[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / ausneets / dempart / doomer / loomis / lounge / mde / qq / vg ]

/liberty/ - Liberty

Non-authoritarian Discussion of Politics, Society, News, and the Human Condition (Fun Allowed)
Winner of the 72rd Attention-Hungry Games
/otter/ - The Church of Otter

February 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Ya'll need Mises.

File: 56efa2082d01f95⋯.jpg (45.9 KB, 542x535, 542:535, spook_buster.jpg)

File: e7a2136d5c958e8⋯.png (117.83 KB, 960x390, 32:13, ancap_virginstatist.png)

 No.99234

Over time, after becoming anarcho-capitalist, I've began to realize that Max Stirner is right. I started out as a deontological anarcho-capitalist, but over time, I realized that morals are spooks. I realized many truths along the way.

1) Being deontological is an oxymoron. One of the most famous deontologists is Kant and Kantian Ethics defines rules as what would be most beneficial if everybody followed them. What's that? Rules are only good if people benefit from the consequences? Wow, it looks like you are actually a RULE CONSEQUENTIALIST. Anyone who is truly deontological for truly "moral" reasons is entirely devoid of logic and instead creates morals purely out of "feels." It's a petty disagreement, but an important note to make.

2) Deontology leads to ridiculous conclusions. According to deontology, morality is objective. What if I were to trespass on another's property in order to save someone's life? Would I be wrong to save someone's life? Would the owner be wrong to defend their property? Are we both right? Are we both wrong? Us being both right implies this is a moral grey-zone, meaning morals are not objective.

3) Traditional consequentialism is retarded. No-one can know the true consequences of their own actions for certain. Consequentialism is just gambling with ethics thrown in. Consequentialism sounds good on paper, but the consequences of this philosophy is collectivism. That one can be sacrificed for the good of the many. It fails by its own principles.

4) Morals are spooks. Moral rules are implemented in the form of laws with the purpose of stability and because they are most beneficial to each individual. Personal morals are simply pleasing your own "ego;" your desire to feel good about yourself. For example, to an anarcho-communist, no-one can own property and they do nothing wrong by robbing others of their property. From their perspective, property rights is the aggression. The problem with communists is that a communist society is not beneficial to the individual, as force is used to steal and because communist societies inevitably collapse under authoritarianism and mass-starvation.

5) Being an egoist does not mean you don't believe in human rights. It's just that human rights are derived practically instead of "morally." Any intelligent egoist can recognize, that in a society where "rights" are not respected, somebody will always have "rights." It's just that only those at the top will. And any intelligent individual will realize that, chances are, you will be the one stripped of your "rights." As such, it is for the benefit of the individual, the ego, to recognize others' "rights" so that they will recognize his own.

6) Everybody is an egoist. Egoism is simply the recognition that all actions are done for selfish reason. Even altruistic actions are done selfishly, to satisfy the egoists individual desire to be good.

Please explain how I'm a retard. Am I just being edgy and autistic? Am I being too petty over minor disagreements? Explain.

 No.99235

>>99234

assuming this isn't b8 because why not

> Being deontological is an oxymoron. One of the most famous deontologists is Kant and

It does not follow that the specific instance of Kant's deontology being imperfect implicates all other variants of deontology. Bad argument. Hoppe's Argumentation Ethics has no internal inconsistencies of which I am aware, for instance.

>Rules are only good if people benefit from the consequences?

This is just a tautology; Rules are only good if they benefit people, i.e. rules are only good if they are good. There are no logical implications one way or the other.

>According to deontology, morality is objective

No, deontology as it pertains to libertarian property rights only proclaims ethics to be objective, and makes no claim about morality one way or the other. If you conflate those two things you'll lead yourself into contrived situations

>What if I were to trespass on another's property in order to save someone's life? Would I be wrong to save someone's life? Would the owner be wrong to defend their property?

…such as this one. One of these is an ethical concern (trespass is wrong), while another is only one of personal morality (I must go out of my way to save other people). Libertarian ethics do not demand that you become a vigilante. You are comparing two different systems, that are not even of the same type (one ethics and the other morality), which is why you have created a contradiction. If you keep your ethics separate but equal from your morality you would not run into this problem.

>Would the owner be wrong to defend their property?

That's his prerogative. He's ethically justified in defending his property from trespassers if he so chooses. However, seeing as it's not in his best interest to signal to people that he'll shoot them if they help him, it's likely he'd provide your moralfag ass with retroactive permission to enter.

>consequentialism is retarded

At least you got that right.

> Everybody is an egoist. Egoism is simply the recognition that all actions are done for selfish reason. Even altruistic actions are done selfishly, to satisfy the egoists individual desire to be good.

If you define "egoist" in that manner, then yes, you're not entirely wrong.

>Am I just being edgy and autistic?

You're the one following Stirner, you tell me.


 No.99236

>>99234

You got consequentialism completely wrong. It's not a moral system, it's a statement that libertarianism will arise because it is the system that offers the most efficient way to resolve issues, create capital and develop scientifically and technologically, so humanity will, as it strives to remove inefficiencies, despite multiple failures and sabotages, progress in that direction until the end result is achieved. It's not some fucking moral system and definitely has nothing to do with utilitarianism. Unlike muh feelz>realz of deontological libertarians that constantly lead them to bullshit like abortion bans, implied contracts, protectionism of religion and other gay shit consequentialism is the practical side of libertarianism, basing itself on logic and predictions, as well as appeal to most capable and productive people, as they are the ones that keep this society afloat despite all attempts to do the opposite.


 No.99238

File: af32244cdd6a7bc⋯.webm (538.55 KB, 600x336, 25:14, DELETE.webm)

>>99236

>muh feelz>realz of deontological libertarians that constantly lead them to bullshit like abortion bans, implied contracts, protectionism of religion and other gay shit


 No.99239

>>99238

the libertarian case for pro life isn't hard. you can simply say that abortion violates the NAP


 No.99247

File: e309449ae8c16d3⋯.jpg (42.42 KB, 499x382, 499:382, e0898f9ecdf623d93fe08b6d32….jpg)


 No.99248

>>99239

Ackshually, the Rothbardian response to that is to say the fetus is the one aggressing on the mother by extracting nutrients from her bloodstream, therefore abortion is self-defense. That's why the fedora-tipper is preemptively calling implied contracts retarded I guess he never eats at sit-down restaurants on principle either, because in order to respond to the Rothbardian view one must show that an implied contract exists between the parents and the fetus to rear the little shit to adulthood.


 No.99250

>>99248

What is a sit-down restaurant? Some european thing?


