My plan to create a perfectly flat and level Kansas by moving 5,501 cubic miles of earth from west to east. It’s the ideal Kansas. Still some details to work out about rivers, roads, etc. Watch out for the 900-foot cliff bisecting Kansas City.
Anonymous asked:
May is a motherfucker. She is fucking up Juncker, the drunken idiot a lot!
elementarynationalism answered:
I’m going to commit a nationalist sin here in saying this, but I do actually quite like her.
You can criticise her not having strong principles on economic policy other than what’s provided for by notions of ‘stability’ and you’d be right, but at some point we have to refrain from habits of Austrian/Chicago School autism and look at what we’ve got, which is a prime minister who’s in politics because of strong faith and love of country, who takes a dim view toward grand utopian schemes.
Nine times out of ten I think that’s going to come off well for us.
Conventional economic theory doesn’t do so well with nations, cultures, and religions, since while states taxing things can be part of their assumptions, states fighting economic wars against each other and massive differences in cultures are not.
The state is a big part of what makes markets (as we know them, with their globe-spanning corporations and international commodities) feasible in the first place. The culture determines the laws of the state. Culture isn’t a very individual thing, either.
So there’s something to be said for looking beyond economic purism in a candidate and looking at their general outlook instead.
@remedialaction
Just a point for clarification - when I don’t care about someone’s opinion, I don’t even bother arguing with them. It’s like a switch. I default to caring, but if the proper event comes up then it’s just gone.
That point hasn’t been crossed in this case, but I’m ruling out the topic, like I did once with another topic with a woman who wanted to ban most of human sexuality.
We’ll know it’s over when people stop talking gingerly about open marriages and start talking gingerly about closed marriages.
We better have a “gene pool” that’s actually a database on a computer somewhere by that point, or there are going to be problems.
In case that, I feel quite justified in standing by my statement that this isn’t really about logic to you, but about an emotional need that you’ve projected on to me (thus the entire garbage about control), despite your protestations otherwise.
If you change your mind and decide to apologize for your “control” bullshit, we can revisit the topic. Your continued responses show that, on some level, you do care.
tag yourself
I’m how to stave off depression with boring hobbies instead of fixing your life
This conversation has negative value to me now. It went back up for a while because examining morality at the subindividual level was an interesting and novel idea sparked by it, something to be integrated into a later body of theory, but I see there’s nothing more to be mined from the conversation. Anarcho-Capitalism remains an unworthy ideology every time I revisit it.
I’ll keep going for a while longer if you’re willing to apologize for your “let it go” bullshit, but otherwise we’re done. There’s more profit to be made elsewhere, and what do AnCaps love if not markets?
Which doesn’t change it being the self, still? Yes, external factors can influence internal factors.
But “being the self” doesn’t establish the moral liability you so desperately want.
Except you’re making this either or, that conciousness OR subconciousness is ‘central.’ The point is that you are a complete whole, both concious and unconciousness are part of you, and are relevant.
I can alter my hand, it doesn’t make my hand not part of my body.
Except that altering your hand doesn’t make you not you, because the central element that defines you is the mind, and within that mind the consciousness. If you don’t make it the consciousness, then you could end up with a situation where taking a drug technically makes you a different person, which would then mess up property and contract rules.
No, I’m saying they’re entirely part of the whole, they’re as much a part of the moral liability as everything else.
Except they aren’t sufficiently distinct, you’ve not established why they are, when they are indeed all parts of a single whole entity, that. The subcomponents aren’t pilots.
They’re not entirely, in the sense that matters, part of the whole, which is why they can conflict and dominate each other. They ARE sufficiently distinct, whether you like it or not, whether or not that makes you feel like you don’t have control, whether or not that offends your sensibilities about so-called “free will”, whether or not that has implications that you don’t like for properties or contracts or taxation or the state or your own personal safety.
Ordinary people, who you asserted can recognize evil and have to be lead into it, can recognize this, which is why ordinary law looks very little like the dogma that is Anarcho-Capitalism.
You have asserted, over and over again, while questioning the faith of my arguments with groundless speculation about my motives and bullshit about “loss of control”, that this boundary matters before all others.
You have failed to prove it, and you will never prove it, because it doesn’t matter before all others, it matters as part of a system, part of something more flexible and, dare I say it, innovative than what you have in mind.
You’re just asserting it at me over and over again, not establishing it. You’ve hit a loop, and I know how you’ll respond to this, and it won’t prove a thing.
We cannot go inward any further than the whole self entity because all of them are linked as part of one entity, and we cannot go outward because there is a discernible difference between one self and another self.
No dude, we actually can go further because it’s still causally relevant. We can also use physical interventions such as drugs or magnets or surgery or injury to act on the subindividual level.
The subcomponents are relevant in the self level, that’s the point, they are as much a part of the self level as your conscious, controlled thinking. I’ve said as much several times over.
So it isn’t consciousness that’s central to moral liability anymore. Either demonstrate that it’s still necessary for your system, or that starfish over there violated my NAP.
I have not asserted all internal layers should be dismissed, I’ve actually stated they are merely part of the self.
By saying your position such that they don’t have an impact on the moral liability, you have effectively stated that they should be dismissed.
You have not argued why they should be considered distinct, when we’re discussing the morality of actors.
They are causally relevant and in that sense sufficiently distinct. You are discussing the morality of aircraft, I’m saying it’s fair game to talk about the morality of the pilots.
They exist as distinct entities, but the sublayers are not distinct, they’re part of a whole, that’s why we call them sublayers, or subcomponents, or so on.
They are actually sufficiently distinct, that’s why they can be altered.
Your subconcious mind is still you.
Again, not making consciousness the central element means that non-conscious animals are now part of the moral consideration.
What makes that boundary so special that further recursion is unjustified even though further recursion is causally relevant?
You need to articulate what you mean by recursion as I’m not seeing it.
Assigning moral liability in layers heading inwards, or examining the roots for moral liability gradually inwards. You have to establish that, even though the differences in subcomponents are relevant on a causal level to determining behavior, that this is completely irrelevant at the self level and all internal consideration is totally off the board in terms of mitigating moral liability.
So far, you have asserted the self layer is superior so all internal considerations should be dismissed, but you haven’t actually properly established why. Relative causal unity wasn’t enough for you for nations, or presumably warships, so you have to establish why it’s so special here. Otherwise, it might make logical sense to split on the conscious and subconscious elements, since the concscious is along for the ride but has only limited control of subconscious elements, but the conscious is being used as the anchor here unless you want to argue non-conscious entities can be counted as persons under AnCap.