jpahmad
-
Posts
936 -
Joined
-
Days Won
14
Everything posted by jpahmad
-
Rights don't exist. You're projecting. I'm not suffering now. I want to prevent future suffering. I'm primarily interested in preventing immigration. I want to buy time to convince more people of the nature of government. If I think Trump is going to slow down third world immigration, then I am going to vote for that. Do I know for certain? No. But I'm betting on it. Voting is amoral, so I'm assuming your criticizing the strategy, not the morality of the behavior.
-
Exactly! Vote Trump for self-preservation's sake. I'm starting to become convinced that sentences like these are virtue signals for anarchists. Here is the truth: You can actually cast a vote in a corrupt system and still be free in your own mind. Free as a bird! It is possible.
-
Don't bother looking, Molyneux never criticizes the state. lol
-
@dsayers, Tyler H, and Wasatchman. This person does a pretty good job of explaining sort of where I'm coming from.
-
I have voted in the past. Just not in every election since I was 18 What do you think would happen if the left went unopposed throughout the entire 20th and know 21st century? What if everyone who believed in government voted and everyone who didn't believe in government didn't vote? How do you think that would play out? That's not a rhetorical question. I really would like to know your answer.
-
Yes, the arguments remain the same in every election. Vote in self-defense of property. No The current situation? Compared to what?
-
No, I said "voting in self-defense" is like paying taxes. Please be accurate. No you didn't dsayers. You have just been reciting meaningless anarchist platitudes like "you're not free in you're own mind" or "that is the nature of the state." You have been doing this throughout the entire thread. No, I made that claim about Clinton to demonstrate how her potential arrival in office would be something I want to "defend" against. In the same way paying taxes is an effort to "defend" against going to prison. Absolutely correct. However, the argument I'm making is that in doing the action of "paying their fair share" they are not contradicting their own principals; because that's their principal. Furthermore, "paying your fair share", cannot possibly be a principle because it doesn't describe observable behavior. How do you observe what is fair? Maybe if you said "paying what you owe", which basically means "don't steal." Now that's a principal Again, you have not showed me anything. You have just been reciting platitudes that you learned from Larken Rose. You sound like a liberal when you do this. My principle is that I can act in self-defense. You agree with this principle. If you think that I am being disingenuous for some sinister reasons and that I really know I am breaking my own principal, well then, cast you're vote by choosing to engage with me or not. Some on this forum will, and perhaps some won't. That is the nature of social interaction. Here's a platitude for you: "Don't tell me what's in my mind" Here's another one: "Don't tell me how to spend my time" For anyone reading this thread who is curious, here is the video I've been referring to in the debate:
-
You know I'm not moving the goal posts because in my original video "voting for anarchists" I outlined a plan that would take many many years, a couple generations. I always maintained that Trump was just the first little step in a long process. I'm thinking down the road, for our children's future. I'm defending that. It's a principled action of self-defense. It's important to note dsayers, that even if I turn out to be wrong, even if things get worse, even if Trump turns into Dr. Evil, literally, it doesn't matter, because the consequences following a decision on principle are not important. So what you think about the consequences of my action has nothing to do with whether I'm being consistent with my own principles. Consequences don't matter in ethics. It's the principal that matters. If I feel that this certain action is in my self-defense, or others self-defense, or future generations self-defense, then I'm going to do it. You may think it's an awful decision. You may think my assessment of the current state of affairs is wrong. Think whatever you want to. That doesn't change the fact that I'm making a decision on principal in my own mind. And it's my mind that matters (to me), not yours. I don't feel at all like a "slave in my own head". Just telling you.
-
How is that so? Again, why do you think that voting takes so much time and energy? Geeze, it's just a trip down the street for me.
-
I believe that if I don't vote, if I don't do everything I can do to get Donald Trump elected over Clinton, then I will be violated in the distant future more than I'm being violated right now. It doesn't matter whether someone actually explicitly states this threat or not. I have good reason to believe it and I vote to avoid those negative consequences just like you pay your taxes to avoid those particular negative consequences. Everyone seems a little short-sighted on this issue. If the socialists in this country went unopposed throughout the entire 20th century, we'd be living in the Mexican version of North Korea by now. It's a good thing Conservatives didn't just put their hands up and say "what's the point in voting."
