kmvfpnvp

1[9:13 AM] Herbert Hitchens: @shadyjames  what was the answer you gave that time fungus asked why should  women be allowed to vote
2[10:22 AM] XYZ_Incident: Dug some of it up
3"The whole thing about women voting is pretty easy to sum up - To deprive an individual or group of their ability to vote is to guarantee their interests go unserved in the political sphere. Look at whats happened to puerto rico. Sure its a little bit out of the way, but do you think hawaii or alaska would be left for dead like that after a natural disaster? Absolutely not. Whoever is in power wouldn't get a vote from that state for generations. So by allowing women to vote, politicians have to have at least some degree of respect for or consideration of women in their policy decisionss(edited)
4Whether you think that their policy decisions SHOULD produce good outcomes for women I suppose is subjective, if you would rather a greater amount of female suffering in the world obviously you would wish for there to be no women voting because women being able to vote will help prevent that
5but given that most people don't value female suffering I think thats a pretty adequate explanation for "should", re: why should we allow women to vote"
6[12:55 PM] Herbert Hitchens: thanks man @XYZ_Incident
7[4:50 PM] shadyjames: nice
8[4:50 PM] shadyjames: its been a while since i've read something i wrote when my brain was fully operational
9[7:08 PM] ISO NANO: Women vote against the in group preference of their society, unfailingly. They don't perceive threats the same way or at the same frequency as men do, so they vote against their own interests to open their nations borders, plunder its resources on "welfare systems" which aren't welfare for anyone but rather the generation of a permanent underclass.
10
11The entire premise of women voting comes from a single false concept which is that we're all the same, we're all equal. The exact opposite is true.  As is the case with most "progressive" ideas, they fly in the face of how the world actually works, some times to such a degree that I swear they were trying to rewrite our species. 
12
13This many people don't chase fantasies this large without consequences. 
14
15It's not so much that allowing women to vote was a mistake as it is that we never should have democratized our society to that degree in the first place. Democracy probably never should have left the municipal level. Now we're actually foolish enough to believe we can vote to change the nature of reality.
16
17The consequences will be heavy, no doubt about that. It's just a matter of how that plays out now. Either way we're going to come back to reality, how things really are. How human beings actually tend to behave based on their genetics. I see one of two paths.
18
191. we embrace competition in the form of the free market and free society wherein we co opt naturally occurring competition. 
20
212. we revert back into the dark ages wherein naturally male dominant hierarchies wipe out weaker societies that lack in-group preference.
22[7:08 PM] ISO NANO: I don't like the "tribalism" any more than any of you. But I wasted a lot of time and effort attempting to change reality and that aspect of human beings in particular and I seriously doubt that is changing any time soon. Men and women are different. Races are different. Age groups are different. There are all sorts of demographics and sub demographics and if any of that changes it isn't going to be for a very long time. You can talk about how the only race to you is "the human race" all you want. You can re arrange the electoral college and the tax code and enact diversity and affirmative action laws all you want, it's not going to change how people are. If anything it will make things worse.
23[7:13 PM] shadyjames: Your statements were inspecific enough that the ideas behind them could be excellent or terrible
24[7:13 PM] shadyjames: I agree that men and women and races are incontrovertibly different
25[7:14 PM] shadyjames: any time somebody uses the term "free market" i raise a highly suspicious eyebrow since while capitalism is pretty effective most of the time, when totally unsupervised it reverts to slavery as fast as its able
26[7:15 PM] shadyjames: so I agree with "yay capitalism" for the most part but when people start spouting anarchism or laissez-faire I suddenly have questions for them(edited)
27[7:17 PM] shadyjames: I also don't like this idea the far left has that the solution to our society's divides are to close our eyes and pretend we're all perfectly homogeneous when we're clearly not
28[8:11 PM] ISO NANO: "capitalism" is "anarchism" as is "freedom of association" these are just a bunch of different terms for the same thing. In exactly the same way we have a bunch of terms for the opposite that people think are somehow different from one another. 
29
30You're talking about freedom, the ability to live free of coercion. Or coercion. 
31
32When you talk about coercion people don't care. Because it's easy to think of others as doing the coercing. But when you start talking about Anarchy people take issue. That's because they are the ones doing the coercing. When I start talking about Anarchy it causes people to question where they actually stand and the truth is our society is so built on coercion most people can't even conceptualize a civilization that didn't require it out of the box.
33[8:11 PM] ISO NANO: It's like asking a theist to imagine a universe without a beginning. Like people that come from thousands of years of people believing the universe has a beginning and they knew what that beginning was (or so they thought) people that live in a society predicated on violating other people simply can't imagine not being violated. 
