"There has never been true communism."

[Age]

I think you have to be a pretty dried up psychopath to miss the fact that all mammals would not exist were it not for the altruistic love of motherhood.
One has to wonder at the degree of psychopathy here on the Forum to have missed that so completely.

A mother being protective towards her young is hardly the same thing as humans being 'hardwired for altruism'. And humans are probably LESS protective of their young than most other mammals. Just look at all the child abuse. A large chunk of human mothers put their ratbag temporary boyfriends ahead of their own children.

Have you ever considered WHY they do this?

[Age]

I think you have to be a pretty dried up psychopath to miss the fact that all mammals would not exist were it not for the altruistic love of motherhood.
One has to wonder at the degree of psychopathy here on the Forum to have missed that so completely.

I think you missed the parts about how having a child is the ultimate nonconsensual act - pure egotism, that existence itself is meaningless, and that life isn't a gift to everyone.

"non consensual act" to who?

WHY is having a child, supposedly, "pure egotism"?

What evidence do you have that Existence, Itself, is meaningless?

And, is life a gift to some, or to no one, to you?

[Age]

I think you have to be a pretty dried up psychopath to miss the fact that all mammals would not exist were it not for the altruistic love of motherhood.
One has to wonder at the degree of psychopathy here on the Forum to have missed that so completely.

A mother being protective towards her young is hardly the same thing as humans being 'hardwired for altruism'. And humans are probably LESS protective of their young than most other mammals. Just look at all the child abuse. A large chunk of human mothers put their ratbag temporary boyfriends ahead of their own children.

Ability to care for juveniles for as long as it takes is a possibility not available to most species. It's conceivable this ability is part cause of altruism, but it's not possible to measure the extent of its influence.
Veggie's comparison is correct. Human child care is patchy compared with that of other species that care for juveniles.

Maybe so, but do you KNOW WHY?

When, and if, you discover or learn, and understand, WHY, then you will also SEE, and understand, WHY 'true communism' is, falsely, said to have NEVER been.

We need to seek the cause of human bad child care and the cause of human lack of altruism .

The CAUSE is BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS, that is; when one LEARNS HOW to LOOK AT and SEE things properly AND correctly.

That cause is reason. Men have more reason to fear for themselves than has any other animal, because men can predict man's future and remember man's past.

Can women do this also? Or, is this just a man's thing only?

The result is cultures of callousness and madness. Callousness is like not rescuing migrants from drowning in the Mediterranean, or the extremes of libertarianism,or racial prejudice, or child neglect.

We are saddled with reason. Reason is what men do. Reason will have to be put to work to support love.

Find the REASON WHY ALL adults abuse children, then what is discovered is the ANSWER to creating TRUE LOVE for EVERY one. Then human beings can move forward, back to how they once were. That is; living in 'True communism', or in other words 'Peace and Harmony', with EVERY one.

[Age]

We just have to be very very careful to allow only bossy people who are also wise to be the rulers.

no

I thought the point of Communism was allegedly equality, and rule by all the workers -- "dictatorship of the proletariat", as Marx would have it.

But it turns out that it always ends up with "rulers," "bossy people,"...let's just call them what they are, really...the Stalins, the Maos the Ceacescues, the Castros, the Kim Jongs...not so much "wise" as ruthless.

And, the priests and preachers. As well as ALL of the "others".

In fact why do we not just look at what thee actual Truth IS. The 'rulers' or 'bossy people' ALWAYS end up being the adults, or the, so called, "grown ups" of the species; human being.

And the general populace too "equal," too levelled, subdued and fearful of their "comrades" to raise a finger in protest.

That's where Communism ends...as it has, every single time in history.

But ALL of them were NOT True communal living.

[Age]

This thing has a military to protect its borders, a court to decree its laws, and police force to enforce them, it might not be much of a state, but it is a state.

to be clear...

there are multiple, local, minimal courts of last resort to arbitrate local dispute; multiple, local, minimal constabularies to investigate local complaint; a border patrol, voluntary; a militia (everyone)

it might be a nation (I'd like to think so), but it ain't a state

But what happens to some one like "henry quirk" after they shoot dead some some for taking "henry quirk's" television set without their permission?

What court does "henry quirk" have to then go to?

Or is this behavior perfectly acceptable in this little minarchy 'world'?

