shiresociety.com/

[lemonginger]

seems to me you've got that one reversed. i'll be happy when everyone is un-civilized again myself.

[benjamindees]

"What do you think of Western Civilization?"

[Sovereign]

Glad to see the principle of voluntaryism gaining ground.

[bitrain]

Bitcoin smells like a great changes in this world...

[bitplane]

We can't part ways with the government and keep our property.

As a counter-point, what exactly makes you entitled to any "property" other than your flesh? The idea of ownership of anything is also an involuntary system which is imposed on us from birth, why should people be entitled to land and objects when these are just things which are (indirectly yet violently, by territorial pissings) taken from the natural world?

[TheGer]

As a counter-point, why should people NOT be entitled to land and objects?  Do we tell a Lion he doesn't have rights to his pride?  Or that his territory doesn't belong to him?  If we could communicate such things to the Lion what would he do?  If we contested his point of view what would/could we do to show the Lion the error of his ways?

In both questions, the answer is a matter of enforcing ones will.  The Lion will kill to keep what's "his".  Will we kill the Lion to show him that it's not really "his" at all?  Does that make it ours?  It may as well right?

If we mearly say to ourselves from out all mighty oillars of wisdom that the Lion doesn't really own anything does that make it so? 

Ownership and property come from ones willingness and ability to enforce ones will upon the world to keep and control it, not some intellectual pandering claiming you have that right or not.

We can't part ways with the government and keep our property.

As a counter-point, what exactly makes you entitled to any "property" other than your flesh? The idea of ownership of anything is also an involuntary system which is imposed on us from birth, why should people be entitled to land and objects when these are just things which are (indirectly yet violently, by territorial pissings) taken from the natural world?

[NghtRppr]

what exactly makes you entitled to any "property" other than your flesh?

If I plow a field, plant a crop and harvest that crop then you come and take my harvest, that's stealing my labor. It's not much different from forcing me to do labor for you, aka slavery.

[chickenado]

There are two ways we can interact with other people, civilized or uncivilized. The civilized way to interact with other people is to interact voluntarily, meaning, you don't initiate violence against other people or their property.

Statists will agree with you, except that their concept of property is more fuzzy than yours, for instance they will say that in some circumstances your property rights extend into other people's bodies and the other way around.

[bitplane]

Ownership and property come from ones willingness and ability to enforce ones will upon the world to keep and control it, not some intellectual pandering claiming you have that right or not.

Exactly, ownership itself is based in violence or threat of violence. Claiming that you're more civilized than the next person because you don't agree with violence is hypocritical unless you are a pacifist nomad who rejects the notion of property.

[myrkul]

Ownership and property come from ones willingness and ability to enforce ones will upon the world to keep and control it, not some intellectual pandering claiming you have that right or not.

Exactly, ownership itself is based in violence or threat of violence. Claiming that you're more civilized than the next person because you don't agree with violence is hypocritical unless you are a pacifist nomad who rejects the notion of property.

Awesome. Mind if I borrow a kidney?

[NghtRppr]

Claiming that you're more civilized than the next person because you don't agree with violence is hypocritical unless you are a pacifist nomad who rejects the notion of property.

First of all, calling me a hypocrite is simply an ad hominem. Second, I never claimed violence per se is immoral. I'm perfectly fine with self-defense of person or property. I don't condone initiatory violence, however.

[bitplane]

Claiming that you're more civilized than the next person because you don't agree with violence is hypocritical unless you are a pacifist nomad who rejects the notion of property.

First of all, calling me a hypocrite is simply an ad hominem. Second, I never claimed violence per se is immoral. I'm perfectly fine with self-defense of person or property. I don't condone initiatory violence, however.

No, an ad hominem is a fallacy where the perpetrator uses an attack on the character of a person to deduce that they are wrong. In politics, it's foolish to suggest that anyone is right or wrong, there is no truth only opinion. I didn't even call you a hypocrite (an attack on your person), I commented on your statements (an attack on an idea).

In addition, your willingness to defend your property is the threat of initiatory violence toward anyone who rejects your philosophical stance on ownership.

[NghtRppr]

No, an ad hominem is a fallacy where the perpetrator uses an attack on the character of a person to deduce that they are wrong.

If you weren't implying that I'm wrong then what's the relevance of accusing me of being a hypocrite? Ideas don't engage in hypocrisy. People do. Hypocrisy is the act of claiming to hold a belief or value that one does not truly hold. So how can an idea even be hypocritical? That's a rhetorical question. I don't really care to discuss that. Just stick to trying to prove my statements to be either logically inconsistent or factually incorrect.

In addition, your willingness to defend your property is the threat of initiatory violence toward anyone who rejects your philosophical stance on ownership.

What am I to conclude from this? Am I to conclude that therefore their philosophical stance overrules my own? What exactly is your point?

[bitplane]

If you weren't implying that I'm wrong then what's the relevance of accusing me of being a hypocrite?

You're missing the point. "bitcoin2cash rapes babies therefore his statement is false" is an ad-hominem.

What am I to conclude from this? Am I to conclude that therefore their philosophical stance overrules my own? What exactly is your point?

By your own measurement of being civilized, assuming that being civilized is a good thing, yes. I make no judgement myself because I don't give a shit either way, but you're the one accusing people of barbarism based on the criteria of initiating violence.

[NghtRppr]

Am I to conclude that therefore their philosophical stance overrules my own?

By your own measurement of being civilized, assuming that being civilized is a good thing, yes.

Why? Why doesn't my philosophical stance overrule theirs?

[bitplane]

Why? Why doesn't my philosophical stance overrule theirs?

In whose eyes? Philosophical stances are all just opinion.

[NghtRppr]

Philosophical stances are all just opinion.

Yes, it's just an opinion that murder, rape and theft are wrong. However, if you disagree with my opinion, why should I care?