Oh look, it's Mr. Sit-on-his-fat-ass-and-bitch guy, bitching about people who actually act on their beliefs and try to make the world better. Not that I can really find anything all that damning in the docs, but why paint all protesters as idiots who get worked up over nothing? Maybe you are envious? All real progress in the world has come from people like the ones you insult, not from people like you.
That's why I love Slashdot. It has never pretended to be anything more than Cmdr. Taco's personal blog. Yet it works better, and this little dictatorship is more open and free than Wikipedia. What does that say about human nature?
Coerced rulership is not okay, but in an anarchist society, people would more than likely freely create an entity like the FCC to mediate the issues of public use of the airwaves, as airwaves are a rather strange type of property that doesn't work like real property. Although the airwaves may be amenable to certain free market solutions to the problems of externalities, I still think people would create a body to arbitrate disputes.
Anarchism means no coercive rulership, it does not mean lawlessness and disorder. People under anarchism can still create governments and elect leaders. They just won't use force for anything but defense.
Anyone could start one, but competing with a large monopoly like that is impossible. They would use every trick in the book to destroy competition. Undercut them until they went under, pay off suppliers to raise prices, buy up anything they could. I understand that libertarians believe that without government, there would be perfect competition, but I don't see the evidence for that.
Creating monopolies? They are also stopping them. The article is about them wanting to change that, so to answer your question, yes. The FCC currently prevents large media conglomerates from getting larger. Without the FCC, there would likely be only one media conglomerate in America, owning all publishing, television, radio, and movies.
I feel obliged to mention at this point, for our non Hawaiian friends, that crack seed is just dried fruit. With maybe some hot sweet sour salty coating called li hing mui on it. Stuff like prunes and dates. There are plenty of other foodstuffs to be found in Hawaii that you should be way, way more frightened of. Like poi.
Well damn. That's a kick in the pants, but don't think I haven't thought it before. I had even taken martial arts before that, have been in other fights, and come out on top. Deadalus, I could so easily hate you for implying what you just did, but I don't. In fact, in some weird way, I am now over all the other shit that has passed between us here, as well, and am actually starting to like you. I've thought all that, but no one has ever had the balls mention it.
I said "taken" rather than "lost" for a reason, you insensitive clod. "Taken" implies that I resisted, that it was taken by force. "Lost" implies that, oops, I misplaced the fucking thing. Way to read "hippie liberal pacifist" into a situation where it doesn't apply. Not that I don't put out that vibe. Dude.
Truth is, I was at an Industrial Workers of the World union meeting earlier that night. Talking about solidarity, how all people who worked for a living and created all the value in our economy should band together to protect our interests regardless of race. I'd been on a picket line all that day, fighting for some fellow workers who were being denied the right to bargain collectively. And before you scream, "Unions? Fucking leaches!" read up on the IWW, because that's what they were saying in 1904.
The truth is, it will take the best ideas from socialist anarchism and individualist anarchism to make anarchism work. If you are really about "No coercive government" then don't dismiss me. I've been interacting with you for a reason.
Let's take this over to a journal. Why don't you make a JE, I'll friend you so I can see when you post something there. This thread will close soon, and I'll be all like, "Hey, where's that cool Besna dude I was bull shitting with?" The truth is, I love pocket philosophies and I love discussing them. I'm just trying to be all Zen about it. "OOh, look at me, I'm all wise and enlightened and shit." Yeah, I'm a pain in the ass.
Here's more to get us started: In the beginning was zero, but that created a paradox, because all definitions are created in pairs by dividing the undivided all. So "nothing" implies "something." To exist, zero needs a reference. Where can this reference to zero be? There is no room yet, so it 'creates' the room. It is unit distance from zero, defining the first dimension, and "one." But this line is now unbalanced, and needs a further reference to exist. That reference is unit distance away from both zero and one, defining a plane, the second dimension. And so forth on up through the dimensions, with each one adding new scope of possible attributes. For instance, two points define the attribute of extension, or distance, while the third adds the attribute of angle or spin.
In Taoism, there is the Tao, the way. That is undefinable, but people still say it is made up of Yang and Yin. The deepest meaning of these two words are "Simple" and "Easy," respectively. Yang is the active and Yin is the passive. Yang is the nothing that refers to everything while yin is everything that refers to nothing. Thus the Tao is the undifferentiated all, while Yang and Yin are the zero and one that it splits apart into. Why does it split? Because "undifferentiated" means that it also contains all differentiations. To say otherwise is to place a concrete definition on it, and it is beyond all possible concrete definitions.