Let's say some guy, we'll call him FDP, comes into town with a bunch of money he has no need to explain in any way, and buys up the local electricity supply chain.

which supply (there's multiple)? why would anyone sell to you (the current owner or owners has no interest in sellin')?

in fairness: I see your point...what you describe is a possibility (but not a certainty)...all is permissible as long as life, liberty, property are respected, as long as the three are abided

What happens if the owner of the electricity supply wants more money than "others" could afford to pay or that "others" want to pay?

The electricity is, obviously, the property of the owner of the electricity supply, and if the owner of that property does not want to share it, except for excessive amounts of money, then they do not 'have to' share it, correct? An owner does have a right to their property, correct?

thing to remember: the natural monopoly can stand forever, or fall the day after it comes to be

your alter monopolizes power, for example, and goes under cuz someone (call him HQ) comes in with a n. tesla-based wireless transmission system that renders your fairly acquired system obsolete (it'd cheaper, more reliable, lower maintenance)...and, no, he has no interest in meetin' with FDP to discuss partnership or sale


I know what they would do, it is the same thing as happens in failed states and mismanaged economies all the time.

I thought trends weren't certainties?


You can't run an economy of any complexity on neolithic barter principles and lumps of metal.

why not? hard value for hard value, value bein' fluid (based on supply & demand)

which is preferable: money as certificate of actual value or as certificate of faith?

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

That's where Communism ends...as it has, every single time in history.

To each according to need from each according to ability is where it began. It was an ideal , then an ideology, than a type of political regime.

At which stage did it go wrong?

[Age]

no

I thought the point of Communism was allegedly equality, and rule by all the workers -- "dictatorship of the proletariat", as Marx would have it.

But it turns out that it always ends up with "rulers," "bossy people,"...let's just call them what they are, really...the Stalins, the Maos the Ceacescues, the Castros, the Kim Jongs...not so much "wise" as ruthless. And the general populace too "equal," too levelled, subdued and fearful of their "comrades" to raise a finger in protest.

That's where Communism ends...as it has, every single time in history.

as I say: communism is alien to how man's head actually works,

When are you ever going to realize that just because within that head there are particular thoughts, then that DOES NOT MEAN that those thoughts are actually True, Right, NOR Correct.

You are basing this 'little ideal world' of YOURS on the ASSUMPTION, which you BELIEVE is true, that human beings are NOT 'naturally altruistic'.

Are even remotely aware that because of your upbringing hitherto then those thoughts, within that head, have just come from past experiences, and that you have NOT YET lived in NOR experienced the actual True, Right, and Correct 'world', so those thoughts are NOT necessarily actually True, Right, NOR Correct at all, either?

so any communism is gonna be a forced affair; the central committee or politburo makin' folks do what ain't natural

But ANY 'forcing' is the EXACT OPPOSITE of True 'communal living'.

seemingly: the tyranny of good intentions

but, as I say: the folks promotin' communism (not the useful idiots on the street, but folks in board rooms, folks with tenure, folks overseas) know communism can't work and why it can't work...these folks have no good intentions

OBVIOUSLY, NONE of things, which you say and propose are "communism" could work. Just like what you say and propose about "minarchy" could NEVER work, also.

so: just tyranny, or -- more directly -- slavery

Tyranny, and slavery, is what YOUR ideas of this little ideal world of yours relies on and revolves around also. As can be CLEARLY EVIDENCED and SEEN, from YOUR OWN WRITINGS.

[Age]

regular evictions and ejections

executions, mebbe

And what would be the possible 'excuses' for when it is 'allowed' to execute human beings, in 'your little ideal world'?

Well you might get the deus ex machina magical ending to the story it's true. Or you might get open revolt, sullen compliance, and/or people just leaving the territory because it doesn't seem to be working out how they hoped.

yep...this is true of any experiment...'murica, right now, is a good example...folks movin within (or just leavin' completely), a whole whack of sullen compliance, the beginnings of open revolt...all that's missin' is the magic


Barter economies are small, the range and scale of trade is minimal, supply chains for manufacturing complex product simply cannot be maintained, saving and investing are constrained,

why?


How does extradition work here by the way?

bounty hunters: why not?


Foreign states can't really sign treaties for that sort of thing when the counterparty to the treaty is signing on behalf of a non-sovereign club.

why can't that great entrepreneur FDP enter into contract with other nations? he's a sovereign

why can't the magician, HQ, enter into contract with other nations? he's a sovereign too


so your borders are quite likely to be closed

nah...the french are lookin' for a guy...cross that border, babee, cross it and make with the hunt...respect the three, though, frenchie or you may be the one hunted

'Hunted' by 'who'?

