Abraham Lincoln Is A Tyrant, and Eso Confuses Time Preference – Kool Kapitalist Kids



SUBSCRIBE:

——————–
GOFUNDME:
PATREON:
TWITTER:
GAWKBOX:
MINDS:
GAB:




There are 13 comments

Add yours
  1. 177SCmaro

    Not sure what's so hard to grasp. If someone believes in the initiation of force that is in direct conflict with the Non-Aggression Principle which is the central moral principle of Libertarianism, Anarchism/voluntaryism. If a Libertarian believes in the initiation of force i.e. rejects the core moral principle of his philosophy, in what sense is he a Libertarian?
    At that point you are just calling statists "Libertarians".

  2. That Guy S

    My main points for why states exist and always will:

    To answer this, we must first realize what a state is. (Paraphrasing Google here) " a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government" define government: "the governing body of a nation, state or community" so a government is a body of people who organize and govern a society. A state is a organized community of people under it.

    1: humans are hierarchical, and create hierarchies. What happens is that one person shows that they are more hard working, orderly, intelligent and trust worthy. Then the group ( as a group of individuals) give that person more respect and authority. So if some random person says something, you don't care. But if Donald trump says something, it has a lot more weight. The three factors for political power are 1: money 2: popularity 3: group of people willing to use force, either that or they're capacity for damage. You ancaps realize that people can move up through the market, however you forget that people move up were their word is also power through popularity.

    2: humans are territorial, so we have a abstract idea of the 'nation, motherland, fatherland and country' humans will associate the territory they're on and the law or rules. They also have a love for their people, because a nation has multiple things in common. Common religion, culture and historical conciseness. The same fundamental set of beliefs and value structures. I'm not saying that multiple nations can't be within a state, but that they will remain nations. Obviously this is all shown through nationalism.

    3: Culture. Culture wants a general sameness to the population that follows it. It is not a centralized thing as it is very decentralized throughout the population. A government can effect a culture or a populations beliefs, but a government comes from a common culture as well. It was born into a society with a set of beliefs. My argument is that governments and states come from culture. Culture has a obvious tyrannical element to it. But it offers protection from enemy states and outsiders. You have to remember that everything has a good and bad. It is capable of both ways.

    To summarize: I think that cultures, hierarchies and our territorial nature makes us want a state or government. To protect our land,culture and maintain order. This can be bad, for example a culture might need to change, or the order is to suffocating. The laws are inefficient and need to be changed. The state is old and always two steps behind, but the individual ( this is the core of western thinking) revitalizes the state and this the community. But without it a cultures influence will be lost. The common beliefs and value structures disappear. The land is lost and chaos will come from the lack of certainty*. People will lose trust in each other because nothing will be holding them accountable.

    * people will lose trust because the government enforces contracts. If I sign a business deal with someone and it's long term, how can they trust that I won't pull out? What if I get caught lying? What will be the repercussions for that? Now if your a large business the market will kick your ass, but if it's a small thing but it's still long term. No one will know. These small holes would destroy trust over time.

    We always talk about human nature to be individuals and it's great. But we need to remember that humans are also collective creatures, as we are social creatures. The state, government and taxation exist because it's done for the collective. You can hate it, you can say that I'm a filthy commie, you can say anything, but it won't change that fact. The government has a point of legitimacy, it works to centralize the focus of a society. It keeps the society together. This isn't voluntary, but a lot of things are forced on us.

    The social contact is real, that's a part of culture. Here this is what we give you, and this is what you give up. The NAP is a social contract. You have this freedom, but here is the responsibility for said freedom.

    I hope this wasn't too intellectual or too philosophical. I hope my points are spread and heard. I would like more people too hear them, even if they are debunked. Feel free to reply, and I want to apologize for the huge text wall.

    People should probably think about their positions before they make their points.

    A lot of people are going to question my libertarianism.

  3. Jay

    historically, "collectivism" is the primordial state of mankind, "individualism" is not the state of nature, it rather evolved once security was assured through collective means. if you don't understand the reason and purpose of something existing in the first place, why be so sure it must and can be removed? you are also not going to get anybody on board with "states are just bad, there is no need to understand why they exist in the first place and why they maintain power". to explain the phenomenom of states existing for centuries and millenia, there must be a deeper cause than just some powerful crooks who are good at deceit. enough free thinking and very bright people have lived in the meantime and yet we still have states. in fact, state power has even expanded. if its just a matter of some logical thinking, why have states lasted so long and remain very much unquestioned until this day?

    what matters is economics, incentives. if states are beneficial to people, states will exist. if a state is the cheapest, least risky known option for defense, it won't cease to exist. the only way you could possibly initiate a privatization of defense, is by demonstrating this to work in the real world, the problem is no one will let you do such experiments since it would involve giving up sovereignty over a territory. states generally don't do that

    the most free areas of the world that stay relatively free over a long timespan exist either by permission and protection from other states (hongkong, special economic zones, liechtenstein (which is defended by switzerland), monaco (defended by france)) or they have a massive geographical benefit regarding defense (ancient ireland and medieval iceland, the early u.s., great britain, new zealand), or they became very militarized (statism!) like singapore. if you do not have strong defense, you lost, because capital and the more productive would flock to your place, making it more successful and a good loot. experimenting with private defense involves too much of a risk then if you have alternatives at hand that are known to work

    start taking the real world into consideration –> economics, psychology, sociology. understand your opponents ("statists"), they are not dumb, neither are they uninformed. otherwise you will remain the fringe group that you are, not getting your ideas spread and therefore not having any impact on the real world.

