heyrabbit

enjoys fritos corn chips

ahh pro-line, just like me , and you

I really don't think we are fundamentally opposed in our ideas. we disagree symbolically, not principally. What I mean is that we both attach different meanings to the word "capitalism". from my perspective, I don't see any government in the world as being capitalistic. When I talk about capitalism, I'm only talking about laissez-faire capitalism, not mixed economies. I don't view a government as being capitalistic if it interferes in the economy, which is every government. I disapprove of our present day government as well as the U.S. government. capitalism seems to take blame for everything wrong in a mixed economy. When there is a monopoly of power, it's not becuase someone was motivated by profit, it's because someone along the way was able to gain profit at the expense of others. The socialist-collectivist policies implemented in our government allow for the greedy to be the immoral. a false capitalist government is a recipe for disaster. The world isn't a bad place because people are greedy, it's becuase people aren't greedy enough, or moral see you want to minimize the use of unjust power and coercion. That's what I believe, except I'd go one step further. I want to eliminate it. I want to eliminate immoral coercion because one can't say that it's alright to be moral only part of the time. If you're only striving to minimize immorality, it means you accept some level of immorality. Hierarchies is not intrinsically good or bad. It depends on the morality behind the construction of them. Nobody can have the "right" to economic equality for obvious reasons. that's the basic argument against socialism. A boss has no right to control someone's life, but firing someone or making one's life difficult does not necessarily constitute coercion. Employment is a voluntary exchange of value. I can't complain if my boss exercises his authority over me for the same reasons that I can't blame McDonald's if they refuse to sell me a big mac. It all depends on the contract. All rights are inherently property rights because when you own something, you own it because you have the right to the product of your effort. mostly the currency is material, but not necessarily. owning a song is the same as owning a car. But nobody has the "right" to car, or the "right" to a song, unless they've earned it.

you shouldn't want to dwell on crappy news like that.

needs a new avatar i think

I'm really offended that ice-cream is not included... that said, I'm a cake eater. it's too easy to fuck up a pie, but cake and frosting is almost always good also i agree with come random's estimate of cheese cake

clapton wasn't worth of hendrix, and he knew it. in order to ge into rock heaven, you must kill yourself. there you will stand trial before hendrix, and his two counterparts, kobain and morrison. you will be granted access depending on the extent your life's malignancy (before you killed yourselfP

blackadder, score

antidisestablishmentarianism

lol. einstein doesn't need any more accolades alright? and he slept with his cousin SE Hardy. I believe that's because your values are conflicted. You're also wrong about capitalism. the predominant system of organization in human history has been altruist-collectivist, so capitalism cannot be blamed for that. Look anywhere in the world, the values of socialism are anti-life. Compare that to the societies which are the most free read capitalism: the unknown ideal, and the virtue of selfishness.

Nobody puts ethics or rights into axioms.Rights are derived from axioms, that's what makes it an axiom. You don't need your rights and ethics to be based on reality? That's exactly why I don't approve of anarchism. What is the ideology based on? what is it's premise? if it's not based on reason, then inductiveness lets us know it's source. I don't think you would say that you agree with anarchism because you "feel" it's right and good, but that it is the only alternative if you do not like axioms of knowledge. " 1) One should neither submit to nor exercise power over another. 2) People should have a say in decision-making in proportion to how much they are affected by the decision. 1) it's impossible for nobody to submit to or exercise power. even if it were possible, who then deals with a criminal? people have a say in decisions after they've been affected by them? they do this iwth an anarchist time machine? also, who enforces this, without the use of power, and by what right? (!?) you just described socialism as capitalism. I'm glad that you agree with the capitalist concept of free enterprise, but socialism is complete opposite, the collective ownership of means of production what do you mean, property rights are not absolute? name one right that is not a property right. in a completely capitalist society, nobody could or would expropriate the EARTH to exploit all of humanity (as a dictator, which capitalism is fundamentally opposed to) even in a mixed economy, how are hierarchies tyrannical? I'm sure you've had at least a few jobs in your life time. name one instance in which you were tyrannized? nobody can tyrannize you in a job you undertake voluntarily . I won't argue against your opinion on libertarians, even though I'd call myself one if I had to label myself. it's such a broad term, just ike all the others I agree that all associations should be voluntary. that's one thing I completely agree on. But I don't know what you mean by "between equals". that's a mystery to me And supercanuk is passionate about the truth, that's one of the highest virtues. That's why I love debate. in society today people view debates as acts of hostility, but I don't view it that way at all. the purpose of debate is really not to influence another person as much as it is to discover truth. I don't care if if I change anyone's mind because I cannot expect to, nor would I even wish to. people can only decide things for themselves. I agree that not enough people are open to debate debate is worth it if you want to do it.