-
First of all, the consequences of not paying your taxes is not a certainty. The consequences of not paying your taxes is also not immediate. However, I do concede that most likely, eventually you would be put in prison, which is why you and I both pay our taxes. The reason why we know that we would most likely be put in prison, is because of looking at the history of what happens to other people when they didn't pay their taxes. Now, the consequences of not voting can be debated. The argument can reasonably be made, that if everyone who believed in liberty did not vote, then we would just become "subjected to the rule of of our inferiors" as Stefan pointed out in his video "the truth about patriotism." The only difference between the presumed consequence of not voting and the presumed consequence of not paying taxes, is the amount of time that passes before the effect of those particular actions are felt. Both are undesirable. So to say it's ok to act in self-defense in one case and not the other, is not making an argument on principle.
-
Great post Mtt. I would also like to add that the same argument for not voting can be made for not paying taxes. Taxes contribute to the corrupt system as much as voting does, if not even more. People who are against voting on this forum are also the same ones who claim they pay taxes out of self-defense. This is a contradiction. You cannot avoid the consequences of not paying taxes. But you also cannot avoid the consequences of not voting. The only difference between the two, is that one consequence is immediate and acute, and the other is farther in the future, but perhaps ultimately, just as bad.
-
It is certainly not built to be irrational. We process tons of information everyday. Obviously much is processed quickly and subconsciously. But a certain percentage is processed using conscious rational judgment. Is that percentage, the latter, which moves civilization. Of course, not everyone uses that faculty to it's fullest capability.
-
I have no idea what you're saying
-
A thoughtful analysis of the word and its application and one that ultimately leads to a new enlightened definition of "racism." It is a shocking revelation, but it is the only definition that will work towards social progress.
-
By definition, if voting is "immoral" then you should be able to use force to stop it. So, start going to voting centers and attack people who are voting. LOL.
-
Native Americans didn't own any land.
-
The Philando Castile death was even more horrible to watch. It seems, according to what I saw, as well as the analysis that shirgall posted, that the cop fucked up big time. There is no solution to this problem. Not until everything is privatized and localized.
-
Analysis of debate between Cenk Uygur and Dinesh D'Souza
jpahmad replied to jpahmad's topic in Current Events
Unfortunately, the Young Turks global outlook is the one that pretty much sums up that of the younger generation. They are the "mtv" of online news/commentary. It's important to keep exposing their crap. Sooner our later those young kids who follow shows like this will be running things. When you say "dry" what do you mean? -
I posted this publicly on my facebook page and it's a big risk I suppose because half my family is Muslim, or at least "culturally" Muslim and half my family, the half I'm married to, is black (Jamaican/Americans). But, I'm tired of looking are puppies and baby pictures on Facebook and at least I can sleep better at night knowing they those that hold my acquaintance know what side of history I am on.
-
How do you relax after days of battling on social media?
jpahmad replied to Tudenom's topic in Miscellaneous
Switch to battling it out on Freedomainradio message boards -
The founding fathers were all in debt. They were not able to cash in on their land grabbing efforts with Great Britain" proclamation line in the way. There was nothing virtuous about the origins of the constitution. The founding fathers were hypocrites. They wanted to get rid of Great Britain on principle and then still maintain their titles over land given to them by Great Britain. The country would have flourished without the unification of the states. The creditors would have just had to wait a little longer to regain their investments. It wouldn't have taken long though. The farmers were sitting on a gold mine of land and just had to recuperate after the war. The colonial gentry class, which spawned the "founding fathers", were entitled, democracy-hating, elitists who had very little to do with the growing wealth of the nation. They aspired to be like the English aristocracy and were looking out for their own financial interests just like everyone else in the world. It's time to let the fairy tale go.
-
Exactly. What do you think this forum is all about? It's about convincing others of the immorality of coercive government in order to get them to unify against it. The only thing you are wrong about is the forefathers "persuading the whole nation." The "forefathers" tried to use force first (see Shay's Rebellion). Once they saw what would happen if they demanded the farmers pay for the war, they switched strategies and drafted up the constitution. They conned enough of the population into signing it in order to get it ratified. The constitution didn't even have a bill of rights in it originally. It was one of the most perfectly designed scams ever put over on a generally intelligent population of people.
-
I love hearing Trump do stuff like that. It's so refreshing to hear. He seems to be a real person. I think he might actually have warm blood pumping through his veins.
-
There is one "should" in morality. If you want to be "moral", then the examined behavior should be able to be applied universally without contradiction.