34
35Regardless of what most people tell you, they really don't care about coercion. They're simply aiming to be the ones doing the coercing. 
36
37Yes, the truth is we're engaged in a centuries long escalation of coercion against one another. That's actually the root cause of our problems. Nobody's asking how it started because in all honesty nobody fucking cares. 
38
39The real solution is to stop coercing but neither side will because one is so heavily invested in coercion that if they stopped now it would literally mean the end for them. The end of their government dependence in whatever form that may be, and there are many...there are a lot of people that would have a hard time competing in the free market crying for more coercion as if it were anything but a desperate grab for power. 
40
41The other side won't back down because they know how desperate the other side is.
42[8:13 PM] shadyjames: I can't even imagine a world without coercion, what would that look like?
43[8:13 PM] shadyjames: Almost all of our systems, even the ones you espouse, rely on coercion
44[8:13 PM] shadyjames: there is no such thing as a transaction without the threat of force if one party doesn't hold up their end
45[8:13 PM] shadyjames: And i'm not convinced thats as toxic as you make it sound
46[8:14 PM] shadyjames: though i'm open to ideas
47[8:29 PM] ISO NANO: If you violate a contract you made that's not on the other party, it's on you. And contract disputes aren't predicated on force they're predicated on compensation. 
48
49If you enter a contract and break that contract and do everything in your power to avoid compensation to the point the other party threatens you with force you can call them violent all you want but the reality is you violated them.
50[8:30 PM] shadyjames: Of course its the fault of the violator of the contract, but thats not really the point - the point is that force is often your only recourse against belligerent parties
51[8:31 PM] shadyjames: we've outsourced the use of force to governments, but eliminating them will not eliminate the need for force
52[8:35 PM] shadyjames: If we forego force or "coercion" entirely, the resulting system would be almost entirely incoherent since there's no incentive to abide by the terms of contracts and contracts are pretty much the basis of civilised society
53[8:36 PM] shadyjames: If we deconstruct systems that wield force, such as governments, and put that power back in the hands of the individuals, you're creating a power vacuum that will be filled by the first coalition of force-wielding individuals to decide they could benefit from it
54[8:37 PM] shadyjames: And if you create a coalition of individuals whose purpose is to prevent the emergence of competing force-wielding organisations, you've just reinvented government
55[8:40 PM] shadyjames: While the aspirations of most anarchist movements are noble, very VERY few of them propose systems that wouldn't immediately collapse
56[8:41 PM] shadyjames: and capitalism and anarchism certainly aren't the same thing in modern parlance, but I get that you were probably making a dramatic statement about personal freedoms and not actually trying to say they are "the same"
57[8:41 PM] shadyjames: so, i won't get clever about that
58[8:55 PM] 👽👾 Julian🤖✅: Hmmm
59[8:55 PM] 👽👾 Julian🤖✅: He thinks Capitalism is a system without coercion?
60[8:56 PM] 👽👾 Julian🤖✅: The idea that you can escape a "coercive" society seems pretty ridiculous to me
61[10:43 PM] 👽 Dex Rex 👽: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrS0uNBuG9c
62YouTube
63LastWeekTonight
64North Korea: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)
65
66[10:49 PM] 👽 Dex Rex 👽: I figured out how to fix north korea... start sneaking in LSD to their people
67[10:59 PM] 👽 Dex Rex 👽: Music is even better
68November 13, 2018
69[12:58 AM] XYZ_Incident: * "capitalism" is "anarchism" as is "freedom of association" these are just a bunch of different terms for the same thing. *
70
71In pure ideal forms maybe. Those don't actually exist and I doubt they could in the real world.
72
73"Now we're actually foolish enough to believe we can vote to change the nature of reality."
74
75To an extent we can ,but that really depends on what you mean by "nature of reality"(edited)
76[1:00 AM] XYZ_Incident: Also pretty sure you can't have a working civilization without some level of coercion.
77[1:02 AM] XYZ_Incident: Also there appear to me many more roads in front of us then dark ages or absolute embracing of free market.(edited)
78[5:18 AM] ISO NANO: People are voting to change numbers. Example, "I no longer have 400 dollars to my name, I have 4,000,000". Another example is people voting to change human behavior. "I vote that people provide health care for nothing in exchange". Or another example is people voting to change physics itself "I vote to make green energy more profitable than oil or nuclear". I could go on and on but you get the point. 
79
80And your argument focused on coercion is a projection. You assume the purpose of Anarchy is to prevent coercion (this is the premise of the state) when the purpose of Anarchy is removing the reason individuals choose to commit coercion against one another. 