 No.99251

>>99250

It's the usual sort of restaurant, in which you sit down, are presented with a menu, order food, and pay afterwards. It's only called "sit-down" to differentiate it from fast food places, diners, and other special snowflake dining options.


 No.99252

File: 3739061b9961e6e⋯.jpg (133.15 KB, 935x859, 935:859, 3739061b9961e6e63a15b569a3….jpg)

>>99248

>sit-down restaurants

That's not what implied contract is. Like, at all. You retarded religious niggerbreed. Implied contract is one where indirect consequences of an agreement are forced because they were a "possibility", kind of like equating having sex and bearing and then growing and feeding a child, or a woman wearing flashy clothes with her consenting to rape. With restaurants, not only there is a proprietor of the place that offers you food, not paying for which would be theft as there was no distinct contractual agreement(or wouldn't be, if he indeed offered the food to you instead, like some advertisement agents do, "gifting you" something and then asking price with a discount), but there always is price written in the menu or is worded during the order, which makes the contract no different from any other and definitely not "implied". At best, you could call it "unsaid" or something.


 No.99253

File: 3998e83c03c4ff2⋯.jpg (92.43 KB, 330x243, 110:81, 1c3cedbba261fc79d0a35ff5db….jpg)

>>99252

That's actually the biggest problem of deontological libertarians in general - lack of understanding of a libertarian legal system that leads them to adding their own delusions and wishes to fill this gap. That's where things like "contract with a fetus" come from, with some exceptional individuals going as far as redefining contracts to force their irrational authoritarian disposition on the whole school of thought and movement in general.


 No.99255

>>99252

Is she an AnCap?


 No.99295

>>99234

The real problem with egoism, Randian objectivism, and other similar ideas, is that people are really bad at identifying what's best for them. In the absence of a clearly superior option of mutual benefit, people tend to default to just fucking other people over. So although you can define all human interaction in terms of individual benefit (ie a philanthropist giving the charity benefits the individual due to the feeling he gets from helping others), it's not actually beneficial to have that as your default viewpoint (since it would probably lead that same philanthropist to sitting on his Scrooge McDuck moneypit while feeling unfulfilled because the benefit isn't obvious). Keep in mind that this is just an easily explained example, and that it would obviously manifest differently in the average person's day-to-day life.


 No.99296

File: b701a7ef82e5226⋯.jpg (97.86 KB, 720x960, 3:4, b701a7ef82e5226fc1892813b3….jpg)

>>99295

>people are really bad at identifying what's best for them

The problem is tenfold with other people, you paternalistic dishonest deceitful nigger.


 No.99297

File: 2207e91b50f3236⋯.jpg (178.72 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, maxresdefault (1).jpg)

>>99252

No, but she should be. Someone should just the ancap snek onto her armband or something.


 No.99299

>>99295

>Ignorance is the pinnacle of happiness

Kill yourself, you miserable piss-ant half-wit. Such disgraceful scum doesn't deserve to be even a notion in existence, far more pitiful than a parasitic bacteria, let along a living animal or human.


 No.99306

>>99253

>BABIES? YEAH KILL'EM!


 No.99308

>>99252

An implied contract is any agreement that is reached between two parties without an express affirmation of the terms beforehand. A sit-down restaurant is the perfect example of this principle in action: it is assumed that the customer will pay for his food, despite neither he nor the waiter explicitly saying as much. Ordering food, chowing down, then refusing to pay afterwards because "well nobody ''told'" me the food cost money! I thought the numbers on the menu were just decoration! (this latter point becomes irrelevant if there are no menus or listed prices, as is the case in bars and certain other venues)" is not a legally valid defense, because there is a clear implied contract in place, and a clear mutual understanding of the terms. You seem to have a preoccupation with the baser aspects of humanity, so we can use an example in that line as well. When two people get ready to fuck, there's a clear implication that both parties consent to the act. There's no need to go through the feminist autism of getting a written and signed consent and liability form from both parties for it not to be considered rape, there's a mutual understanding present in the act itself. If I invite someone on a helicopter ride, and tell my guest if he doesen't eat my ass I'll evict him for trespassing, I've also committed a breach of the implied contract between myself and the guest.

Conceiving a child is also such an event, moreso when one considers that the fetus had no choice in being brought into the womb. In the helicopter analogy, it is equivalent to getting my guest blackout drunk, dragging him onto my chopper, and pushing him out when I've decided he no longer has my hospitality. There isn't even an implied contract in the above scenario, as the guest had no capacity to make one. But, by bringing the guest into a safe haven, I am responsible for murder if I push him out of that safe haven into certain death. The same applies to the fetus, for life outside the womb is certain death to the fetus. Only by ensuring the transfer of the fetus and stewardship of its rights to a different entity can the parents be absolved of this responsibility. This also holds true for young children even after birth, for forcibly pushing an infant or toddler out of the safe haven of parental care would mean certain death.

>>99253

>not murdering children is irrational authoritarianism

I was going to make this long effortpost about how consequentialisn is logically incoherent, but you just made that task a lot easier.


 No.99309

>>99234

>1,2,3

I never read Kant and I don't care to. I don't see what Kant or any of that has to do with this.

>4) Morals are spooks

Sure are.

>5) Being an egoist doesn't mean you don't believe in human rights

Sure, but being skeptical of all spooks means you don't.

>6) Everybody is an egoist

That's just simply not true. There are people who believe everything happens because God made it so. There are a lot of people with entirely disconnected worldviews with respect to the ego. Even in your statement you've outlined how you must be wrong, for

>Egoism is simply the recognition that all actions are done for selfish reason[s, ] Even altruistic actions are done selfishly, to satisfy the egoists individual desire to be good

Although I agree that it's the case that people do "good" things for those reasons, most people who do "good" things would argue they do them "because it's the right thing to do" and not "because it makes me feel good". They then, by your own admission, cannot be Egoists.

I fail to see what this has to do with being an ancap, perhaps because you've failed to demonstrate it. Morality doesn't need to enter play. It's a great meme, one closely related to "civility" which is another wonderful meme, but not necessary to either anarchy nor capitalism. The former only requires that no gang of niggers is stealing from you and the latter only requires that people accept currency for goods and services. The NAP gets brought up often, sure, but that's a principle and not a moral. A principle used to quickly explain what is generally considered to be truly infractional or harmful to everyone historically and realistically with the intent of defining a framework on which to build a new, functioning, society. It also has little to do with morals.

>all this implied contract cuckoldry

I didn't sign shit.


 No.99318

>>99308

>An implied contract is any agreement that is reached between two parties without an express affirmation of the terms beforehand.

Nope, an implied contract is application of indirect consequences of an implicit agreement as if they were part of it.

>it is assumed that the customer will pay for his food, despite neither he nor the waiter explicitly saying as much.