If 'one' has a right to life, and liberty, then who would have the right to 'hunt' down ANY 'one'?

if you are also associated with high levels of smuggling, which is kinda why half the people are going to even be there.

smugglin': ain't no such animal in the natural rights libertarian minarchy...many sketchy folks will make their way there...abide the three

And if one does NOT 'abide the three', then what happens to them?

[Age]

So, nobody take any risk, the result can be torture. But debt and risk are very fundamental to modern capitalism at all levels, when there's imbalances we have major recessions.

pay your debts: have no problem


Okay, I guess that doesn't put everybody off. It's hard to see that this sort of situation is really that desirable to most though.

only folks who want be there (here) will be...got no idea how many that is


Well the point for producers is to ensure that a glut in the price of whatever they make doesn't ruin them when the spot price is depressed, for large scale buyers of the same commodity, it helps them to plan months and years ahead so they can invest without the risk of losing that investment if the market goes on the wrong direction.

paraphase: risk (is) very fundamental to modern capitalism and its hairy, wild brother, free enterprise


all this...

For hedge funds the point is usually to ... well, hedge against some other position not working out (if you lend money to a plastics firm, it might go bad if the oil price goes up and thus their primary input cost, so you might buy some oil futures so that the lost money somes back). And so on, it allows complex multi-party financial transactions over a long period of time which makes the whole supply and demand thing we all rely on work more fluidly. Joe Average might see no personal value, but his job is probably made possible by this sort of thing in the background, and his ability to spend his income on stuff he likes almost certainly is.

...sounds like magical thinkin': let's sell stuff that doesn't exist with stuff that has no backin' value ('cept faith)

fine set of duds you got there, emperor


But he can just hire a bounty hunter and spirit the dude away.

yep, so why announce it?


Probably half of the people in your club-slash-nation won't accept that answer and now want to lynch him. Should they be put to the sword?

probably, but let's face it: he was a scum bag...I won't cry for him, or look to see the mob to get theirs


Probably best if you choose a site for your playground that's far from America, because your friends in Iraq will confirm this is the sort of thing that tends to rile the US armed forces, and they don't have a reputation for offering explanations when they are kicking foreign doors in.

soldiers are welcome


The people responding to these incursions are in some cases endangering innocent members of your own club should there be escalation of hostilities. Does this render them liable for execution?

which people and which incursions? I lost track along the way


This is all fine and stuff from your perspective. But the simple truth is the rest of the world is not going to deal on your terms.

so what? there's always someone sanctioning someone or embargoing someone

it is what it it


Legally you realise we can't actually prosecute people we kidnapped from foreign jurisdictions without due process that is only available through extradition.

that france, for example, has hobbled itself in such a way is the 'murican minarchy's problem how?

he's here...come get him...we won't stop you (unless we got him for sumthin' first)


By the time your population abandoned the project they would be exiting as refugees.

que sera, sera


Seems to me you can't kidnap a person who belongs to himself on nehalf of a foreign power without breaking at least one of those three of necessity. Plus, well, the leashing is not even metaphorical in this case.

seems to me...

if the hunter is a local: he'll know better than to go after a bounty without evidence of life, liberty, or property havin' been deprived..if he does, and others find out, he may end up hunted

...and...

if the hunter is from elsewhere: he better know better than to go after a bounty without evidence of life, liberty, or property havin' been deprived..if he does, and others find out, he may end up hunted

so: be vewy vewy qwiet huntin' wabbit


Can you see how I described your situation as the wild west earlier on?

sure...did I disagree with that assessment?

So, if 'one' takes "another's" life, liberty, or property then that 'one' can have their life, liberty, or property taken from them, by a, so called, "hunter".

Therefore, "hunter's" can take life, liberty, or property from human beings who have taken life, liberty, or property. But ANY human being could just say that they took the life, liberty, or property from 'a' human being because that human being took life, liberty, or property from "another" human being. Which is ALL just one vicious cycle, which is what 'you', human beings, are more or less living in, in those days when this was being written.

If 'one' has a right to life, liberty, and property, then ANY human being could take life, liberty, or property from a "hunter", after they took the life, liberty, or property of ANY 'one'. This just keeps going around, and around, and around.

'WHO' is the FINAL overseer AND adjudicator of ALL of this?

[Age]

So, nobody take any risk, the result can be torture. But debt and risk are very fundamental to modern capitalism at all levels, when there's imbalances we have major recessions.

pay your debts: have no problem

But 'WHO' decides on the 'debt' and how much it is?

What happens if the land you say you own "another" says they own it?

