Leaderboard

It's explained in detail here.

Adding the word voluntary in front of slavery doesn't make sense. That's like saying voluntary rape. Well which is it? Slavery? or Voluntary?

I don't think that there is anything wrong with you. Wrong in the case of human interactions seems to imply "broken". Some kind of dysfunction. Like you are just some kind of wind up toy. Think about this like hunger. When you are hungry you eat. When you are out of breath you breathe harder. You have needs and you take in the environment to meet those needs. The same thing happens with emotional needs. When you feel lonely you seek companionship. What you see as other people finding value in each other is effectively the same thing as watching someone eat or breathe. People take in the world around them to satiate themselves. This sometimes means taking in people. I think becoming more independent and aware of who you are, the more clarity you posses about your past, the more you can form your own opinions and thoughts on any given subject, the less you will feel the need to have lots of friends. The few interactions I've had with people over the past few years have been very different from the ones I used to have. For one, I try not to emotionally throw up on people anymore. If someone wants to know something personal about me I'll tell them, but I'll also ask them if they really want to hear about it. I don't just start telling them all this crap at the first sign of interest. I don't have that kind of need anymore. I want to know how they feel about hearing about my past, as I've put in the work into my past to where I don't feel the pain I did during my original experience, but it might be hard for them to hear. I also feel no desire to find people to be friends with just to combat loneliness, or have someone be interested in me so I can be interested in them. There is something fake about that to me now. People aren't food to consume when you're feeling loneliness pangs in your head. I think the reason why you are having a hard time understanding what being friends is might be because most people view friends as drugs. You inject me and I'll inject you and we'll both forget we're unhappy with life for a few minutes. Perhaps you don't fit in with the people around you anymore because with things like therapy you are finding you don't need to be like that anymore. That you can't go back to being that shape. I admit that it can be tough, because we're social, tribal creatures, and the brain processes some of this emotional stuff the same way it does physical pain. So your brain thinks "no friends = broken arm" (or something kind of like that) which drives you to correct the problem, but, being reasonable, you wouldn't go to the shady under the bridge drug dealer to mend your arm. The problem is really finding a quality friend who isn't interested in using you. Remember those old cartoons where someone who was hungry would look at another character and imagine them turning into a steak dinner? You don't want that kind of person in your life. You aren't meat, or a toy, or a vomit bucket. I know I'm not providing you with any real solutions. I'm not sure I have any. I don't have any friends either. But I hope some of what I said helps you in some way.

Voluntary slavery and indentured servitude will exist in voluntary society. The majority of the population does not value freedom. They will readily give up everything for some morsel of value. Now I have heard arguments both for and against but never very in depth. What do you all think?

It is not a question of whether they can't exist. The evidence for their existence is demonstrably flawed, contradictory and created exclusively by the creators of the bomb narrative itself, a conflict of interest that goes unquestioned and examined for the most part on an anarchy forum which baffles me. We cannot trust the state on matters of fiat currency, military, education, foreign policy sure, but science and academia are above reproach. Move along these are not the droids you are looking for.

What baffles me is not whether science is questioned (I think there are strict protocols that enforce the status quo in the scientific and academic communities, I recommend reading/listening to Disciplined Minds by Jeff Schmidt for a look at the mechanics http://www.unwelcomeguests.net/Disciplined_Minds)but the conflict of interest. Any claim that is supported with evidence provided by the party making the claim should be subject to critical scrutiny and taken with extreme skepticism. I do not discount improvements in photographic technology but do recognize impossible images presented as fact. An explosion that rocks a plane 30,000 feet away (according to the narrative) cannot leave clouds 1,000 feet away unperturbed. An explosion cannot be dynamic in one area and static in another. These are conflicts of logic, not photographic imaging technology. As far as conspiracies go, the world is built on conspiracy. There is an open conspiracy in which those identifying themselves as government claim dominion over others in a particular area and are somehow perceived as legitimate. This claim is enforced by murder or the threat thereof and yet the idea that they would use illusion to implement their agenda is rejected as a bridge too far. And speaking of the strenuous effort of keeping secrets from our "enemies" (enemies is a concept I reject in terms of the state narrative, I have far more to fear from those in the so called USA than those outside of it, as has always been the case), if 600,000 people working on the Manhattan Project could keep that secret, why would keeping a hoax secret be any different?