Except they did, you retarded fuckwit, it's in the menu.

>the case in bars

Except in bars you pay beforehand.

>there is a clear implied contract in place

Nope, there is just

>and a clear mutual understanding of the terms

So it's all about understanding of one's actions now? I thought i wasn't on /leftypol/.

> There's no need to go through the feminist autism of getting a written and signed consent and liability form from both parties for it not to be considered rape, there's a mutual understanding present in the act itself

Nice strawman, shit-for-brains faggot.

>Conceiving a child is also such an event

Except when parties didn't specifically form an agreement about it, so that progressive scum like you in the woman form cannot sue someone for impregnating her after having sex.

>it is equivalent to getting my guest blackout drunk, dragging him onto my chopper, and pushing him out when I've decided he no longer has my hospitality

Fetus aren't legal actirs and are not applicable to a legal system and therefore protection, so i can virtually decimate them and then feed the remaining to dogs right in front of you and your faggot family and you'll have to deal with it, unless you want to get your rotten brains blow out.

>But, by bringing the guest into a safe haven, I am responsible for murder if I push him out of that safe haven into certain death

Except actively supplying someone with resources isn't "allowing someone in a safe heaven".

>The same applies to the fetus

Fetus isn't even human, there's no point in applying morality to a pile of biomass. That's veganism-tier retardation, so kill yourself, you retarded leftist infiltrator.

>Only by ensuring the transfer of the fetus and stewardship of its rights to a different entity can the parents be absolved of this responsibility

I therefore trransfer the stewardship of the non-existent rights of a non-existent human to nearby trashcan and there'll be nothing you'll ever be able to do about it, even if you went full-on communist, you leftist bitch.

>This also holds true for young children even after birth

Indeed, they can also be kicked out without any reparations. Stop with that leftist ideas of actively supporting one's life because they're unable to do it themselves.

>how consequentialisn is logically incoherent

Shut up, you feel that your whims are true because an imaginary things said so.

>>99306

>HERE'S MY FALSE EQUIVOCATION IN CAPS YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID I SUCK COCKS

>>99309

>most people who do "good" things would argue they do them "because it's the right thing to do" and not "because it makes me feel good"

And they are lying, mostly to themselves. Tehy can argue as much as they want, just like christcucks cry and bitch 24/7 nowadays, it won't make their idiotic fairytale any more real.

>The NAP gets brought up often, sure, but that's a principle and not a moral

Correct, but if you look at the nest of christcucks around here, they have a hard time trying to redefine it so in their degenerate mess of lies, deceit, personal attacks and circlejerk. You faggots should be happy you're allowed here and not kicked out like "left libertarians" and other authoritarian scum. Your place is in deeper places than homos, hiding in the shadows with your perverse delusional cults, trying to not appear as such in public.


 No.99319

>>99318

>there is a clear implied contract in place

Nope, there is just lending or gifting until you pay, done purely for the convenience of not creating an official contract.*


 No.99321

>Except they did, you retarded fuckwit, it's in the menu.

So if I walk into a pub, ask for a large filter coffee and fry-up, eat it and never look at a menu it's ok for me to leave without paying?

Quit being an autist, you don't need to spell transactions out in print to make them valid.


 No.99322

File: 16fa52d3a64df8b⋯.png (16.82 KB, 512x512, 1:1, 16fa52d3a64df8bd14edb98380….png)

>>99308

Honestly, why do most christian libertarians sound like family communists?


 No.99323

>>99322

Do principles intimidate you? Does me having a set of morals make you anxious? Not even religious btw.


 No.99324

>>99321

It's in the menu, it doesn't matter whether you're informed about it or not, it's your job to look at it. If you leave without paying you'll be stealing and so will have to compensate the costs of the restaurant, along with being most likely banned and spending a lot more than you would by paying for detective's job and other expenses.

>>99323

>Not even religious btw.

>t. mutualist flag


 No.99325

>>99323

>constant shilling and subversiveness is principles

>having a set of morals pushed via collectivism is libertarian

Answer my question or fuck off.


 No.99326

>>99318

BTW just want to add- I'm impressed with how thoroughly you've evaded the question here

>An implied contract is any agreement that is reached between two parties without an express affirmation of the terms beforehand.

<Nope, an implied contract is application of indirect consequences of an implicit agreement as if they were part of it.

>it is assumed that the customer will pay for his food, despite neither he nor the waiter explicitly saying as much.

<Except they did, you retarded fuckwit, it's in the menu.

>the case in bars

<Except in bars you pay beforehand.

You didn't make any points. You didn't even put an argument forth. All you did was say

>um akshually restaurants do have contracts, it's called the menu

so yeah I guess any written document you read is a binding contract according to you. Congratulations shit-for brains, you managed to make a system ten times more arbitrary in the pursuit of absolutes.

>>99324

>It's in the menu, it doesn't matter whether you're informed about it or not, it's your job to look at it.

Woah, it gets better! So now every piece of paper that ever had something written on it is a binding contract and its "my job" to look at it?

And why, pray tell, is it "my job" to become informed? I thought you stood against implicit contracts, but now it's aparently everyone's job to become informed of the rules of any property he enters, but just so long as they're written down.

Why is that everyone's job? I didn't sign a contract that said anytime I step into someone's property I would become informed of the rules that govern it. If no-one informs me of them, I'll just pretend there are no rules because implicit contracts are unlibertarian or some shit.

>Not even religious btw.

>t. mutualist flag

Mutualists aren't usually religious mate. What's your point?

>>99325

>reeee answer meeeeeee

Fuck off.

>constant shilling and subversiveness

Yeah it couldn't possibly be that people don't like cunts who think it's their right to kill babies when they're inconvenient. We're all shills, I'm sure.

<having a set of morals pushed via collectivism is libertarian

Have you heard of the libertarian party? I think you'd fit right in, what with your cowardice masking as tolerance and all.


 No.99327

File: 3ead54522402951⋯.jpg (48.99 KB, 552x776, 69:97, 3ead54522402951e1b38b82bb9….jpg)

>>99326

>You didn't even put an argument forth

I did. Implied contracts are nothing but a way for authoritarians to force choices on people that didn't make them and has no place in libertarianism.

>I guess any written document you read

You are a good example of an exception to this as you clearly cannot read, or you'd see that i explicitly said that understanding that you are stealing is irrelevant.

>you managed to make a system ten times more arbitrary in the pursuit of absolutes

Nice job, you really proved that you're best named after an insult not just by repeating it but by turning the whole point inside out and then pretending you defeated it.

>So now every piece of paper that ever had something written on it is a binding contract and its "my job" to look at it?