I don't want to life in a fair society. Fair for whom? There's no such thing as "society" because society is just all of us, it's just a group of individuals. Capitalism is the only morally justifiable system of government. When I say "moral", I mean objective morality, not mystical. It's the only "right" system because it's the only system consonant with man's nature. I'll explain the axioms I've acknowledged, which lead me t this conclusion. they are in sequence. without one you cannot have the other The formula defining the concept of existence and the rule of ALL knowledge. The law of identity: A is A. Man is man. man's existence does not exist without man. To live or to not live. To be man or not to be man. In order for man to be man, he must have the "Right to Life", he must have the ability to engage in self-sustaining, self-generating action. Man is rational being whose mind is the means of his survival. This is the root of all rights because if man does not have the freedom to think and to act, he is denied of his life. the only implementation of the Right to Life is property rights. man must have the right to earn and keep the product of his effort. The only system of government that accepts and promotes these moral precepts is laisser-faire capitalism, where the government's only purpose is subordinate its citizens to moral law. So what is the fundamental premise behind anarchism? What code of ethics is it based on? I guess that depends on what kind of anarchism you support. if you support the idea that all men should have the right to vote on all issues, that's not the abolishment of government, it's the proliferation of government! that's a anti-statist position, but also a socialist-collectivist position. it's not anarchy corporate structure is hierarchical, but that's exactly the way it should be. how else would it be? I don't think the economy should have to be "controlled". There should be no economic rights becuase in a free society, you cannot have the "right" to someone's money for the same reason's that I don't have the "right" to your house, or the "right" to your wife. etc

it's not that they don't have the right to protect themselves, but that they don't have the ability. The laws are utilitarian in the sense that they are meant to work for most people, not all people. some 16 year olds would benefit from leaving home, and some mentally challenged people would benefit from being given a firearms license. The line needs to be drawn somewhere and I don't think it's way out of place. Lots of parents abuse their children, but you can't stop all stupid people from being stupid. in cases where there's extreme abuse, the government does act to protect minors. There are a million different types of "anarchists". I find that most of them are either confused libertarians or confused socialists. You could call me an "anarcho-capitalist". that's the only reasonable form of anarchism. Pure anarchism is fundamentally flawed - like every other ideology except one - and it's completely impractical.

Of course you don't like it. The values represented by each piece of art are appreciated only by those who share the same values. That's what makes anybody "like" anything. considering that most of the world does not share Rand's values, it only makes sense that most of the world would hate her book. Rand herself was very in control of her emotions. And since man creates art in his own image, the characters obviously reflect rand's qualities. This is why even the saddest characters in the book appear rational,confident, etc. But the characters do not lack emotion.They experienced emotions for reasons which are uncommon in civilization of today.i.e. you see the book as being bland, rand saw the book as brilliant and full of human emotion. . She could have written the book to cater to a naturalistic audience, to people who normally appreciate naturalistic art, but that would defeat the entire purpose of the book. It's a romantic novel, not a shitty piece of art. Also, many of the characters were cynically indifferent on purpose. i.e.. "Who is john Galt?". With that being said, I do agree that the characterization could have been much better. The characters were generalized symbol figures. In spite of that, the books philosophical content is so substantial that it's easily one of the greatest books ever written - not just because her philosophy is interesting, but because her philosophy is true! and the implications for those who fully grasps her philosophy are civilization-altering. as far as I'm concerned, she was the greatest mind of the 20th century.

