True. There isn't a candidate I can really get behind. There isn't a single candidate who is consistently principled in favor of liberty.
However, it might be kind of fun to support someone like Adam Kokesh or Darryl Perry in a future election.
Philosophically, I go all the way to anarchy, but I will suspect there will probably always be something that functions as a government (but maybe not the leviathan we have today).
Regardless of whether or not government is necessary, I strongly suspect there are elements of human nature that make the emergence of something that functions as government (even if we call it something else) probably inevitable.
The notion is that, if we're going to always have some form of rape, better to have the best, most equitable, least violent form of rape, isn't it?
I'm wondering why you would expect a candidate to stay principled.
How is there safety in putting a reserve lot with those who disregard safety and humanity?
Who pander to the thought of it to acquiesce a sense of false security?
What is the function of government?
Are there not but two answers?
To protect, defend, and so forth; to ensure equality.
To destroy by deception.
Does government exist by means other than involuntary ones?
I think you know the answer. And if so, then how is #1 able to be produced, if it is by the violation of rights, of protection, that protection is enabled?
The notion of government is an existential matter, inherently, the same as the notion of God.
Is that not how it is that you could attempt to speak of "human nature" as though it made systematic rape inevitable?
Total psychological de-stabilization occurs not through today or tomorrow, but to define the very concept of what it is that you, and people in general, are.
It is for this reason that I have now, for a long time, been working on systematic, entertaining depth to my conversations... and, as you might guess, from what you see here, to varying degrees of success, usually verging on failure.
True. There isn't a candidate I can really get behind. There isn't a single candidate who is consistently principled in favor of liberty.
However, it might be kind of fun to support someone like Adam Kokesh or Darryl Perry in a future election.
Philosophically, I go all the way to anarchy, but I will suspect there will probably always be something that functions as a government (but maybe not the leviathan we have today).
Regardless of whether or not government is necessary, I strongly suspect there are elements of human nature that make the emergence of something that functions as government (even if we call it something else) probably inevitable.
The notion is that, if we're going to always have some form of rape, better to have the best, most equitable, least violent form of rape, isn't it?
I'm wondering why you would expect a candidate to stay principled.
How is there safety in putting a reserve lot with those who disregard safety and humanity?
Who pander to the thought of it to acquiesce a sense of false security?
What is the function of government?
Are there not but two answers?
Does government exist by means other than involuntary ones?
I think you know the answer. And if so, then how is #1 able to be produced, if it is by the violation of rights, of protection, that protection is enabled?
The notion of government is an existential matter, inherently, the same as the notion of God.
Is that not how it is that you could attempt to speak of "human nature" as though it made systematic rape inevitable?
Total psychological de-stabilization occurs not through today or tomorrow, but to define the very concept of what it is that you, and people in general, are.
It is for this reason that I have now, for a long time, been working on systematic, entertaining depth to my conversations... and, as you might guess, from what you see here, to varying degrees of success, usually verging on failure.
Made a post about this.