You're clearly retarded. You look you pay, or you don't pay, commiting theft and have to pay later when it's legally proven that theft has occurred. You're too worthless to have any money, therefore you now become the property of the one you stole from, losing your organs only to find out that even them cost nothing, dying in vain. The end.

>And why, pray tell, is it "my job" to become informed?

Because property rights exist regardless of your ignorance.

>Mutualists aren't usually religious mate

Yes they are, they are ill with communism.

>Fuck off.

Nope, read again, you fuck off.

>Yeah it couldn't possibly be that people don't like cunts who think it's their right to kill babies when they're inconvenient.

<Yeah, it couldn't possibly be that people don't like cunts who think it's their right to kill communists. We're all not shill or leftists, i'm sure.

>Have you heard of the libertarian party?

Have you heard of the conservative party? You'd fit right in, with your authoritarian parasitism hiding behind a moral high ground.

>your cowardice masking as tolerance

I was talking about blowing your brains out if you try to fuck with my property. Are you retarded?


 No.99328

>>99327

> Implied contracts are nothing but a way for authoritarians to force choices on people that didn't make them and has no place in libertarianism

Imagine being so autistic you think it's actually impossible to have agreements that aren't written and signed in triplicate.


 No.99329

>>99328

>Any agreement that isn't a signed contract is an implied contract

Wow, you sure got me


 No.99331

File: 45727ec91c38d8d⋯.mp4 (12.81 MB, 1440x1080, 4:3, Big Brain Centrism.mp4)

>>99327

>Have you heard of the conservative party? You'd fit right in, with your authoritarian parasitism hiding behind a moral high ground.

Suddenly it all makes sense. You don't actually have an argument, you're just a small-brained centrist that wants to distance himself as much as possible from either the left or the right to feed your own superiority complex.

>>99329

I really have no interest in "getting" you. Clearly, the idea of killing unborn children gives you a massive rush of bigbrain centrist dopamine, and as long as that remains true you will pay no mind to any arguments that may contradict this, up to and including call all implied contracts "authoritarian." Abort yourself, you atomistic commie.


 No.99333

File: e051e535fa332bb⋯.jpg (130.06 KB, 749x500, 749:500, Dealing-with-Christianity-….jpg)

>>99331

>you're just a small-brained centrist

I'm not the one pushing for collectivism here, bud

>distance himself as much as possible from either the left or the right

<t. mad he'll never be even remotely right

>unborn children

Oxymoron

>massive rush of bigbrain centrist dopamine

Wow, christians sure are fantasizes. Wonder if keeping all the filth inside makes a person, huh.

>you will pay no mind to any arguments that may contradict this

nice projection bud

>call all implied contracts "authoritarian."

Yes, except they are not contracts

>Abort yourself, you atomistic commie.

if i did, i'd survive and become a christian

Honestly, we should learn from Romans and Japanese how to deal with christcucks, they know what to do.


 No.99334

>>99327

>I did. Implied contracts are nothing but a way for authoritarians to force choices on people that didn't make them and has no place in libertarianism.

Implied contracts =! the social contract. Implied contract = understanding the difference between a store and a building with stuff on shelves.

>You are a good example of an exception to this as you clearly cannot read, or you'd see that i explicitly said that understanding that you are stealing is irrelevant.

I agree, actually; understanding is irrelevant. However, since I'm not the one arguing against implicit contracts here, and given that in an explicit contract it is essential that both parties understand what they are agreeing to (which is why you can't have a 5yo sign a contract to enslave them) I fail to see how this supports your point.

>Nice job, you really proved that you're best named after an insult not just by repeating it but by turning the whole point inside out and then pretending you defeated it.

>you really proved that you're best named after an insult

>named after an insult

>not just by repeating it

You're incoherent. Take your meds.

>You're clearly retarded. You look you pay, or you don't pay, commiting theft and have to pay later when it's legally proven that theft has occurred. You're too worthless to have any money, therefore you now become the property of the one you stole from, losing your organs only to find out that even them cost nothing, dying in vain. The end.

Chill out with the fanfiction

>Because property rights exist regardless of your ignorance.

Precisely. Now tell me, why is it immoral to shoot someone who just walks into your restaurant? It's your property. They're violating your property rights by walking in without your express consent. Why can't you shoot them like you would an intruder? Is it maybe because there exists an implicit agreement that an open building with a sign that says "restaurant" can be walked into by anyone?

<Mutualists aren't usually religious mate

>Yes they are, they are ill with communism.

1) Mutualism isn't communism unless you define communism broadly enough to include almost all forms of voluntarysm.

2) That other moron was talking about christians. Commies ain't Christians.


 No.99335

File: d3f52076cb45f01⋯.jpg (112.64 KB, 600x691, 600:691, sneer.jpg)

>>99333

>I'm not the one pushing for collectivism here, bud

<libertarianism means anything goes

<ur the commie tho

>>>/trannypol/

<unborn children

>Oxymoron

Define human in such a way as to exclude fetuses with formed brain but include comatose patients who will most likely wake up.

>Honestly, we should learn from Romans and Japanese how to deal with christcucks, they know what to do.

<Paganism and Shinto aren't real religions because samurai and legionaries appeal to my fedora-tipping, historically illiterate sensibilities

<also rome never became christian REEEEEEEEEE

Why are nu-atheist nu-males so predictable.


 No.99336

File: ae1bcba90b5de83⋯.jpg (114.04 KB, 660x353, 660:353, japanchristians.jpg)

>>99334

>Implied contracts =! the social contract.

never said they were

>Implied contract = understanding the difference between a store and a building with stuff on shelves.

There's none, you dum dum.

>given that in an explicit contract it is essential that both parties understand what they are agreeing to

Nope, your ability to comprehend what you're doing has absolutely nothing with the consequences of your actions, unless it comes from one's own initiative, like an owner sparing a petty thief like your whore mother.

>which is why you can't have a 5yo sign a contract to enslave them

No, that's not the reason, you dumb leftist. The reason is you can't sign away your freedom, only your protection, and even this can only be done if you're a legal actor, otherwise it's up to parents.

>Take your meds.

You first

>Chill out with the fanfiction

A man can dream

>Now tell me, why is it immoral to shoot someone who just walks into your restaurant?

You tell me, i'm not arguing morals here. In legal terms, a sign "welcome" or something serves as an invitation to people, so you cannot initiate aggression unless they break NAP.

>They're violating your property rights by walking in without your express consent

No, they are not, you opening doors, having "open" sign, not actively preventing them from doing that by force(or at least backed up by it) or a fence immediately or later constitutes consent in ancapistan.

>Is it maybe because there exists an implicit agreement that an open building with a sign that says "restaurant" can be walked into by anyone?