Yeah, but no one outside of Hawaii knows what Musubi is. You say "Spam sushi" and people will picture spam on rice wrapped in nori. I lived in Waianae, on Oahu's leeward coast. The manapua man came around every day. When I lived in Honolulu, I still saw manapua men driving around, but not as often. You are right though, every 7-11 carries Spam masubi. And manapua otherwise known as chinese pork buns, which is what I would eat for a snack. How about that crack seed, huh? Or shave ice. Man, no one on the mainland knows how to make shave ice. They are in too much of a hurry so they end up making snow cones instead of a proper shave ice, which should have the consistency of fresh snow.
You have no idea if 'the threads of self' are separate or not. You assume they are because you appear to have privileged access to the contents of your own head, and no access to the contents of others' heads. This is appearance, not necessarily fact. We could be living in a simulation where the sentients in the outside context have complete information on our thoughts, as one example. The sense of self does not go back in time to infinity. Time itself doesn't even go back that far. Time was created in the big bang, so it useless to speak about what happened before. There was no before.
The sense of self has something to do with memory, sure, but its primary function is to make sense of the mental models we build of the world. When we model the world, we also model ourselves so that the rest of our models has something to refer to. We notice, 'hunger exists' and the question arises, "who is hungry?" the sense of self answers, "I am hungry" and there is motivation to find food. A plan is made, "food must be found," and the question arises, "who must find food," so the sense of self answers, "I must." That is all. Do not attach some mystical importance to self, and do not anthropomorphize the universe by believing that it has a sense of self like you do. The all does not have a sense of self, even though it contains all sense of self. This is because the sense of self is finite and refers to the conditions of finite beings.
I don't lie awake at night. I sleep with perfect peace. I don't fear death, I've already died. I don't need to claim anything. I used to, and came up with all kinds of pocket philosophies like yours, but people said the same thing to me that I'm saying to you. The search for understanding is a search for control, motivated by fear. There is no control, because there is nothing outside of the all, and everything inside the all is one with the conditions in which it arises. The universe is no empty stage, and we are no actors that walk upon it. Stage and actor are all part of the same thing.
You don't even know what emptiness means, and you are obviously scared of zero because you seem to have a mental block against including it in your pocket philosophy. True emptiness isn't empty. Empty is a definition, true emptiness can not be defined. It is undivided. Saying it contains nothing makes a division of the all into "That which contains nothing" and "That which contains something." The true void contains all things, all definitions, all that is empty, and all that is undefined. But even that is a definition, and so is fundamentally false. If you are still caught in dualistic thinking, this will all seem like nonsense, I know.
As you ask what I claim, I'll give you one of my cast off pocket philosophies. Consider the true void as an infinite string of random numbers. Some subsets of those numbers can define universal laws, and others starting conditions. Those combinations which create universes in which arise intelligences which can deduce the nature of their universe are the ones that exist.
In our universe, time runs in two streams, forward and back. It 'starts' with the end, the universe's own perfect self understanding. This travels back in time, losing information the whole way. This creates the scope of possibility through which actuality will manifest. The lost information isn't lost, it just moves from the backwards time stream to the forwards one, determining the actual path taken from all the other possibilities.
So, the universe starts with perfect knowledge, but no possibilities; goes backwards to perfect possibility with no knowledge (in the process defining the scope of what is possible) and then moves forward, creating the actual path between the birth and the self actualization of the universe.
That's just one. I used to come up with crap like that all the time. You can have it if you like it, or throw it in the garbage where it belongs. True or not, like your own little philosophy, it signifies nothing important. You know what is important? Fluorescent lights. You know why? Because there is one in the room with me. I can see it, I can hear it, and it means more, implies more than any amount of empty words will ever mean.
An ape could read the tax code, he just wouldn't understand it. And neither would you unless you'd been trained because the language is legalese and the words mean different things than you are used to, and refer to years of interpretation of case law that you are unfamiliar with.