81
82The state has not just failed at preventing coercion or preventing liberty being taken by force from individuals, it has wholesale enforced it. Now your argument is to tell me that the lack of a state could lead to free individuals or societies attacking one another.
83
84Which leads me back to the beginning of this conversation. The escalation of state powers is pervasive, it's exponential. The solutions being brought to the table are bigger and bolder extent of the state's power to intervene in our lives and regardless of whether human being are even capable of living in a stateless society the solution to this situation is obviously the reversal of this coercive escalation. Because if you think this ends well you haven't been paying attention.
85[5:26 AM] ISO NANO: And speaking of North Korea. This is the exact strategy Donald used. He didn't go there and once again utter a vague threat to nuke them off the face of the earth. He said we could do that, but things would be a lot better for both of us if we brought you back into trade with the world. Your people are going to starve out in 5 years, there is no planning your economy out of this situation. 
86
87Un was intelligent enough to see the obvious. I can't say the same for most westerners.
88GWcfcThonk
891
90[5:28 AM] 👽👾 Julian🤖✅: lol
91[5:28 AM] 👽👾 Julian🤖✅: "the purpose of Anarchy is removing the reason individuals choose to commit coercion against one another. "
92[5:29 AM] 👽👾 Julian🤖✅: How does it do this?
93[5:40 AM] XYZ_Incident: I can see your busy in your response. but
94"Now your argument is to tell me that the lack of a state could lead to free individuals or societies attacking one another."
95Yes
96[5:43 AM] ISO NANO: Government begins as a sort of convenience. The amount of arable land on earth is finite and particularly where human beings come from which is why we focused so heavily on creating our own geographical boundaries. Governments capable of creating defense of those boundaries was the solution. Markets don't require geographical boundaries. 
97
98Human beings resorting to violence aren't punished, only crimes are punished and only the state can establish that a crime has taken place. Our states are therefor providing those who break their laws with the incentives to do so. Anarchy removes those incentives. You will know you're not protected under the law, you will know you are subject to the consequences of your actions and peoples opinions of you, not the state.
99[5:44 AM] 👽👾 Julian🤖✅: lol
100[5:44 AM] ISO NANO: You're actually causing people to behave this way in your attempt to prevent it.
101[5:45 AM] 👽👾 Julian🤖✅: Just because I have to be wary of others doesn't mean I'm not going to coerce people
102[5:45 AM] XYZ_Incident: Sounds like a slightly dressed up libertarian NAP philosophy.
103[5:45 AM] 👽👾 Julian🤖✅: and it doesn't mean groups won't engage in conflict(edited)
104[5:47 AM] ISO NANO: And neither of those are an actual argument against anything I've said. You're talking about hypothetical situations wherein two people can make their own choices and then asking me what they would do. I don't know what they would do I'm not them that's not the point of this conversation. The point of this conversation is how improve society now we can continue giving both sides the incentive to violate eachother or we can remove as many of those incentives as possible. 
105
106What is your argument against that?
107[5:48 AM] 👽👾 Julian🤖✅: Anarchism does nothing to prevent ideological differences or issues related to resource allocations which are the primary causes of human conflict
108[5:50 AM] ISO NANO: Anarchism completely ignores ideological differences or issues related to resource allocation and the primary cause of human conflict isn't resource allocation it's the rampant growth of authority. 
109
110I wish the singular cause to human conflict were resources. The free market would solve that instantly.
111[5:51 AM] 👽👾 Julian🤖✅: LMAO
112[5:51 AM] 👽👾 Julian🤖✅: That's hilarious
113[5:51 AM] 👽👾 Julian🤖✅: "The market will fix it"
114[5:51 AM] ISO NANO: That's right...
115[5:52 AM] 👽👾 Julian🤖✅: Why then are chaotic parts of the world not the most free of resource inefficiencies?
116[5:54 AM] ISO NANO: If there is a solution, someone will find it given the massive incentives to do so. And the bigger the problem, the larger the incentives. This stuff isn't hard to figure out. 
117
118And the most chaotic parts of the world have an average intelligence that hinders their ability to compete in a free market. Or in some cases even recognize its potential and utility.
119[5:54 AM] 👽👾 Julian🤖✅: kek
120[5:55 AM] ISO NANO: Hey, you can pretend this is funny or something. That doesn't actually prove any of it incorrect.
