Jump to content

B0b

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    89

  • Joined

 Content Type 

Everything posted by B0b

  1. B0b
    How do you know that Muslim people do not want states?
  2. B0b
    There is a difference between not wanting to invite someone over and wanting to take the money of your neighbor.
  3. B0b
    We should be moral because it is correct. Now, should we be nice or mean? Also, should we be moral with people that are not moral?
  4. B0b
    Let me summarize. If we vote for the less socialist, then we will in the end end up with higher taxes, therefore more socialism. I do not understand your reasoning. How can we exclude that a more liberal (as in liberalism) candidate, a bit like Reagan or Thatcher, will one day emerge and get good results? If such opportunity arises, it would be a shame not to make it happen.
  5. B0b
    The problem Cornetto is that there is absolutely zero guarantee that spreading the word around has more effect than voting for a candidate who promises slightly less socialism. Maybe small changes in the way a country is run can have a greater impact on people. We cannot tell.
  6. B0b
    Isn't an incorrect scientific principle unscientific?
  7. B0b
    If scientific principles are not correct, they are not scientific. Being scientific is simply an adjective that qualifies the person who adheres to scientific principles. So to me, this is a double tautology.
  8. B0b
    Suppose that 99% of the people in a country are very happy with their system and do not plan on attacking any other country. Morality aside, is this fine to you? Suppose now that only 20% of the people are very happy with a very moral stateless country because they cannot deal without rulers. Is this fine to you?
  9. B0b
    You think that Trump was the candidate that the system chose years ago?
  10. B0b
    Pardon me, but isn't "to be moral is to conform to correct moral principles" a perfect tautology? To be immoral is to conform to correct immoral principles. Therefore, we should be immoral. Why? Because it is correct. Did I make a mistake?
  11. B0b
    I said suppose all the citizens are happy with the system they live in. Suppose that all the people who don't like the system left long ago and that that the citizens do not find the system coercive since they approve it. I have been to Switzerland many times and have only found people who love their system, except for a few who would want more socialism. In other words, suppose your gang rape woman chose to have sex with the group of guys. Is the action taking place, which looks like a gang rape, immoral?
  12. B0b
    Suppose the citizens in a small country are all happy with their State, which work in a very democratic manner. The taxes are low and people are fine with the rules. Is such a State necessarily immoral?
  13. B0b
    It is the citizens in Switzerland who vote for the taxes. It is very decentralized. I have seldom heard of a Swiss citizen complaining about their system. The Swiss never conquered anything. They have been living there for ages, long before a state gradually emerged.
  14. B0b
    Apologies for having hijacked the conversation. The question matters to me because I believe that if not enough people are moral, there will never be any libertarian societies. But I will shut up this time since this is no the right thread.
  15. B0b
    I have to disagree with your premises. Switzerland for example has never used the concept of a state to motivate people to violent conquest.
  16. B0b
    Yes, anarchy would be the best way to protect oneself from evil people. But evil people will fight hard to keep the state in place. How do you get rid of the state with these evil people? "Logical with himself" was a humorous way of putting it. Sorry is my humor is nonsensical. I meant that men can choose not to be moral and feel very well about it. You can try to prove that non being moral is incorrect or whatever, but what difference does it make to the person who does not care about it and chooses to be immoral?
  17. B0b
    Evil people exist, and in great number. This is why anarchy will never exist. What it meant is that if someone does not want to be "correct", by being immoral, he is logical with himself.
  18. B0b
    Is it better to vote for a Mussolini, a Hitler or refrain from voting?
  19. B0b
    We should conform to principles that are correct if we want to be correct. But what if someone does not want to be correct? It is is choice, right? Then, his choice not to be moral is legitimated by his choice not to be correct.
  20. B0b
    Switzerland does not use the state for any violent conquest. They never ever attacked anyone. Therefore, if no state has emerged, it is not for the reason you gave.
  21. B0b
    More like 0.0001%. Refugees are a non-issue in the US, and not only because of the ocean barriers. They get in through the UN's Refugee Resettlement Program; first applying to the UNHCR (United Nation High Commision for Refugees) and undergo rigorous screening, which includes multiple interviews, background checks, reference checks, and biological screening. 0.0001%? This is so ridiculous. Even the Muslims that were born in the US turn Islamic terrorists at a much higher frequency. Oh yes, the the screening is so rigorous. Is it the same screening that was used for 9/11? The radical Muslim narrative is getting ridiculous. An extremist is not someone who follows an ideology or belief system, but rather someone who claims to follow a particular one while holding views which go outside its bounds So Jihad goes outside the bounds of Islam. interesting. You must be highly theologically educated about Islam. If the Islamic orthodoxy and most Muslims don't support terrorism, then so be it; the Islamic terrorists are extremists (which is made more credible by the terrorists being less engaged in their community, low theologically educated, and citing revenge as justification). It is exactly the opposite. The less theologically educated they are, the less prone to Jihad they are. Buy a Coran, instead of saying silly things.
  22. B0b
    It is not about supporting any, but about choosing the one that will implement the solutions that will deviate the least from libertarian solutions.
  23. B0b
    Yes, it will, but it won't make people smarter. They will still blame others. Some will turn to fundamental religions, others to robbing people, others to revolution.
  24. B0b
    Torero, suppose people are stupider than you think. Why would they be convinced that anarchy is thy best thing for themselves? To me, most of them will always be seduced by demagogical statists that will promise them money without working and alike.
  25. B0b
    When Bernie Sanders for example writes about socialism, is he doing the revolution? No. Therefore, when you are talking about the virtue of anarchy and the evil of the state, you are not doing doing any revolution, either. What makes you so sure that it will take a long time, but people will be convinced in the end of the virtues of anarchy? How do you know the other people at work will not convince the others faster that more state is the solution, whether socialist, conservative or islamist?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.

  I accept