You are one to talk, you come across as if there is no other possible path but yours, and anyone who disagrees with you is morally bankrupt! You even say that you are sure that the path you walk is the only one! Do you have any idea how annoying that is? If you weren't so smugly certain of yourself, I wouldn't try to antagonize you as much as I do. Don't give me your bad advice, don't tell me how much more you've experienced in your many years than (obviously young and inexperienced) I have. I mean, only an inexperienced young man could possibly believe such foolish ideas, right? Bullshit. You imply that I've thought less about this than you have, that anyone who has thought about it sufficiently would come to the same conclusions. That is incredibly selfish and self centered thinking.
I'll tell you what I think. I don't think you are approaching this rationally at all. You even admit the causative factors: you were ripped off and the police didn't help you out. Then you were arrested. Therefore, society sucks, groups suck, it's every man for himself. Gosh, that's healthy. You know what? I had my left eye taken from me by a group of thugs. The cops did nothing. I've also been beaten by cops for handing out free food, so don't step to me with your whiny bullshit. None of that made me a selfish bastard, it made me want to do more, to care more about my fellow man. A much lesser bad experience turned you into a bitter anti-social libertarian. If that's where your path leads, I want none of it.
Actually, Spam is considered a delicacy in the Pacific Islands. In Hawaii, you can buy Spam sushi from the manapua man. He's a guy who drives around in an ice cream truck selling pork buns, candy, and spam products. I shit you not. Some claim that the Pacific Islander's spam mania comes from their cannabilistic heritage and Spam's taste resemblance to the other, other white meat. I sort of doubt it, I think it's more of a cargo cult type of thing. Magical meat in a can that never goes bad had to have impressed the heck out of tropical islanders when it first arrived.
Thanks for the ad hominem. It shows everyone here what I already knew: you have no debating skills and your values are as bankrupt as most so-called individualists.
Everyone should profit from their actions. They should not profit from the actions of others. Social anarchists believe that. Individualist anarchists think they should have the right to profit from others, if they have the power to do so. That is why they do not like people banding together to protect their own interests. They would rather that everyone stand on their own, to be taken like sheep and sheered one by one.
You spoke of "the rights of the collective" but what that really means is, "the rights of the individual, as protected by the collective," and you obviously hate it when people have the power to protect themselves from your selfish greed.
I can't even follow your twisted logic about profit, income, and taxes. Maybe I didn't drink enough libertarian Kool-aid. "Income is profits so taxes are bad and your time is worthless!" Riiiiight, okay buddy, whatever you say.
Wow, how much misinformation can you pack into one post? Firstly, people are just as likely to go social anarchist as they are to go individualist anarchist, given the experience you mention. NY is anything but leftist these days, it is still far right of center. But then, 'left wing' here in America is 'far right' in most of the rest of the world.
Collectivists don't believe the collective has all the rights and individuals have none. That's a nonsensical statement. Collectives are made of individuals, and the rights that collectives protect are individual rights. Some people just don't like it when a group of people get together to protect their rights. They want to be able to take advantage of individuals on an individual basis. People who claim to be 'individualists' tend not to honor the rights of others, seeing their own individual rights as trumping anyone else's. They want a free ride, letting everyone else contribute and claiming that their taking of profit is in fact a contribution.
And English words mean exactly the same thing to every sentient being in all places and times. Just stop it. Stop thinking, you're never going to get it with all that thinking getting in the way. You are stuck in dualism. Subject and object are arbitrary. You are not an self-existing, separate and self-defined entity. You are not a soul. You are not a little man inside your head, looking out through your eyes and listening through your ears. The sense of self is only another sensory track, like sight or sound. It is not separate, it does not signify a thing-unto-itself. You are caught in the trap of symbolism, so caught you can't even see the real world, only your own symbols for it.
Your original post is only wordplay, signifying nothing. That's why I called it masturbatory. There are an infinite number of catchy little lists like yours, and none of them mean anything. I'm trying to show you something real. But as usual, it's like I'm pointing at the moon, and saying "moon," only for you to point at my finger and ask, "moon?" No, that's my damn finger. Look what I'm pointing at.
You are thoroughly confused, and will only get more so if you keep to this path.
Where does the definition of sentient come from? Where does the definition of definition come from? You haven't thought about this deeply enough. One cannot represent anything. The idea of representation must first be defined, the idea of reference. Where does reference come from, originally? Why did the undivided and undefined divide and become defined? It is because it is undivided. Thus is contains all divisions. Because it is undefined, it contains all definition. The undefined is your starting point, not something definite like one. Figure out how one came about from null, and you'll be on the right track. It has to do with reference, division, and definition, that's the only hint I'll give you.