121[5:55 AM] XYZ_Incident: Ok where would you say is the most chaotic region in the world (country to simplify) ?(edited)
122[5:55 AM] 👽👾 Julian🤖✅: There are multiple issues with "free markets"
123[5:55 AM] 👽👾 Julian🤖✅: the first being that they don't exist
124[5:56 AM] 👽👾 Julian🤖✅: the second being the clearly incorrect assumptions many make when imagining them
125[5:56 AM] ISO NANO: The free market is the only thing that actually exists. It's the reason you know what weed is. It's the reason the war on drugs failed.
126[5:57 AM] ISO NANO: Fighting the free market is like fighting gravity. The only question is how much resources you're willing to waste doing it.
127[5:57 AM] 👽👾 Julian🤖✅: That's not really a free market
128[5:57 AM] 👽👾 Julian🤖✅: Government actions are massively influencing the aspects of market function there
129[5:57 AM] 👽👾 Julian🤖✅: If you'd count that, then I see no reason a subsidized company wouldn't also be a part of the "free market"
130[5:59 AM] ISO NANO: If I have to explain how employing the state to steal resources from people and allocate those resources where it sees fit isn't a function of a free market, there's no point in carrying on this conversation because you've got deeper problems.
131[6:00 AM] 👽👾 Julian🤖✅: No such thing as the state "stealing" since the state determines the laws
132[6:00 AM] 👽👾 Julian🤖✅: Property rights are fabrications enforced on others
133[6:02 AM] 👽👾 Julian🤖✅: The nature of ownership to the exclusion of others is inherently anchored in the potential for force (ability to commit violence)(edited)
134[6:09 AM] 👽👾 Julian🤖✅: You're using coercion to claim ownership of property
135[6:11 AM] 👽👾 Julian🤖✅: and of course, with property rights being artificial contrivances even ideological disagreements between fellow anarchist can lead to conflict over property
136[6:12 AM] 👽👾 Julian🤖✅: and being inherently based in violence, those without other resources to secure needs or wants on the market always having the option to resorting to violence if they believe themselves superior in the capacity to commit it
137[6:16 AM] 👽👾 Julian🤖✅: and of course, as organizations of humans grow, the needs of governance increases, so in this, "the state" has an organic origin in the dynamics of groups
138[10:17 AM] 👽 Dex Rex 👽: Buckminster Fuller considers "overpopulation" to be an engineering problem, and I agree with him, just look at the power of graphene
139[11:41 AM] shadyjames: @ISO NANO#8668 there's so much wrong with what you said i'm not even sure where to begin, but i'll try and take it apart piece by piece
140[11:45 AM] shadyjames: "I vote to have more money" Well yes of course everybody will vote in their own financial self-interest, every system should expect its constituents to act selfishly because they will - democracy at least means that under most circumstances at least 51% of the selfish people will have their interests served
141[11:51 AM] shadyjames: "i vote that people provide healthcare for nothing in exchange" The doctors get paid with tax money, i don't see whats so complicated about that, its not like they're slaves. If you think taxation is theft then good for you, but I bet you still drive on all the roads your taxes build, and your brain still operates at least partially on the education school gave you, so i'm not sure in what sense you could possibly consider the fruits of your own labor to belong ONLY to you
142[11:54 AM] shadyjames: "I vote to make green energy more profitable than oil or nuclear" Solar IS cheaper than oil or nuclear, if you actually read a study occasionally, utility-scale solar started overtaking certain fossil fuels in like 2014 and now its cheaper than literally all of them: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-2017/
143Lazard.com
144Levelized Cost of Energy 2017
145Lazard’s latest annual Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis shows a continued decline in the cost of generating electricity from alternative energy technologies, especially utility-scale solar and wind.
146
147[11:54 AM] shadyjames: Renewables aren't an artefact of coercive institutions, fossil fuels are
148[11:56 AM] shadyjames: the reason fossil fuels are still being used when solar is cheaper is because there are large organisations with large reserves of fossil fuels, and they have a vested interest in making sure they still have nonzero value. So they use, surprise surprise, coercion - particularly of the democratic process. But if you remove the democratic process that's not going to remove coercion, its just going to mean they can do it more directly and forcefully.(edited)
149[11:58 AM] shadyjames: "And your argument focused on coercion is a projection. You assume the purpose of Anarchy is to prevent coercion (this is the premise of the state) when the purpose of Anarchy is removing the reason individuals choose to commit coercion against one another." The reason individuals choose to commit coercion against one another is because they can BENEFIT from it.
150[11:58 AM] shadyjames: if i have one apple, and you have one apple, is anarchy going to remove the fact that after stealing yours, i will have two apples? no? then anarchy isn't removing the reason for anything
151[11:59 AM] shadyjames: The state is a protection racket but its a hell of a lot cheaper than your average protection racket