Finntronaut is More Ancap than Dennis
posted by Lucifer on July 26th, 2023 at 2:48PM
posted by Lucifer on July 26th, 2023 at 2:48PM
Response to: https://thewaywardaxolotl....3137625013749902
You're still being inconsistent about consent regarding people who never authorized their parents to give birth to them. No matter what reasoning you may use to justify the creation of new sentient life, you are always going to have a contradictory ethical philosophy unless you concede that consent should not be the ultimate value.
Unlike you, Finntronaut is a true Voluntaryist. He is antinatalist, because unlike you, he understands that consent also extends to child-birth.
Yes, most Efilists and Antinatalists want to die. But do you even realize how difficult it is to commit suicide? Virtually all life has a natural instinct to not kill themselves and to avoid death, so even if someone does want to die, it's not like they can just make it happen instantly. It might take them years or decades of suffering before they ever take their own lives, if they ever even manage to accomplish that.
If your own children told you that they wish that you had never created them and that you violated their consent in causing them to exist on planet Earth, are you really going to tell them that you never violated their consent and that it's their own responsibility to die if they want to?
> Truth isn't a democratic majority-based thing :p.
You have to define truth first.
> "Forcing people" = "do this thing or die"
Nope. "Forcing people" means "violating their consent". You don't get to change definitions just to avoid confronting the inconsistencies of your philosophy. All Voluntaryists uphold consent as the most important moral value. And since it's not possible to give birth to people without a 100% guarantee that the children would consent to being born, you cannot be a True Voluntaryist if you're not an Anti-natalist.
The Non-Aggression Principle itself is a misnomer because it's not just about maximal Non-Aggression, it's also about maximal Consent. Because if consent is present in an ethical scenario, then there's no aggression. The inverse statement is also true: If someone's consent is being violated, then aggression is present.
> In the cringe absurd unrealistic anti-natalist case, they WANT to die
This is not a "cringe absurd unrealistic case". This is a *real* thing that happens in real life every single day. There are at least hundreds of thousands, probably millions of antinatalists who wish that they had never been born. You can easily find these communities on the Internet too if you query your search engine.
You're still being inconsistent about consent regarding people who never authorized their parents to give birth to them. No matter what reasoning you may use to justify the creation of new sentient life, you are always going to have a contradictory ethical philosophy unless you concede that consent should not be the ultimate value.
Unlike you, Finntronaut is a true Voluntaryist. He is antinatalist, because unlike you, he understands that consent also extends to child-birth.
Yes, most Efilists and Antinatalists want to die. But do you even realize how difficult it is to commit suicide? Virtually all life has a natural instinct to not kill themselves and to avoid death, so even if someone does want to die, it's not like they can just make it happen instantly. It might take them years or decades of suffering before they ever take their own lives, if they ever even manage to accomplish that.
If your own children told you that they wish that you had never created them and that you violated their consent in causing them to exist on planet Earth, are you really going to tell them that you never violated their consent and that it's their own responsibility to die if they want to?
> Truth isn't a democratic majority-based thing :p.
You have to define truth first.
> "Forcing people" = "do this thing or die"
Nope. "Forcing people" means "violating their consent". You don't get to change definitions just to avoid confronting the inconsistencies of your philosophy. All Voluntaryists uphold consent as the most important moral value. And since it's not possible to give birth to people without a 100% guarantee that the children would consent to being born, you cannot be a True Voluntaryist if you're not an Anti-natalist.
The Non-Aggression Principle itself is a misnomer because it's not just about maximal Non-Aggression, it's also about maximal Consent. Because if consent is present in an ethical scenario, then there's no aggression. The inverse statement is also true: If someone's consent is being violated, then aggression is present.
> In the cringe absurd unrealistic anti-natalist case, they WANT to die
This is not a "cringe absurd unrealistic case". This is a *real* thing that happens in real life every single day. There are at least hundreds of thousands, probably millions of antinatalists who wish that they had never been born. You can easily find these communities on the Internet too if you query your search engine.
|
posted by Dumb nigger on July 26th, 2023 at 3:44PM
Lol all you ever do is quote that faggot. You’re so pathetic that it invokes disgust in me. You have no place talking about the topics which you pretend to know about lol. You’re a faggot who took beatings like a bitch from your whore mom and faggot dad. You’re a failure. You’ll always be one. You’ve already failed every argument in the world by supporting child abuse. By accepting the beatings you got as a child. Nothing that you say is ever going to matter in the light of your bitchy, shitty, cowardly persona. You can spout nonsense that your faggot boyfriend says ‘cause his wife is busy fucking someone superior to him, but it’s not gonna fill the human void which you hope like a bitch that it will. Lol. Get your shameful holes filled by that tiny dicked faggot somewhere else. This is too much faggotery to put out in the world.
What a degenerate virgin cuck. Lol, retard. Hey if you enjoy it so much I will sell you clips of my spicy Indian holes getting filled by my boyfriend’s superior white cock. Jk, you’re too fucking broke to afford it. You’re not even good enough to be a cuck. Even humiliation has a price which you can’t afford. You total, complete fucking failure.
|
|
Ancaps Support Slavery II
posted by Lucifer on July 26th, 2023 at 2:52PM From: https://thewaywardaxolotl....2617369848954321
It's "Georgist" or "Geoist", not "Georgian". "Georgian" is what you call people who live in the US state of Georgia, or the state of Georgia located in the Caucasus Mountains. This isn't hard. Most countries have Property Taxes instead of Land Value Taxes. In fact, there are legal barriers and technicalities to implementing LVT in the United States and other countries that prevent Georgism from being implemented: https://en.wikipedia.org/w..._States#Legality So stop saying that "we already have LVT". You don't know what you're talking about. Opposing Georgism is tantamount to supporting slavery (where slavery is defined as having a right to the fruits of someone else's labor). As you know from playing Monopoly (the board game), it is always always always better to have all the land instead of all the money. If you have all the land, and your opponent has none, you can quickly take (steal) all their money without even trying. And that is essentially what the end game of your anti-Georgist system would be. Monopoly wasn't made to criticize Capitalism, it was made to criticize Anti-Georgism. Under your system, the landlords and rent-seekers would suck up all the wealth, while everybody else has to scrape by, which isn't too different from how things are now, given that about two-thirds of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. |