Reread this thread. I just did, to make sure. I never said that we weren't influenced by other sources, just that we were influenced by the Iroquois, and that our Republic is closer in form to theirs than to the others mentioned. Which I've shown to be correct. So how exactly am I doing the idea a disservice? Other than by being my usual prickish self, of course.
Simplistic and incorrect. You forgot 0. There was something before all divisions and definitions, especially before the division between self and non self. And anything you can say about that is, all at the same time, incorrect, correct, neither correct nor incorrect, and both correct and incorrect. But this is all just philosophical masturbation. Not that I don't enjoy a good wank now and then, but here's a thought. Stop trying to define. The desire to define and categorize comes from fear of the unknown. Just stop. Be here now.;-)
They might not be East Asian in appearance, but that's where the Ainu are from. While they may look Caucasian, genetic testing shows they have absolutely no Caucasian ancestry. There are no mainstream archaeological discoveries that show that there were any Caucasians here prior to people migrating here over the land bridge. Indians, or rather their Asian ancestors, were here first. I challenge you to show me even one legitimate peer reviewed article claiming otherwise. And as I said, Kennewick Man was Ainu, and Ainu are East Asian. This study of genetics only proves what every mainstream archaeologist without weird racial motivations has been saying for the last twenty years.
If people were blind to race, then government could be. Racism is still a huge problem here in America.
All you need to say is, "I don't advocate firing DU rounds down roads in urban areas." Right now, hate to say it, that's still in question. You still haven't denied wanting to fire DU rounds down urban roads, you're just waffling.
Just a thought, what percentage of IEDs are used in areas where a DU round would cause major collateral damage? Maybe that's why you're having a hard time saying that, and trying to distract with faux outrage. Because you know that if you limit your proposed solution to isolated areas, it becomes pointless. You have painted yourself into a corner. Either you admit you have no qualms with killing innocents, or you admit that your proposed solution is pointless.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh look, it's Mr. Sit-on-his-fat-ass-and-bitch guy, bitching about people who actually act on their beliefs and try to make the world better. Not that I can really find anything all that damning in the docs, but why paint all protesters as idiots who get worked up over nothing? Maybe you are envious? All real progress in the world has come from people like the ones you insult, not from people like you.
That's why I love Slashdot. It has never pretended to be anything more than Cmdr. Taco's personal blog. Yet it works better, and this little dictatorship is more open and free than Wikipedia. What does that say about human nature?
Coerced rulership is not okay, but in an anarchist society, people would more than likely freely create an entity like the FCC to mediate the issues of public use of the airwaves, as airwaves are a rather strange type of property that doesn't work like real property. Although the airwaves may be amenable to certain free market solutions to the problems of externalities, I still think people would create a body to arbitrate disputes.
Anarchism means no coercive rulership, it does not mean lawlessness and disorder. People under anarchism can still create governments and elect leaders. They just won't use force for anything but defense.
Anyone could start one, but competing with a large monopoly like that is impossible. They would use every trick in the book to destroy competition. Undercut them until they went under, pay off suppliers to raise prices, buy up anything they could. I understand that libertarians believe that without government, there would be perfect competition, but I don't see the evidence for that.
Creating monopolies? They are also stopping them. The article is about them wanting to change that, so to answer your question, yes. The FCC currently prevents large media conglomerates from getting larger. Without the FCC, there would likely be only one media conglomerate in America, owning all publishing, television, radio, and movies.
Sounds like Ina's junk was filtered some time ago. But be nice, trannies are people too.
I feel obliged to mention at this point, for our non Hawaiian friends, that crack seed is just dried fruit. With maybe some hot sweet sour salty coating called li hing mui on it. Stuff like prunes and dates. There are plenty of other foodstuffs to be found in Hawaii that you should be way, way more frightened of. Like poi.
Well damn. That's a kick in the pants, but don't think I haven't thought it before. I had even taken martial arts before that, have been in other fights, and come out on top. Deadalus, I could so easily hate you for implying what you just did, but I don't. In fact, in some weird way, I am now over all the other shit that has passed between us here, as well, and am actually starting to like you. I've thought all that, but no one has ever had the balls mention it.
