>>13770
>To take an extreme example: so I can go shoot up a place and not be shot back at (interference)? No.
But that happens in virtually any philosophy (either the civilians are doing the "shooting back" or the state is via "law enforcement").
Plus the fact that others shoot back at you is a proof of their declaration of life, liberty, and property (in this case, via response to an attempt on their life and thus an attempt to impede their individual rights).
>Irrelevant
I'd say it's very relevant. If you want to insult criticize an ideology, the first goal is to provide an alternative, better system. Otherwise your arguments will fall on deaf ears (they still might, but at that point they're being reactionary).
>the problem is capitalists are trying to sell me no pun intended? bullshit.
What bullshit is that?
>No one can do whatever they want and not be interfered with in some way under that system.
Does a system exist where someone can do whatever they want, and not be interfered with in some way? Even the most tough-minded egoist (the philosophy) would be hard-pressed to say that actions don't have reactions. It's no different than fish swimming away from the spot where one's hand enters the water.
>My goal is to shit on societal philosophies, left and right.
Again, I'd advise you to come up with an alternative when shitting on philosophies. Though in your case specifically, I'd advise you to read up on Max Stirner's Egoist Anarchism after finals (pic related).
>Signal processing, etc. I should probably get back to it.
Sounds like all kinds of gross. Good luck to you as well, I'll let yah get back to that.