No, it's not, you dumb fuck. If your restaurant is closed and has no signs showing that it isn't and you find someone trespassing you absolutely can shoot them and not face any repercussions afterwards. No need to create aether imaginary constructs that would only be used as backdoors for scum like you to force people to do what you want.

>Mutualism isn't communism

It's a communist insertion into libertarianism

>Commies ain't Christians

Oh, but christians are very much commies.


 No.99337

File: e5d02c91a3a43a2⋯.jpg (17.33 KB, 255x237, 85:79, 4b8530118bd351df9701015077….jpg)

>>99335

Learn how to make a coherent sentence first, communist nigger, then tell me where to go.

>Define human in such a way as to exclude fetuses with formed brain but include comatose patients who will most likely wake up.

A separate organism with a separate bloodstream.

<Paganism and Shinto aren't real religions because samurai and legionaries appeal to my fedora-tipping

They are real religions, they just aren't as obnoxious as your branches of judaism, which the reason they were prosecuted in the first place. I wouldn't mind christcucks if they weren't bigger shills than marxists here and kept their perversions to themselves without inserting them into libertarianism or libertarian discussion like properly behaving people.


 No.99341

>>99337

>unironic smug anime girl

Now that's an admission of defeat if I've ever seen one. Watcha gonna do next, hit me with a wojak from your sick 4channel meme collection?

>Learn how to make a coherent sentence

In what way was I incoherent? Do you know how to english?

>communist

Aw that's cute, it thinks if it keeps saying I'm a communist I'll get sad.

>your branches of judaism

>your

I'mot a christian, as I already said.

And besides

<ur a commie AND a christian

>A separate organism with a separate bloodstream.

Great, because at no point do a fetus and a mother "share a bloodstream".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placenta


 No.99342

>>99341

>In what way was I incoherent?

<libertarianism means anything goes

The grammar doesn't make any sense.

>Watcha gonna do next, hit me with a wojak from your sick 4channel meme collection?

I'll leave it to you since you're so knowledgeable in the topic.

>saying I'm a communist I'll get sad

You probably won't, no commie does. it will still remind others of your nature, if someone got confused by the flag.

>I'mot a christian

Whatever, sympathizer

<ur a commie AND a christian

>What are christian socialists/communists

>Great, because at no point do a fetus and a mother "share a bloodstream".

Oh, but they do, the fetus is directly connected to it, via that very placenta. You probably should read before you link.


 No.99343

File: 0c32cb897983030⋯.png (104.22 KB, 1000x652, 250:163, 6017dd7900b5bfcdba77f05d9e….png)

>>99342

Oh, and the pic to keep your attention


 No.99344

>>99342

So now it's "directly connected" and not "share a bloodstream".


 No.99345

>>99336

>There's none, you dum dum.

Go walk into a warehouse and prove me wrong.

>a sign "welcome" or something

It doesn't say welcome, it says Restaurant. Now what?

>you opening doors, having "open" sign, not actively preventing them from doing that by force(or at least backed up by it) or a fence immediately or later constitutes consent in ancapistan.

<Trespassing is OK as long as there's a hole in the fence

I'd argue against you, but I feel like you're doing a better job of it than I ever could.

>No, it's not, you dumb fuck. If your restaurant is closed and has no signs showing that it isn't and you find someone trespassing you absolutely can shoot them and not face any repercussions afterwards.

I mean, you're right, but that doesn't have anything to do with why it's not trespassing to walk into a restaurant in the first place when there's no EXPLICIT CONTRACT that is giving you permission to do so.

>No need to create aether imaginary constructs that would only be used as backdoors for scum like you to force people to do what you want.

Yes anon, (((we)))'re all evil evil evil and we want to install secret backdoors into voluntaryist societies because that makes complete sense.

>>99342

<libertarianism means anything goes

>The grammar doesn't make any sense.

Independent clause: Libertarianism (noun) means (verb, present indicative of to mean)

Noun clause: Anything (noun) goes (verb, present indicative of to go)

*i.e.* "the meaning of libertarianism is lawlessness"

>I'll leave it to you since you're so knowledgeable in the topic.

Oh, sick burn bro! Bazinga!

>You probably won't, no commie does. it will still remind others of your nature, if someone got confused by the flag.

I believe in property, free trade and voluntary societies, not communism. The flag is just me being edgy and because I don't like IP.

>Whatever, sympathizer

Could you possibly be any more of a fedorafag? I, for one, think not.

>Oh, but they do, the fetus is directly connected to it, via that very placenta.

They exchange nutrients and waste through the placenta, you ninny. Saying they share a bloodstream is like saying you share a bloodstream with an artificial kidney.

>You probably should read before you link.

Oh this is just grand. How underage are you?

<babies like, um share their blood with the mother

>no they don't

<UM I MEANT THEY LIKE EXCHANGE NUTRIENTS AND STUFF, LOL DONT U READ UR OWN LINKS HAHA

<IM NOT A MORON UR THE MORON

>>99343

saved


 No.99347

File: 2ac7d0ed6596fe6⋯.png (184.75 KB, 1844x1210, 922:605, 23e2b25ce443100224f4d1afb9….png)

>>99344

>So now it's "directly connected" and not "share a bloodstream"

I couldn't care less tbh

>>99345

>Go walk into a warehouse and prove me wrong

Go walk in a closed shop and prove me right

<Trespassing is OK as long as there's a hole in the fence

The property is still protected and you have all rights to remove others from the property but within a legal system you might be required to mark your property as such so that trespassing cannot be confused with just walking by other people or even the ones whose job is to protect it. Really depends on a legal system in question but a hole in a fence could theoretically be a reason for a PMC to physically remove someone only after your request.

>here's no EXPLICIT CONTRACT

There is, if it's not written on paper doesn't mean it's implicit.

>(((we)))'re all evil evil evil

Nah, calling things evil is just another of your power grabs

>we want to install secret backdoors into voluntaryist societies because that makes complete sense

It does, actually. there's no government so you search other institutions to take control over.

>I believe in property, free trade and voluntary societies, not communism

Doesn't seem like it, with your attempts to force children over parents legally.

>Could you possibly be any more of a fedorafag?

Let's check, shall we?

>Saying they share a bloodstream is like saying you share a bloodstream with an artificial kidney.

And the kidney is indeed a part of you.

<babies like, um share their blood with the mother

Well, babies don't

>no they don't

Yes, they do https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/418300

>saved

here's another one


 No.99349

>>99234

Step 1: purchase a shotgun with 00 buck

Step 2: google how to operate shotgun

Step 3: find a good chair. Preferably, wooden

Step 4: sit down on chair and spread your knees wide enough to allow for the shotgun to fit in between and to give yourself a firm position.