I agree with sparq, although I do entirely appreciate Bizud's disdain for the way children are treated in society. In fact, I'd say it's the great moral injustice in our society. Children are indocrinated to accept evil doctrines, instilled with anti-life values, retarded developmentally, abused physically, psychologically and emotionally. This isn't because children have no rights, but simply because we live in a degenerate society. The answer isn't to more rights to children, but to give more rights to adults. Improve our society first, and children will naturally benefit from it. A free child in a degenerate society really benefits nobody. Somebody will end up looking after the children, because it has to be done. I don't want to look after other people's children, or pay for it. anarchism benefits the anarchist. What happens when you let your let your 6 month old child exercise anarchism? You see why you have to draw a line somewhere? people need help to develop, but abolishing the justice system - which is what you're proposing - helps nobody. Children do not have the right to harm themselves.Who's going to support Billy when he runs away from home because he had a tantrum? I sure as fuck don't want to. Also, you can't be completely indiscriminate about giving rights to underdeveloped people. Why is it that mentally retarded people aren't allowed to own guns? It's not because they can't pass the test. These arbitrary rules are meant to be as reasonable, not perfect. You can't give a driver's license to children for obvious reasons. It's really very simple. it's immoral to allow children to harm themselves. if you can't work, you can't live (without the sacrifice of someone) How many children can you afford to take care of ? Our government already wastes gross amounts of money on people who don't want to work, never mind people who can't work.

I grind my teeth, so I have to wear a mouth guard, ( like a sports one but harder plastic), and I take it out and throw it in my sleep, so I have to find it in hte morning. I also kick off my sheets and throw my pillow

it's not like i'm saying you're particularly unique. anyone who likes degenerative art is a degenerate to one degree or another. I am, you are, that guy is. I can say that every single person on the bored is to some degree a degenerate. and we KNOW that they are because they're here because they like his art. maybe some people here don't like MG, but they're exceptions

well that's what I'm talking about. when I said "focusing your mind" I didn't necessariy mean meditation, although there's something to be said for that. You knew that running would improve your well being, so you chose to do it, and you subsequently felt better. that's philosophical spiritualism. I'm not sure there's anything we know more about, as far as how to improve well-being, than exercise=good. exercise causes huge psychological improvement. some of the happiest times of my life have been brought about partly by exercise. running helps me think. coffee does as well, although I find that as much as coffee helps me focus, it makes me tired and unfocused later.

When I say spiritualism I mean 'focusing your mind/actions in a certain way to achieve specific results.' i.e. What do you consciously do in order to make yourself happy, improve your state of mind and well being. Everyone should have something to say. Most of us are at the age where our lives are, at best, a third or forth of the way over. Considering that your highest moral purpose should be your happiness, hopefully you've learned something by now. I want to know what everyone has objectively learned. I'm not asking about religion and I don't want to get into another religious debate. If you happen to be a Christian, or whatever, and you've had spiritual experiences, tell me what you've objectively learned about spiritualism. Don't tell me what yo'uve learned about Christianity etc. The word is most commonly (and negatively) associated with religion, but it's not confined to just that. So don't assume from the title that you have nothing to say in this thread.

i know. it's a reflection of your state of mind, but everything everyone chooses is a reflection of each individuals state of mind

I've stopped paying attention to the news for this reason. most news is bad news and it's not healthy to be preoccupied with things like that. it says somehting about your state of mind, that you choose to represent these articles. it's what you most deeply value' I used to like watching the taliban videos, where they'd cut off hostages heads.

I'm guessing the reason behind it is because it's normal to barter in the marketplace where they're from, but anyone who's actually asian, correct me if I'm wrong I've worked retail before, and the most annoying thing to hear is , "discount. I want discount price. you give me for less ok?" well tha'ts nice but so does everyone else... in our culture it's rude to say "give me that." etc. but like I said, I like the fact that they don't tip. that's a stupid custom and tradition from our culture

you need to sstop selecting the news Tim

once I saw bryan marchment at ikea. but he was a hockey player not a rockstar, and not even a particularly good player, and I didn't meet him... I have nothing to add to this thread

I've always htought it had somehting to do with the fact that some Asian metropolitan areas are so densely populated. you have to be pushy in order to get where you're going. etc That explains why asians are pushy in line for the bus, but it doesn't explain why asians sometimes stand in your way. I'm not sure that it's selfishness. I think it has something to do with obligations. i.e. you're equally as obligated to move out of my way as I am to move out of yours. you know,taosim, everything "flows together" as one. They're not as preoccupied with rules regarding personal freedom. I've always liked the chinese tendency to not tip well, but otherwise disliked their marketplace etiquette.