A Conservative view of Government.

[Theodarzna]

Not doing something to someone means you did not harm anyone. You must first be doing something TO someone in order to harm them.

So the town not liking you and choosing to be inhospitable to you is thus not harming you at all.

[Total Crica]

choosing to be inhospitable TO you

If they don't consent/can no longer consent, you ARE harming them by doing something TO someone.

[Theodarzna]

If they don't consent/can no longer consent, you ARE harming them by doing something TO someone.

You need someones consent to be less than friendly to them?

There are thus a lot of people on this message board who have been "Harming" me.

[Total Crica]

You need someones consent to be less than friendly to them?

You need consent from someone to do anything TO that someone. You need no consent from someone to NOT do anything to that someone.

[Theodarzna]

You need consent from someone to do anything TO someone. You need no consent from someone to NOT do anything to someone.

Then I fail to see what your initial problem was. A group of people choosing to rescind their hospitality or not be friendly with you is not even harm by your own very broad definition. So what was your initial problem again?

[Total Crica]

Then I fail to see what your initial problem was. A group of people choosing to rescind their hospitality or not be friendly with you is not even harm by your own very broad definition. So what was your initial problem again?

I have no issues with people not enforcing their wills on me or others, never said I did.

[Theodarzna]

I have no issues with people not enforcing their wills on me or others, never said I did.

Then you have no trouble with the tree worshiping town not being nice to you.

[Total Crica]

Then you have no trouble with the tree worshiping town not being nice to you.

I have issues when they are doing things TO me that I did not consent or continuing to consent to.

[Glorious Leader]

You are forced to choose to do it or face their consequences once they state THEY will do things TO you because you did not follow their personal ideas of what they want you to do in order to maintain yourself.

Everything about this post can be applied to private property. Explain again why you arent a hypocrit? Why does religion need to be destroyed but not the institution of private property?

[Total Crica]

Everything about this post can be applied to private property. Explain again why you arent a hypocrit? Why does religion need to be destroyed but not the institution of private property?

Which part of my argument that OTHERS do what you are claiming, not me, don't you understand?

I want religion to die when it comes to forcing the will of religion on others.

I want property rights to die when it comes to forcing others off of property when they are causing no harm.

OTHERS have decided SO FAR this is not going to happen and I have no choices beyond accepting what they want me to do, fighting what they want me to do or giving up and dying.

[xChurch]

Progress at cost, and its questionable that we can sustain ourselves. Divisions, local autonomy and scaling back global capitalism for the sake of our survival seems like not a bad idea considering the alternative is extinction.

The video I show does display part of the narrative of history. I'm not advocating anything exactly like what you are describing except for a scaling back of state power in a sense to allow those refugees created by this system to take refugee from it versus being annihilated by it.

If you want to "move forward," (as problematic as that term is) you must know where you have been, and if something is not working you must learn from what has been proven to work.

How it worked got us where we are now, why do you think a retreat would be anything more than a temporary situation? Problem with looking into the past for guidance on the future is there is no point in our history anything like what the world is now. There are lessons to be learned on how to progress but in the end, that progression is unavoidable. The ways of the past that worked already led to this point, it will again. Helps to remember too that one of the dominant problems of more tribal times was conflict and war which in turn breeds progress. Trying to fight evolution is doomed to fail, we must press forward, regardless of cost, humanity will endure.

I think the fundamental difference in our opinions is a difference in our faith in humanity. From what I've seen you don't seem to put much stock in our collective ability to advance and evolve as a species.

[Theodarzna]

How it worked got us where we are now, why do you think a retreat would be anything more than a temporary situation? Problem with looking into the past for guidance on the future is there is no point in our history anything like what the world is now. There are lessons to be learned on how to progress but in the end, that progression is unavoidable. The ways of the past that worked already led to this point, it will again. Helps to remember too that one of the dominant problems of more tribal times was conflict and war which in turn breeds progress. Trying to fight evolution is doomed to fail, we must press forward, regardless of cost, humanity will endure.

I think the fundamental difference in our opinions is a difference in our faith in humanity. From what I've seen you don't seem to put much stock in our collective ability to advance and evolve as a species.

Except that is a complete misreading of history and depends on a very whiggish understanding of the past. This also assumes we move in two directions on literally only one. Humans remains Humans remain Humans, we do the same things very frequently because the core animal remains unchanged even if gidgits and gadgets change.

Evolution to a dead end is stupid, especially since we have the power to actually grasp the world wheel and spin it how we like. And no, I do not place stock in that because I majored in History and don't buy into the whiggish narrative of endless triumphal collective progress.

