The Maelstrom of Violence

[Kinser79]

(09-25-2017, 05:07 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-24-2017, 09:51 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.  But I will say this about Thoreau, I have always found his works to be rather insipid, but then again Fredrick Douglas has always resonated with me more strongly than any of the trancendentalists who mostly scribbled what looks like woo-woo on the level that Eric posts every day.

That's a decent synopsis of how values work.  If an idea doesn't mesh with what you already believe, you find an excuse not to listen or understand.

Yeah well it isn't hard to disreguard the transcendentalists. Seriously if you read them, it reads like the new age shit Eric posts about but in 19th century speak. It is totally uninteresting or enlightening. I did have to read some of them for English Class though, but I often got poor grades in Literature anyway since I often came up with things that were the opposite of what Mrs. White-Liberal-Teaching-Lady wanted me to.

Quote:

(09-24-2017, 09:51 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I did describe them accurately, and it also applies to the current crop of Dims too.  As for populist politicans, actually I haven't.  Daddy isn't a politician which is why the Swamp hates him.  

Of course he his a politician.  As soon as he declared himself and started entering primaries, he was a politician.  Hiring half the swamp was gravy.  

I disagree. Being an elected official does not a politician make. If you noticed most of the people he's hired have had a 6-7 month tenure in office and then he fires them. He hires swamp creatures because they know where the levers are and can show him where they are. Once he knows where they are and what they do, he fires the swamp thing and replaces them with someone more reliable.

Quote:

(09-24-2017, 09:51 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: I'm going to "flame" whomever I choose to, for whatever reason I choose too.  If that hurts your fee fees I don't care.  Fuck your fee fees!

As for banning...I'm not interested in banning anyone unless they're up on the forum posting tons of spam or porn or something.  

Obscenity?

Were I a moderator, which I am not, I would not ban anyone for saying "shit" or "fuck" or even "nigger". And believe me some of you people can be far more obscene without using any of those words. If you want a forum where such things would be censored you're free to go there, or fuckbook or where ever.

Quote:The unraveling memes

Don't care. Just because you're stuck in a time warp doesn't mean the rest of us are.

Quote:

(09-24-2017, 09:51 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Great, we have another who can't come up with an original argument.  Back to your papal bull meme again.  When it comes to my view of PBR it is formed off of his statements and his actions.  Is my interpretation of those statements and actions influenced by my world view?  Yes, but whose isn't?  Certainly not yours.

You do have strong values, which in many ways is great, but you do tend to try to project them absurdly.  Try to listen to yourself.

I do listen to myself. If you notice that when I post I rarely use mispelled words, and often have correct punctuation. This means that when I post I take the time to proof read and make sure that I'm saying what I want to say.

As for projection, is that you just projecting yourself onto others as you do incredibly frequently or is that you honestly see me as doing. Obviously the previous sentence is a rhetorical question--I honestly don't care one way or the other, as demonstrated in previous posts you have little to no understanding of economics and thus have little to no understanding of anything else.

Quote:

(09-24-2017, 09:51 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: As Philip Johnson said:  The first complete sentence out of my mouth was probably that line about consistency being the hobgoblin of small minds.

Still, utter inconsistency isn't the best part of your act.

I'm glad to see that particular hobgoblin has crept in and boggles your tiny mind.

Quote:

(09-24-2017, 09:51 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Are you stupid?  Government is force, it has always been force, and always will be force.  The main difference between a state's government and the mafia is that the government on occasion throws a public popularity contest where as the mafia has no need for such extravagances.

You really think that?  This is what I mean by having unusual values and trying to project them as truth.  We could stand more off the wall opinions, but people should know when they are off the wall.

Of course I really think that. Why does the government have the authority it does? Because it is assumed to also have the only legitimate use of force in society. Ergo government must be force. A mafia is force as well. The question is as to whether a government is force or is not force, not as to whether or not the use of that force is legitimate; which is an entirely separate question.

As for it being off the wall, not so much. It is purely logical and only off the wall to those who are inherently illogical, which maybe, Bob, you are.

Quote:

(09-24-2017, 09:51 PM)Kinser79 Wrote: Man in his primordial state is in a state of anarchy.  Indeed I'd go so far as to say that anarchy is man's natural state, and wanting to have civilization yet remain as close to the natural state as possible I have slowly, accepted that minarchism is a requirement to maintain civilization.

You are closer to Thoreau than you know, if allergic to the trappings, thus unable to comprehend his ideas.  "That government is best which governs least..."

But I find the premise questionable.  I've looked enough at great apes and their governing structures to expect, leaders, territories, tribes, etc...  They lack the language needed to go as far with it as humans, but I seriously doubt mankind's primordial state was anarchy.  Basing a political system on a convenient lie is problematic.  Like it or not, we are a political species.  The question is how to force the elites to respect the needs and wants of every man.  

We will have to see...

As I said previously, my main problem with Thoreau is the pseudo-mystical nonsense he wraps up his libertarianism in, not the libertarianism itself. I also mentioned Fredrick Douglass who wrote about politics extensively and yet avoided what I term woo-woo and found him much more appealing. The same can be said of other writers, while I may agree with what they have to say stripped of all the nonsense, it is the nonsense that I have a problem with.

As to anarchy, I mean anarchy in the sense that a state is absent. The state is a more recent invention of mankind arising around the time of the agricultural revolution. While humans may be political animals, isolated tribes in the amazon do not have a state just like the pygmies of the Congo also lack a state.

Since both are in as close to a state of nature as is observable, then it becomes clear that anarchy is the natural state.