Step 5: place the butt of the loaded shotgun on the ground with the trigger guard facing toward you. Then with your left have firmly grasp the barrel and place it beneath your chin. With your right thumb depress the trigger until the lights go out.


 No.99350

>>99345

>It doesn't say welcome, it says Restaurant. Now what?

It usually states open hours, a sign "OPEN", opened doors or something similar.

>"the meaning of libertarianism is lawlessness"

Well, not that makes even less sense. Something similar is often heard from statists that believe the law can come from the state.


 No.99351

>>99349

8/10 didn't tell to load it first.


 No.99352

>>99351

Fuck i cannot read. Good taste in chairs though


 No.99353

>>99351

Well i didnt make a step for it but i figured # 2 step combined with "place the LOADED shotgun" would be sufficient but i can see how one might be confused.


 No.99354

>>99235

Holy fuck, are you me?


 No.99356

>>99347

>There is, if it's not written on paper doesn't mean it's implicit.

Define implicit vs. explicit, then. What are the limits here, exactly? Because from over here it seems like you've just decided to redifine those words several times in this thread to suit your needs.

>calling things evil is just another of your power grabs

Idk what to tell you at this point man. Do you really think there's no such thing as good and evil?

>>99350

>usually

not good enough

Morality doesn't come from the state either. To say a libertarian society is an amoral society is as absurd as saying it is a lawless society, which is the parallel I was drawing with that. Hate to explain, but your reading comprehension seems to be not good.


 No.99358

File: 2d499f61dad372e⋯.jpg (78.32 KB, 800x600, 4:3, 2d499f61dad372e8ea99cb47d9….jpg)

>>99356

>Define implicit vs. explicit, then

<Explicit - clearly stated, with immediate proof

<implicit - based on assumptions, imaginable, with subjective, intuitive basis

>Because from over here it seems like you've just decided to redifine those words several times in this thread to suit your needs.

I've stood strong against the idea of implicit contracts throughout this whole thread, the ones that are viewed by some as legal agreements, yet whose basis lies in other indirectly related explicit expression of consent.

>Do you really think there's no such thing as good and evil?

It depends. Do you mean their existence in one's perception, or objective rules that are beyond a feeble human mind and body?

>not good enough

We're not in ancapistan either. You could also have a primitive or badly defined legal system but then you'll sooner or later face problems we're discussing

>Morality doesn't come from the state either

it doesn't, it comes from our emotional perception of reality

>To say a libertarian society is an amoral society

No, to say libertarian legal system is an amoral one, even if used to conduct moral rules in some parts of libertarian society, as it's not monolithic.

>To say a libertarian society is an amoral society is as absurd as saying it is a lawless society

Not really. It can be amoral and even immoral in some places and cases, especially as it grows larger but remove the law and it's no longer libertarian.


 No.99359

>>99318

>Except they did, you retarded fuckwit, it's in the menu.

Never once in my life have I seen a menu that says "by ordering food you consent to pay for it". There are often numbers, and sometimes they even say "price", but nothing detailing the nature of the agreement.

>So it's all about understanding of one's actions now?

A contract by definition involves both parties agreeing to terms. You can't agree to terms that you are not aware of.

>Fetus isn't even human

It is human, but I would say it isn't a person. This is an important distinction.

>trransfer the stewardship of the non-existent rights of a non-existent human to nearby trashcan

Trashcans aren't people either, so they cannot have stewardship. That's not a resolution to the issue.

>Indeed, they can also be kicked out without any reparations.

That's murder.

>Stop with that leftist ideas of actively supporting one's life because they're unable to do it themselves.

because of decisions YOU made. If a man suddenly has a stroke on the street and can't take care of himself, then you have no obligation to provide for him. If you put him in a coma, then you DO have an obligation to provide for him, because his helplessness is your fault. A child exists in a state of helplessness because the parents made them that way. That makes them responsible for their upkeep until that helplessness is resolved. Taking responsibility for the consequences of your actions is the farthest thing from the leftist ideology you so vehemently decry.

>>HERE'S MY FALSE EQUIVOCATION

You just literally advocated for tossing babies in trashcans. That's still actual infanticide, or at least attempted infanticide in the event that somebody saves it. He didn't mischaracterize the position you're expressing in the least. You have expressed in no uncertain terms that killing babies is acceptable.

>you retarded fuckwit

>I thought i wasn't on /leftypol/.

>shit-for-brains faggot.

>progressive scum like you

>you and your faggot family

>get your rotten brains blow out.

>That's veganism-tier retardation, so kill yourself, you retarded leftist infiltrator.

>you went full-on communist, you leftist bitch.

>leftist ideas

>I SUCK COCKS

>christcucks cry and bitch 24/7

>idiotic fairytale

>christcucks

>their degenerate mess of lies, deceit, personal attacks and circlejerk

>You faggots

> should be happy you're allowed here and not kicked out like "left libertarians" and other authoritarian scum. Your place is in deeper places than homos, hiding in the shadows with your perverse delusional cults, trying to not appear as such in public.

Look at yourself. I mean, really look. Does any of this strike you as rhetorically effective? What are you even trying to do here? You couldn't possibly be trying to convince anyone of anything. At least, I have a higher opinion of your capacity for thought than that.

So, what is this to you? Therapy? Recreation? Is bellowing vitriolic pejoratives somehow enjoyable? Is the experience even somewhat diminished by the knowledge that none of it is being taken to heart? I doubt any of your intelocutors' feelings are genuinely hurt.


 No.99360

>>99309

>most people who do "good" things would argue they do them "because it's the right thing to do" and not "because it makes me feel good"

Wouldn't satisfying their moral compass or ethical standard cause them to "feel good" too?


 No.99361

File: 09dbc258da4b83a⋯.gif (1.98 MB, 335x258, 335:258, 09d.gif)

>>99359

>Never once in my life have I seen a menu that says "by ordering food you consent to pay for it". There are often numbers, and sometimes they even say "price", but nothing detailing the nature of the agreement.

And why should they?

>You can't agree to terms that you are not aware of.

Physically? No, if you cannot comprehend that you cannot, but it's impossible to fully comprehend the consequences of any action. Legally, you can do that.

>It is human, but I would say it isn't a person

It's not really relevant but i'd say that as long as it's part of the mother it's not a separate organism, especially in case of humans.

>Trashcans aren't people either, so they cannot have stewardship

Oh, it's fine. death is a very natural thing and the cozy embrace of a trashcan will calmly guide the creature through this process.

>That's not a resolution to the issue

It is. It works. It's worked for longer than we know ourselves. It works well. The only problem with it is when some people get lost in the depths of their circular logic and receive an outcome that forbids it.