I said "taken" rather than "lost" for a reason, you insensitive clod. "Taken" implies that I resisted, that it was taken by force. "Lost" implies that, oops, I misplaced the fucking thing. Way to read "hippie liberal pacifist" into a situation where it doesn't apply. Not that I don't put out that vibe. Dude.
Truth is, I was at an Industrial Workers of the World union meeting earlier that night. Talking about solidarity, how all people who worked for a living and created all the value in our economy should band together to protect our interests regardless of race. I'd been on a picket line all that day, fighting for some fellow workers who were being denied the right to bargain collectively. And before you scream, "Unions? Fucking leaches!" read up on the IWW, because that's what they were saying in 1904.
The truth is, it will take the best ideas from socialist anarchism and individualist anarchism to make anarchism work. If you are really about "No coercive government" then don't dismiss me. I've been interacting with you for a reason.
But a brain is more than likely, and to the best of our current scientific understanding, just a really, really complicated abacus.
Let's take this over to a journal. Why don't you make a JE, I'll friend you so I can see when you post something there. This thread will close soon, and I'll be all like, "Hey, where's that cool Besna dude I was bull shitting with?" The truth is, I love pocket philosophies and I love discussing them. I'm just trying to be all Zen about it. "OOh, look at me, I'm all wise and enlightened and shit." Yeah, I'm a pain in the ass.
Here's more to get us started: In the beginning was zero, but that created a paradox, because all definitions are created in pairs by dividing the undivided all. So "nothing" implies "something." To exist, zero needs a reference. Where can this reference to zero be? There is no room yet, so it 'creates' the room. It is unit distance from zero, defining the first dimension, and "one." But this line is now unbalanced, and needs a further reference to exist. That reference is unit distance away from both zero and one, defining a plane, the second dimension. And so forth on up through the dimensions, with each one adding new scope of possible attributes. For instance, two points define the attribute of extension, or distance, while the third adds the attribute of angle or spin.
In Taoism, there is the Tao, the way. That is undefinable, but people still say it is made up of Yang and Yin. The deepest meaning of these two words are "Simple" and "Easy," respectively. Yang is the active and Yin is the passive. Yang is the nothing that refers to everything while yin is everything that refers to nothing. Thus the Tao is the undifferentiated all, while Yang and Yin are the zero and one that it splits apart into. Why does it split? Because "undifferentiated" means that it also contains all differentiations. To say otherwise is to place a concrete definition on it, and it is beyond all possible concrete definitions.
Yeah, but no one outside of Hawaii knows what Musubi is. You say "Spam sushi" and people will picture spam on rice wrapped in nori. I lived in Waianae, on Oahu's leeward coast. The manapua man came around every day. When I lived in Honolulu, I still saw manapua men driving around, but not as often. You are right though, every 7-11 carries Spam masubi. And manapua otherwise known as chinese pork buns, which is what I would eat for a snack. How about that crack seed, huh? Or shave ice. Man, no one on the mainland knows how to make shave ice. They are in too much of a hurry so they end up making snow cones instead of a proper shave ice, which should have the consistency of fresh snow.
I miss Hawaii.
You have no idea if 'the threads of self' are separate or not. You assume they are because you appear to have privileged access to the contents of your own head, and no access to the contents of others' heads. This is appearance, not necessarily fact. We could be living in a simulation where the sentients in the outside context have complete information on our thoughts, as one example. The sense of self does not go back in time to infinity. Time itself doesn't even go back that far. Time was created in the big bang, so it useless to speak about what happened before. There was no before.
The sense of self has something to do with memory, sure, but its primary function is to make sense of the mental models we build of the world. When we model the world, we also model ourselves so that the rest of our models has something to refer to. We notice, 'hunger exists' and the question arises, "who is hungry?" the sense of self answers, "I am hungry" and there is motivation to find food. A plan is made, "food must be found," and the question arises, "who must find food," so the sense of self answers, "I must." That is all. Do not attach some mystical importance to self, and do not anthropomorphize the universe by believing that it has a sense of self like you do. The all does not have a sense of self, even though it contains all sense of self. This is because the sense of self is finite and refers to the conditions of finite beings.
I don't lie awake at night. I sleep with perfect peace. I don't fear death, I've already died. I don't need to claim anything. I used to, and came up with all kinds of pocket philosophies like yours, but people said the same thing to me that I'm saying to you. The search for understanding is a search for control, motivated by fear. There is no control, because there is nothing outside of the all, and everything inside the all is one with the conditions in which it arises. The universe is no empty stage, and we are no actors that walk upon it. Stage and actor are all part of the same thing.