What happens when the land you bought with money from "another" was taken from some one "else" without money? 'WHO' actually owns that property?

Okay, I guess that doesn't put everybody off. It's hard to see that this sort of situation is really that desirable to most though.

only folks who want be there (here) will be...got no idea how many that is

NONE. Considering that if they ACCIDENTALLY touched your 'toothpick', without realizing that it was YOUR, so called, "property", and that you could, and would, just shoot them dead, just because you BELIEVED that they were stealing it at the time, and that this is ALL perfectly acceptable and reasonable in "henry quirk's" 'world'.

Well the point for producers is to ensure that a glut in the price of whatever they make doesn't ruin them when the spot price is depressed, for large scale buyers of the same commodity, it helps them to plan months and years ahead so they can invest without the risk of losing that investment if the market goes on the wrong direction.

paraphase: risk (is) very fundamental to modern capitalism and its hairy, wild brother, free enterprise


all this...

For hedge funds the point is usually to ... well, hedge against some other position not working out (if you lend money to a plastics firm, it might go bad if the oil price goes up and thus their primary input cost, so you might buy some oil futures so that the lost money somes back). And so on, it allows complex multi-party financial transactions over a long period of time which makes the whole supply and demand thing we all rely on work more fluidly. Joe Average might see no personal value, but his job is probably made possible by this sort of thing in the background, and his ability to spend his income on stuff he likes almost certainly is.

...sounds like magical thinkin': let's sell stuff that doesn't exist with stuff that has no backin' value ('cept faith)

fine set of duds you got there, emperor


But he can just hire a bounty hunter and spirit the dude away.

yep, so why announce it?


Probably half of the people in your club-slash-nation won't accept that answer and now want to lynch him. Should they be put to the sword?

probably, but let's face it: he was a scum bag...I won't cry for him, or look to see the mob to get theirs


Probably best if you choose a site for your playground that's far from America, because your friends in Iraq will confirm this is the sort of thing that tends to rile the US armed forces, and they don't have a reputation for offering explanations when they are kicking foreign doors in.

soldiers are welcome


The people responding to these incursions are in some cases endangering innocent members of your own club should there be escalation of hostilities. Does this render them liable for execution?

which people and which incursions? I lost track along the way


This is all fine and stuff from your perspective. But the simple truth is the rest of the world is not going to deal on your terms.

so what? there's always someone sanctioning someone or embargoing someone

it is what it it


Legally you realise we can't actually prosecute people we kidnapped from foreign jurisdictions without due process that is only available through extradition.

that france, for example, has hobbled itself in such a way is the 'murican minarchy's problem how?

he's here...come get him...we won't stop you (unless we got him for sumthin' first)


By the time your population abandoned the project they would be exiting as refugees.

que sera, sera


Seems to me you can't kidnap a person who belongs to himself on nehalf of a foreign power without breaking at least one of those three of necessity. Plus, well, the leashing is not even metaphorical in this case.

seems to me...

if the hunter is a local: he'll know better than to go after a bounty without evidence of life, liberty, or property havin' been deprived..if he does, and others find out, he may end up hunted

...and...

if the hunter is from elsewhere: he better know better than to go after a bounty without evidence of life, liberty, or property havin' been deprived..if he does, and others find out, he may end up hunted

so: be vewy vewy qwiet huntin' wabbit


Can you see how I described your situation as the wild west earlier on?

sure...did I disagree with that assessment?

[Age]

I guess it's fine that you don't understand the parts of capitalism that you can't see.

what I understand: what is simple has been complexified solely to benefit profiteers

And what you are proposing is also TO COMPLEX, as you have PROVEN TOTALLY incapable of answering, clarifying, and explaining your proposal sufficiently.

What thee ACTUAL Truth IS, and what 'world', or 'way of life', that is Truly suited FOR EVERY one is FAR SIMPLER than that Truly ridiculous and outrageous proposal of yours here.

Your status will be that of a lawless wasteland.

lawless, mebbe, but why a wasteland?