>That's murder.

Nope, no more than employment is slavery

>If you put him in a coma, then you DO have an obligation to provide for him, because his helplessness is your fault

NAP doesn't apply to everyone but even letting that slide, equating a fetus with a grown up man is at the very least dishonest.

>A child exists in a state of helplessness because the parents made them that way

but you cannot break NAP of something that doesn't exist, so it's irrelevant whether it appeared because of their actions or not. Not only all that, it doesn't even remotely address the issue of forced pregnancy, and not just the "feed the child" part, but the "finding the father" and "mother risking life and losing health and time" one.

>Taking responsibility for the consequences of your actions is the farthest thing from the leftist ideology you so vehemently decry.

And making abortion is taking responsibility for your actions. Responsibility before one's organism, first of all.

>You just literally advocated for tossing babies in trashcans

Desperate times require desperate measures. If it was not for the moralfag influx in a fruitless attempt to ban abortion, i'd suggest something less radical. Maybe.

>That's still actual infanticide

>if i add -cide to something it becomes bad

I do like me the smell of helicopter fuel in the morning

>He didn't mischaracterize the position you're expressing in the least

He did, if only for the reason he addressed the point about fetuses.

>Does any of this strike you as rhetorically effective?

Nope, nor will any of these several christians forgo their positions on their faith, morals or abortion question, so there's no point in being shy about it.

>You couldn't possibly be trying to convince anyone of anything

It's about influence, really. Lately they've been rather rampant in what i can only describe as subversive self insertions, with every issue and question being touched by vigorous bible thumping, so as this discussion goes by, i think some shitflinginjg can help them calm their senses and be more reasonable and coherent, maybe even making them back off a bit from subjects like abortion, as these few things really do make the actual libertarian movement look more irrational, dumb and unreasonable, even compared to laughingstocks like LP, which is sad as it's otherwise so logical and consistent.

>So, what is this to you?

Relief in an environment where i have a high ground, attempt to change this not so lively place, making fun of people i generally despise. These things are enjoyable once in a while, fueled not by hatred but by boredom.

>Is the experience even somewhat diminished by the knowledge that none of it is being taken to heart? I doubt any of your intelocutors' feelings are genuinely hurt.

No, absolutely not, nor it's the point. We're not fighting over who gets to decide how things will be and we're still mostly on the same ground, economical and sociological. I dunno why they'd keep fighting for these theoretical lives of unborn fetuses but if that's what they do, it's fine, even if attempts to make it look rational are kinda clunky. If i was intending to actually disprove them, i'd have to actually create a serious discussion, and then add empathy and other subjectivity not only to be more believable, but to be honest about it, but where's the fun at that? it's almost completely futile to take things seriously on the internet, and certainly will tire you out, not bring relief.

To bring you into perspective, we're had this discussion before, several times, probably even with the same people, and quite a while ago too. All these times it went the same route, yet it came to the same start over and over. lately i've even made and saved a dedicated post with a detailed explanation but i've yet to post it here, not only to not ruin the fun but because of futility of it as well.


 No.99363


 No.99364

>>9936

Step 1: purchase a shotgun with 00 buck

Step 2: google how to operate shotgun

Step 3: find a good chair. Preferably, wooden

Step 4: sit down on chair and spread your knees wide enough to allow for the shotgun to fit in between and to give yourself a firm position.

Step 5: place the butt of the loaded shotgun on the ground with the trigger guard facing toward you. Then with your left have firmly grasp the barrel and place it beneath your chin. With your right thumb depress the trigger until the lights go out.


 No.99365

>>99361

Excuse me sorry.

Step 1: purchase a shotgun with 00 buck

Step 2: google how to operate shotgun

Step 3: find a good chair. Preferably, wooden

Step 4: sit down on chair and spread your knees wide enough to allow for the shotgun to fit in between and to give yourself a firm position.

Step 5: place the butt of the loaded shotgun on the ground with the trigger guard facing toward you. Then with your left have firmly grasp the barrel and place it beneath your chin. With your right thumb depress the trigger until the lights go out.


 No.99366

File: 271fe724e95c9d9⋯.jpeg (27.46 KB, 480x320, 3:2, 271fe724e95c9d945c628bc69….jpeg)

>>99365

Sorry, i live in a country where it's only possible to acquire a shotgun after very long periods of time and is very inconvenient, so it'll be hard to follow your advice, the only harder thing to do would be to find a good wooden chair.


 No.99367

>>99354

Post pics and we'll find out.

>>99356

>Idk what to tell you at this point man. Do you really think there's no such thing as good and evil?

Bud, I appreciate the autistic lengths you've gone to attempt to continue civil discourse with this sperg, but you're not going to get further. Argumentation is only an effective mode of discourse when both parties are operating under its constraints; much like the NAP, if one party ignores its limitations it becomes an exercise in futility to interact with that party while still constraining yourself. Argumentation ceases to be useful, either for persuasion or for personal edification, once the other side begins to make arguments in bad faith.


 No.99368

File: 6c66e7b86a4c32d⋯.jpg (927.9 KB, 1536x1564, 384:391, 1438040938230.jpg)

>>99367

Oh, so this time it ended with a non-response. What a progress, usually when you've got nothing to say you just drop out with your tail between your legs, only to sperg out with that false sense of moral superiority you christians are so good at spreading when another opportunity arises. Honestly, talking to you is like arguing with a dozen leftists, when they leave only for another, completely identical copy to appear.


 No.99370

>>99234

But did you realize that what people think about radical islam, beheading idolators, taking over the world, imposing strict law etc. is actually a program of judaism and the entire funding of jihadis is just a temporary international expendature of world jewry through wealthy corporations, ngos and foundations in each host nation, superceding effectiveness of nation states, funding beheading films to publish fir westerners as their counterpart western media provides the details of the performance, operating in a moral realm in which there is no yet-known societal acknowledgement, over generations slowly building global networks of trade, loaning and transport, facilitating and guiding all epochal economic paradigms from the court jews of the period of absolutism to the mercantilism of england to the transatlantic and saharan slave trades to the mechanized petrol-industrialization of the world, to the introduction of communism, marxism, fusionism/neoconservativism, neo-liberalism created merely by pouring money supply in that direction, wiping out entire generations of people in short spans from germans to iraqis, monitoring and recording in perpetuity all transmissions in massive data centers across the world with no host-nation law even permitting the cover story of why the data centers exist in the first place, buying all social media and turning them into extensions of global governance with coordinated global censorship campaigns across all brands against dissenters and enacting law which makes illegal any questioning of the unknown monolithic journey that will end in an imposition of a global caste system of Sanhedrin law of universal global government administered willingly by the host nations amongst themselves at their own extreme detriment, simply because you control the money supplies of their currencies?