You don't even know what emptiness means, and you are obviously scared of zero because you seem to have a mental block against including it in your pocket philosophy. True emptiness isn't empty. Empty is a definition, true emptiness can not be defined. It is undivided. Saying it contains nothing makes a division of the all into "That which contains nothing" and "That which contains something." The true void contains all things, all definitions, all that is empty, and all that is undefined. But even that is a definition, and so is fundamentally false. If you are still caught in dualistic thinking, this will all seem like nonsense, I know.
As you ask what I claim, I'll give you one of my cast off pocket philosophies. Consider the true void as an infinite string of random numbers. Some subsets of those numbers can define universal laws, and others starting conditions. Those combinations which create universes in which arise intelligences which can deduce the nature of their universe are the ones that exist.
In our universe, time runs in two streams, forward and back. It 'starts' with the end, the universe's own perfect self understanding. This travels back in time, losing information the whole way. This creates the scope of possibility through which actuality will manifest. The lost information isn't lost, it just moves from the backwards time stream to the forwards one, determining the actual path taken from all the other possibilities.
So, the universe starts with perfect knowledge, but no possibilities; goes backwards to perfect possibility with no knowledge (in the process defining the scope of what is possible) and then moves forward, creating the actual path between the birth and the self actualization of the universe.
That's just one. I used to come up with crap like that all the time. You can have it if you like it, or throw it in the garbage where it belongs. True or not, like your own little philosophy, it signifies nothing important. You know what is important? Fluorescent lights. You know why? Because there is one in the room with me. I can see it, I can hear it, and it means more, implies more than any amount of empty words will ever mean.
An ape could read the tax code, he just wouldn't understand it. And neither would you unless you'd been trained because the language is legalese and the words mean different things than you are used to, and refer to years of interpretation of case law that you are unfamiliar with.
You are one to talk, you come across as if there is no other possible path but yours, and anyone who disagrees with you is morally bankrupt! You even say that you are sure that the path you walk is the only one! Do you have any idea how annoying that is? If you weren't so smugly certain of yourself, I wouldn't try to antagonize you as much as I do. Don't give me your bad advice, don't tell me how much more you've experienced in your many years than (obviously young and inexperienced) I have. I mean, only an inexperienced young man could possibly believe such foolish ideas, right? Bullshit. You imply that I've thought less about this than you have, that anyone who has thought about it sufficiently would come to the same conclusions. That is incredibly selfish and self centered thinking.
I'll tell you what I think. I don't think you are approaching this rationally at all. You even admit the causative factors: you were ripped off and the police didn't help you out. Then you were arrested. Therefore, society sucks, groups suck, it's every man for himself. Gosh, that's healthy. You know what? I had my left eye taken from me by a group of thugs. The cops did nothing. I've also been beaten by cops for handing out free food, so don't step to me with your whiny bullshit. None of that made me a selfish bastard, it made me want to do more, to care more about my fellow man. A much lesser bad experience turned you into a bitter anti-social libertarian. If that's where your path leads, I want none of it.
Actually, Spam is considered a delicacy in the Pacific Islands. In Hawaii, you can buy Spam sushi from the manapua man. He's a guy who drives around in an ice cream truck selling pork buns, candy, and spam products. I shit you not. Some claim that the Pacific Islander's spam mania comes from their cannabilistic heritage and Spam's taste resemblance to the other, other white meat. I sort of doubt it, I think it's more of a cargo cult type of thing. Magical meat in a can that never goes bad had to have impressed the heck out of tropical islanders when it first arrived.
Thanks for the ad hominem. It shows everyone here what I already knew: you have no debating skills and your values are as bankrupt as most so-called individualists.
Everyone should profit from their actions. They should not profit from the actions of others. Social anarchists believe that. Individualist anarchists think they should have the right to profit from others, if they have the power to do so. That is why they do not like people banding together to protect their own interests. They would rather that everyone stand on their own, to be taken like sheep and sheered one by one.
You spoke of "the rights of the collective" but what that really means is, "the rights of the individual, as protected by the collective," and you obviously hate it when people have the power to protect themselves from your selfish greed.