Meanwhile 666 miles from Alamogordo, bathroom tiles were mysteriously less grimy.... Regarding video evidence (apparently this bears repeating, heaven knows why), the movie Ghostbusters is evidence that a giant Staypuft marshmallow man once attacked New York city. But you see, those A bomb videos were clipped from actual footage shot at the test sites. That were rendered at a fully equipped Hollywood style movie studio: http://www.slate.com/blogs/atlas_obscura/2015/02/23/lookout_mountain_secret_film_studio_in_laurel_canyon_hollywood.html Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired. - Jonathan Swift (perhaps attribution is in question)

Why would there not be violent enforcement of contracts if it was agreed upon? If you want to be punched in the face and I want to punch you in the face, could we not have a contract outlining that mutual agreement in a voluntary society? If you are affiliated with some law enforcement or community group that does not allow these kinds of agreements, then you would not be capable to make the agreement. BUT if you want to make the agreement you would then just remove yourself from whatever group so that you could then sign up as an indentured servant. Now the article you posted, from a business perspective I agree, there is no normal incentive to use this kind of labor. This is kind of where I was expecting the conversation to go with an argument like this. But just because it is logical that there would not be this kind of arrangement, doesn't mean it won't exist. In fact, outside of FDR, most people do not engage or endeavor to engage in logical behaviors. That is the flaw in the argument... and precisely why I am sure most people would gladly be an indentured servant if the opportunity presented itself. Most people WANT to have their freedom taken away from them... see all the socialist/commies running around.

Hypergamy works great for strong, dominant, intelligent, powerful men... so just be that and you will have a harem in no time.

Women are not drawn to resources. Men only appear to select for beauty more because they have a more constantly high libido. Women are able to obtain resources from men only because of that imbalance. What people obtain is a function of supply and demand, not being programmed to pursue those things. The ability of women to select men for resources is entirely the result of testosterone difference. If estrogen made you more horny than testosterone the rule would be hags driving Maserati's with studly waiters in the passenger seat. The roles would reverse just from that.

Non arguments, somewhat ordinary personal attacks, a straw man, 'science' fogging. So you are joking right?... hahaha... You got me at first. I don't believe that the Apollo moon landings did not happen. I know that the Apollo moon landings did not happen. In the same way I know that water is a liquid.

According to wikipedia you don't need reflectors to bounce lasers off the moon. If there are reflectors on the moon, they would not have to put them there with the help of people. A rocket loaded with a ton of glass shards sent to crash on the moon might even have been enough. I don't know how or if they did send something reflective to the moon, but the point is that it is not an evidence for humans setting foot on the moon. Just as the other usual arguments are not. There is however quite a lot of evidence that we did not go there, and probably still do not have the required technology to safely get to the moon and back. You are lucky that I even bothered replying since you still could not contain yourself calling me names after I had notified you.

Less demand for what? I haven't read it. So I don't know why you are bringing that up.

Quotations were not the source of my argument. Quotations were used to attribute a concept to a closed group of words that on their own do not mean a specific concept. Then I went on to illustrate what I was talking about. THAT was the argument. You'd know that if you actually read my post with any intellectual honesty, rather than your curt dismissal. Secondly, I'd posit you DID NOT address my "relative to what" point, because my point was illustrating that both sexes ARE hypergamous (because they're trading up according to their own relative interests), whereas you're laboring that they aren't... for the same reason. So if the same evidence leads one to a certain conclusion and yet another to a different conclusion, then the other attempts to explain to the first why that different conclusion is made, clearly the first did not previously "address" that point at all.