- - - Updated - - -

Which part of my argument that OTHERS do what you are claiming, not me, don't you understand?

I want religion to die when it comes to forcing the will of religion on others.

I want property rights to die when it comes to forcing others off of property when they are causing no harm.

OTHERS have decided SO FAR this is not going to happen and I have no choices beyond accepting what they want me to do, fighting what they want me to do or giving up and dying.

It sounds to me like your opposed to having any constraint of cause and effect or social group dynamics ever apply to you.

[Total Crica]

It sounds to me like your opposed to having any constraint of cause and effect or social group dynamics ever apply to you.

I don't want to force my will upon others. I will do what I need to if they are harming me.

I don't want others to force their will upon me. I understand they will do what they need to if I am harming them.

[Glorious Leader]

Which part of my argument that OTHERS do what you are claiming, not me, don't you understand?

I want religion to die when it comes to forcing the will of religion on others.

I want property rights to die when it comes to forcing others off of property when they are causing no harm.

OTHERS have decided SO FAR this is not going to happen and I have no choices beyond accepting what they want me to do, fighting what they want me to do or giving up and dying.

Thank you. All i wanted was an acknowledgmennt that private property is equally as disgusting as religion when it comes to forcing customs and values on others. Ill ignore the fact that you qualified it with doing harm.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't want to force my will upon others.

For the record this is exactly what private property is. If you are in favour of any conception of private property you are forcing your will on others.

[xChurch]

Except that is a complete misreading of history and depends on a very whiggish understanding of the past. This also assumes we move in two directions on literally only one. Humans remains Humans remain Humans, we do the same things very frequently because the core animal remains unchanged even if gidgits and gadgets change.

Evolution to a dead end is stupid, especially since we have the power to actually grasp the world wheel and spin it how we like. And no, I do not place stock in that because I majored in History and don't buy into the whiggish narrative of endless triumphal collective progress.

Wait....are you suggesting humanity hasn't changed at all since we first came about? Seems like a very one-dimensional view of our species.

[Total Crica]

Ill ignore the fact that you qualified it with doing harm.

That entire conversation was me giving proof that OTHERS can do these things regardless of you or I claiming we don't want them to.

If I was unclear in this, my apologies at not understanding that you needed this to be clarified.

- - - Updated - - -

If you are in favour of any conception of private property you are forcing your will on others.

I personally am not. That doesn't change the fact that others can be regardless if I or you want them to be or not.

[Machismo]

When conservatives can't even desribe their goals for conservatism without contradicting their stated goals... you know that most of them don't really have a clue.

It's not about limiting government, otherwise, you wouldn't support so many platforms that expand government. It's not about fighting against "anarcho tyranny," or else you would stop practicing "anarcho tyranny" when it happens to be about banning something you do not like.

A little consistency would be nice.

[Theodarzna]

When conservatives can't even desribe their goals for conservatism without contradicting their stated goals... you know that most of them don't really have a clue.

It's not about limiting government, otherwise, you wouldn't support so many platforms that expand government. It's not about fighting against "anarcho tyranny," or else you would stop practicing "anarcho tyranny" when it happens to be about banning something you do not like.

A little consistency would be nice.

If the power exists, might as well use it.

Though this does raise a question about borders. Does any group have a right to decide who comes onto a shared communal space?

Do people have a right to go wherever they please?

- - - Updated - - -

Wait....are you suggesting humanity hasn't changed at all since we first came about? Seems like a very one-dimensional view of our species.

In biological terms, no we have not. The brain you have now is the same brain from the time man first starting colonizing new ecosystems outside of East-Africa.

[Machismo]

If the power exists, might as well use it.

Though this does raise a question about borders. Does any group have a right to decide who comes onto a shared communal space?

Do people have a right to go wherever they please?

- - - Updated - - -



In biological terms, no we have not. The brain you have now is the same brain from the time man first starting colonizing new ecosystems outside of East-Africa.

You are arguing against your stated desire to fight against "anarcho tyranny." You posted a wall of text, making a stance, then arguing against it. You cannot be opposed to "anarcho tyranny" and supporting legislating beliefs on others that restrict an action which does not cause harm. That is what "anarcho tyranny" is. It's the limiting of freedoms of innocent people, and being unable to limit the freedoms of the guilty ones. You don't support limited government, you support your own version of limitless government.

[Total Crica]

Do people have a right to go wherever they please?

People have whatever rights they can defend.

The question is: if the rights you are defending are harming others, why do you want to defend them?

This is something people can only answer for themselves.