I can't even follow your twisted logic about profit, income, and taxes. Maybe I didn't drink enough libertarian Kool-aid. "Income is profits so taxes are bad and your time is worthless!" Riiiiight, okay buddy, whatever you say.
Wow, how much misinformation can you pack into one post? Firstly, people are just as likely to go social anarchist as they are to go individualist anarchist, given the experience you mention. NY is anything but leftist these days, it is still far right of center. But then, 'left wing' here in America is 'far right' in most of the rest of the world.
Collectivists don't believe the collective has all the rights and individuals have none. That's a nonsensical statement. Collectives are made of individuals, and the rights that collectives protect are individual rights. Some people just don't like it when a group of people get together to protect their rights. They want to be able to take advantage of individuals on an individual basis. People who claim to be 'individualists' tend not to honor the rights of others, seeing their own individual rights as trumping anyone else's. They want a free ride, letting everyone else contribute and claiming that their taking of profit is in fact a contribution.
I wasn't joking, and I do not accept what my government is doing.
And English words mean exactly the same thing to every sentient being in all places and times. Just stop it. Stop thinking, you're never going to get it with all that thinking getting in the way. You are stuck in dualism. Subject and object are arbitrary. You are not an self-existing, separate and self-defined entity. You are not a soul. You are not a little man inside your head, looking out through your eyes and listening through your ears. The sense of self is only another sensory track, like sight or sound. It is not separate, it does not signify a thing-unto-itself. You are caught in the trap of symbolism, so caught you can't even see the real world, only your own symbols for it.
Your original post is only wordplay, signifying nothing. That's why I called it masturbatory. There are an infinite number of catchy little lists like yours, and none of them mean anything. I'm trying to show you something real. But as usual, it's like I'm pointing at the moon, and saying "moon," only for you to point at my finger and ask, "moon?" No, that's my damn finger. Look what I'm pointing at.
You are thoroughly confused, and will only get more so if you keep to this path.
Where does the definition of sentient come from? Where does the definition of definition come from? You haven't thought about this deeply enough. One cannot represent anything. The idea of representation must first be defined, the idea of reference. Where does reference come from, originally? Why did the undivided and undefined divide and become defined? It is because it is undivided. Thus is contains all divisions. Because it is undefined, it contains all definition. The undefined is your starting point, not something definite like one. Figure out how one came about from null, and you'll be on the right track. It has to do with reference, division, and definition, that's the only hint I'll give you.
Reread this thread. I just did, to make sure. I never said that we weren't influenced by other sources, just that we were influenced by the Iroquois, and that our Republic is closer in form to theirs than to the others mentioned. Which I've shown to be correct. So how exactly am I doing the idea a disservice? Other than by being my usual prickish self, of course.
Simplistic and incorrect. You forgot 0. There was something before all divisions and definitions, especially before the division between self and non self. And anything you can say about that is, all at the same time, incorrect, correct, neither correct nor incorrect, and both correct and incorrect. But this is all just philosophical masturbation. Not that I don't enjoy a good wank now and then, but here's a thought. Stop trying to define. The desire to define and categorize comes from fear of the unknown. Just stop. Be here now. ;-)
Scurrying for cover isn't their style. More like, switching on the light in a run down crack house and seeing the rats and roaches invade Iran.
They might not be East Asian in appearance, but that's where the Ainu are from. While they may look Caucasian, genetic testing shows they have absolutely no Caucasian ancestry. There are no mainstream archaeological discoveries that show that there were any Caucasians here prior to people migrating here over the land bridge. Indians, or rather their Asian ancestors, were here first. I challenge you to show me even one legitimate peer reviewed article claiming otherwise. And as I said, Kennewick Man was Ainu, and Ainu are East Asian. This study of genetics only proves what every mainstream archaeologist without weird racial motivations has been saying for the last twenty years.
If people were blind to race, then government could be. Racism is still a huge problem here in America.
All you need to say is, "I don't advocate firing DU rounds down roads in urban areas." Right now, hate to say it, that's still in question. You still haven't denied wanting to fire DU rounds down urban roads, you're just waffling.
Just a thought, what percentage of IEDs are used in areas where a DU round would cause major collateral damage? Maybe that's why you're having a hard time saying that, and trying to distract with faux outrage. Because you know that if you limit your proposed solution to isolated areas, it becomes pointless. You have painted yourself into a corner. Either you admit you have no qualms with killing innocents, or you admit that your proposed solution is pointless.