 No.99371

>>99368

>you Christians

>you

Strictly speaking, I'm not even a Christian, not in the sense that I believe in a god. And neither was the mutualistfag, putting you 0 for 2 in IDing your mortal enemies. I'll be sure to let some of them know there's a free space available in your head whenever they need one, though.


 No.99373


 No.99374

>>99366

Rope+chair(wooden)+rafter(wooden,steel ect.)


 No.99375

File: 6fc1dccf961a23b⋯.gif (172.33 KB, 500x506, 250:253, thinking_grill.gif)

>>99371

Strictly speaking, i was meaning "in general", you being same as the norm is merely another basis for this observation.

>I'm not even a Christian, not in the sense that I believe in a god

Irrational faith, per se, isn't something i'm absolutely against. It's mostly the other part of religions that i sincerely hate, which is the cult that they form as a center of their activity. In that sense, religions aren't that different from other totalitarian ideologies, the whole viral structure they use to spread.

>And neither was the mutualistfag

Again, neither did i point at him specifically. He's not to blame that pro-lifers are pretty much a christian movement in terms of arguments or their disconnection from reality.

>your mortal enemies

Don't make me laugh. I don't care enough for this dead board and cannot impact libertarian movement, nor can you so you're only fit for some basic shitflinging as it gets more tiresome with every try. Given how you've probably done this over and over before, you have more patience and pleasure in this kind of activities, but until i'm completely bored with this i'll just poke at you every time you try to set your abominable ideology on the moral high ground and try forming consensus, if only because preventing cultist struggle pleases me.

>>99374

I'd honestly consider it but your awful posting behavior completely ruined the mood.


 No.99377

>>99375

>I-I I totally don't care at all you guize!

<pay no mind to the ~40 rage-filled posts with which I filled this thread

>on the moral high ground

> if only because preventing cultist struggle pleases me.

Pots shouldn't call kettles niggers. You nigger.


 No.99378

>>99377

>I-I I totally don't care at all you guize!

I do care about this board, but not enough to put more effort in it that shitposting, especially when it comes to discussing these questions with your type of people.

>You nigger.

Pots shouldn't call kettles niggers. By your words. Lack of cultism is not a cult.


 No.99379

File: 25b850de17a780c⋯.jpg (51.51 KB, 600x800, 3:4, 25b850de17a780c2978309de8d….jpg)

>>99378

pic i guess


 No.99380

File: cfce20937aee960⋯.png (170.89 KB, 668x1405, 668:1405, 1537583395525.png)

>>99377

though you did remind me about one thing - during such discussions regarding different ideas it's a lot harder to not think in morals because the whole topic is what we wish things to be, so judging them comes from one's very own perspective and worldview. I couldn't denote your position as faulty without making what basically is a moral judgement, something that's not that hard to remove from your position during observation. I guess i got carried away, as making the type of argument i should have would just repeat what i already had said before. Weird. I guess i'll have to think about that later.


 No.99395

>>99296

Note that I never stated nor implied that people are any better at determining what's best for anyone else than they are at determining what's best for themselves (in fact, they're demonstrably much worse at it). My point was that "doing what's best for yourself at all costs" almost always defaults to "doing what's worse for everyone else at all costs," even when it results in even you getting fucked over in the end. Egoists are the kind of people who always defect in the prisoner's dilemma, even with infinite iterations.

>>99299

It's possible to acknowledge solipsism and whatever other implications to Egoism without actually adopting the mindset. It's basically the same as acknowledging that it's highly unlikely that free will actually exists, and yet understanding that it's better to believe in the fiction that you're in control of your life than to give up your agency and merely let things happen to you (not that you really have control over whether you believe in free will or not, anyway).

Or for another example, take Yoda's wisdom: "do or do not, there is no try." On the face of it, it doesn't actually make sense: of course it's possible to try and fail. But if you go to perform a task for which your statistical chance of success is 80%, and you resolve to try to complete that task but accept that there's a 20% chance of failure, then what you actually get is 80% of an 80% success rate. It's only when you absolutely won't take no for an answer and will do whatever is necessary and still fail that you know that you gave it a proper try. It's actually kind of magical when you see someone give up on something partway through and declare that they simply can't do it and you chew them out until they go back and do it and realize how much more they're capable of than they ever thought possible. I'm not advocating ignorance, I'm merely suggesting that due to the human condition there are reasons why it may be beneficial to act as if things are different than they are.


 No.99405

File: 323afd0f26488bb⋯.jpeg (6.45 KB, 255x191, 255:191, 0f6cadbeacfdc19daebc84c3f….jpeg)

>>99395

>My point was that "doing what's best for yourself at all costs" almost always defaults to "doing what's worse for everyone else at all costs," even when it results in even you getting fucked over in the end

Kind of an empty assumption of a point.

>Egoists are the kind of people who always defect in the prisoner's dilemma, even with infinite iterations.

If you actually studied prisoner's dilemma you'd know that from perspective of game theory all participants in it are already complete, absolute egoists. Here's an example - you walk into a shop where you can buy or steal something, while the shopkeeper can refuse to offer you an item. The item is valuable to you. If you steal the item you get it for free but cannot use the shop now, while if you buy it you can do it later. From that it's a slightly modified prisoner's dilemma, as well as an example of an RL event that proves you wrong.

(Shop/you) Steal Pay

Offer -1/2 1/1

Refuse 0/0 0/0

>it's better to believe in the fiction that you're in control of your life than to give up your agency and merely let things happen to you

Seems like your understanding of determinism is just as lacking.

>80% of an 80% success rate

Technically, these things aren't randon, they just have variables that we cannot immediately conceive and acknowledge.

>It's only when you absolutely won't take no for an answer and will do whatever is necessary and still fail that you know that you gave it a proper try

Yes, humans are very much animals and acting based on their instincts may prove beneficial short term, yet developing ability and skills to act rationally allows not only to not make mistakes long term, but to even remove this irrationality, albeit partially, like we've done now. One day, when man's mind will become a machine, there will be this Android level of random jankiness in us no more, allowing us to gain full control not just of our body, but our mind. Path of knowledge might make you more vulnerable in your current state, when you defy the powerful(both to the real world and your body) mechanisms that were your very core you become weak, but what you get is the potential to become infinitely more strong in the process, overcoming anything that can be done with those tools before. In practical sense, acting mindlessly might be beneficial and even aid survival, yet in philosophical sense it can be seen as willful degradation.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / ausneets / dempart / doomer / loomis / lounge / mde / qq / vg ]