    countereconomics won't get you anywhere. you are just seen as a parasite who uses commons without investing in it (=socializing costs and privatizing profits). the state, although not instantly, catches up with technological innovation that would put it in danger.

    and please try understanding other people's points

  4. Heath George

    There's nothing that the state does that the private sector can't?

    No. Who would arbitrate disargeements? What are the rules of the game? If someone is found guilty of murder, after sentencing, what is the sentence? How is sentence carried out? How would you agree upon such a sentence? What would you do if foreign actors start taking territories? How would you handle highways? What property should be off limits? What would you do if people start building a nuclear weapon? What would you do if I claim that you are on my property? What would you do if I am your neighbor and I invite my jihadist friend from Lebanon to carry out a terror attack? If one believes in the NAP you couldn't do anything to me until I actually carried out the attack. If you had a state and monitored who came in and out of a certain boundaries you would be able to stop this terror attack by calling the police. If I were to call you a pedophile and if I'm more popular it is natural by extension for me to believed which would be augmented if you weren't or were seen as weird.

  5. EgadsNo

    "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied every thing. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. [Cheers and laughter.] My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men. I recollect of but one distinguished instance that I ever heard of so frequently as to be entirely satisfied of its correctness-and that is the case of Judge Douglas's old friend Col. Richard M. Johnson. [Laughter.] I will also add to the remarks I have made (for I am not going to enter at large upon this subject,) that I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it, [laughter] but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, [roars of laughter] I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes. [Continued laughter and applause.] I will add one further word, which is this: that I do not understand that there is any place where an alteration of the social and political relations of the negro and the white man can be made except in the State Legislature-not in the Congress of the United States-and as I do not really apprehend the approach of any such thing myself, and as Judge Douglas seems to be in constant horror that some such danger is rapidly approaching, I propose as the best means to prevent it that the Judge be kept at home and placed in the State Legislature to fight the measure. [Uproarious laughter and applause.] I do not propose dwelling longer at this time on this subject." – Abraham Lincoln Fourth Debate: Charleston, Illinois September 18, 1858 https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/debate4.htm

  6. Heath George

    Thoughts on the stream as they come to me:

    Henry Kissinger is overrated. He's really smart, no doubt about that, I would say there is a romanticism of Kissinger that is based on myths instead of the facts. I could recite the consequences of his policies but I'll talk about a few. He wasn't that great on his own realpolitik philosophy. Him bringing over the Chinese to the American side was useful in bringing down the Soviets eventually, but the way it was attained was a great detriment to Bengalis. People talk about his détente a lot. His SALT agreements would've given more leverage to the Soviets. He was about agree to the SALT II treaty which was undermined by Donald Rumsfeld. He leapfrogged the Japanese by opening to China which the Japanese did not appreciate and it gave the United States a cynical brand. He doesn't think ridding the Islamic State is smart even though the United States (actually Barack Obama.) It's obligatory it be done. Sad thing that it was Putin who saved the day. Kissinger's reason is that it might interrupt the Iran. But that's assuming a lot. I can go on, but to say that one needs to be highly knowledgeable to be a strategic thinker is ridiculous. Pretty much anyone can connect the dots if you understand the politics of a region.

    Not caring leads to corporatism? I guess…?

    Lincoln freed the slaves. And keeping the Uniom together was worth it. I supposed the Confederacy would've banned slavery since their top generals didn't like it and some were rather humane. But I don't see how that's likely since a lot of Southerners were racists, I don't see how it would've happened until a lot later. Ron Paul and other libertarians complain that he overruled the right to secede but the Union should've stayed together since wars between two independent states make war more likely. This was addressed in the beginnings of the Federalist Papers. So Lincoln was right.

    The United States isn't a democracy. Democracies are referendums on issues with a simple majority instead of larger majorities and separation of powers as described on the Constitution. I don't know why they keep bringing up democracy. And the Constitution expressly says that there are certain things you cannot do even through legislation.

    Free markets respond faster to any democratic process. Indisputable.

    Rand Paul is a Libertarian, you're an anarchist. Him believing the in a state doesn't make him not a Libertarian.

    I don't think the Romans got as far as Ireland.

    I don't see how one cannot be an individualist and support a government run welfare organization.

    Governments should exist. Governments exist to provide stability. That's always the basis and always will be. Therefore government does have a justification for existing. Anarchy is not stable, therefore government is the result.

  7. Stylus Sketch

    What do you think of the proposed 28th ammendment?
    "Congress shall make no law applying to US citizens that does not equally apply to congressmen; Congress shall make no law applying to congressmen that does not apply to US citizens."


Post a new comment