Think about it, you'll be offering sanctuary to fleeing criminals of all kinds

nah...if scum comes, it comes but it ain't sanctuary...as I say: the minarchy won't protect 'em

Your description of "scum" SHOWS and REVEALS just how much you would LOVE to be the 'owner/dictator' of this 'ideal world' of "henry quirk".

in the minds of our voting public that will make you a haven for paedophiles and war criminals, which will be true. You'll be smuggling illicit guns and drugs across somebody's borders, so their voting public will demand action. Eventually you will move from being a curiosity to being an outrage, and then your much more powerful neighbours, with the institutions of an actual state, will have to decide whether to coral you or to police you. Keeping you all in your pit will be the cheaper option for a time, but eventually we have to allow doctors without borders and other charities to gain access to you.

fuck the world: bring it on


Alternatively, and much more likely but only if it's really quite quick, your internal political pressures will result in the piecemeal reintroduction of the institutions of an actual state, one crisis at a time like everywhere else,

if the good people of minarchist 'murica opt for this, well, I'll be disappointed...I'll just have to go back to to doin' what I do now


unfortunately, the white supremacist crowd were probably the first on board,

why?


Then there's the scandalously undereducated and malnourished children that some families seem to be churning out at an absurd rate...

self-directin' & -responsible folks don't do that...

LOL Just LOOK AT the under educated and VERY malnourished child that you are raising.

The only 'self-direction' you are taking is the one where you LOVE to be the owner and controller over "others".

And, as for you being 'self-responsible', your words REVEAL thee EXACT OPPOSITE.

whimsical, irresponsible types do...the later wouldn't do well in a minarchy...no social net beyond private charities (tun by minarchists who'd take a dim view of poppin' out babies without the means to care for them)

ONCE AGAIN, this is YOUR view ONLY, which you WANT, and BELIEVE, "others" have, or, at least, SHOULD have.

You'll find out that this minarchist only three rules deal doesn't actually do quite enough right now, and you need to add just one or two extra rules, every now and then.

I imagine there'd be any number of rules, all circumstance-specific versions of the three

And then there will be more rules on top of those ones, and then more rules having to be made on those, and then even more rules on top of them, and so on and so on. Which is NOTHING at all different from what has happened in just about ALL human being societies, up to when this is being written.

You wanna know how FDP got that power plant and distribution network? He found out that the owner has enemies in Bulgaria (he banged some political dude's wife) so he made up a story that some guy with a heavy East European accent is at the border looking for a posse, says the guy killed some woman in a hit and run accident and then paid off a cop. So FDP bought the man's property for just enough money to skip town, an offer gratefully accepted by the man who assumes he is quite legally to be handed directly to a mafia hit man and thus decided to get the fuck out of there real fast.

problem with your lil scenario: the fellow is far more likely to have his own security, and to deploy them, than to cut and run

he's a minarchist, not a pussy

So called, "minarchist" sound like little wimps, as they 'need' to carry guns.

frontier societies such as that only last a certain amount of time

trends, not certainties


Historically geography and culture have been the main thing preserving anarchic independence

indeed...'murica offers the geo-variety, existin' philosophy coupled with individual idiosyncrasy offers the culture

[Advocate]

>"non consensual act" to who?

the child, and everyone in society who's access to resources is diminished by there being an extra person on the planet

>WHY is having a child, supposedly, "pure egotism"?

The good of the child or society is not adequately, of ever, considered and their consent is never obtained, so the act is typically predicated on the desire of the parents to procreate, in total ignorance of obvious externalities..

>What evidence do you have that Existence, Itself, is meaningless?

Meaning is mind-bound and existence is not. The two concepts are not compatible. We can give meaning to particular existence, such as our own, but it's not inherent. Meaning is applied according to individual criteria, not discovered as preexisting.

>And, is life a gift to some, or to no one, to you?

To some, not to me.

[Age]

>"non consensual act" to who?

the child, and everyone in society who's access to resources is diminished by there being an extra person on the planet

How is it even possible to gain consent with some one BEFORE they even exist?

By the way I would be more concerned about the actual mess you are creating, with the resources that you use, unnecessary, and which are actually needed for ALL of the extra ones who are yet to be conceived.

>WHY is having a child, supposedly, "pure egotism"?

The good of the child or society is not adequately, of ever, considered and their consent is never obtained,

Again, how could consent be gained from some one BEFORE procreation of them has even begun. To me, it seems impossible to gain consent of those who are have NOT YET even be conceived of. But maybe you can explain how?

And, how do you KNOW what has been adequately, or ever, considered, or not, by any one person let alone ALL people here?


so the act is typically predicated on the desire of the parents to procreate, in total ignorance of obvious externalities..

If you want to talk about pure egotism how about we look at and discuss ALL of the resources that these parents, and you, use up and destroy completely unnecessarily so, and just for your own greedy and selfish 'selves'? Or, do you not want to look at and discuss this.

By the way, procreating is about the MOST NATURAL thing One does.

>What evidence do you have that Existence, Itself, is meaningless?

Meaning is mind-bound and existence is not.

This could be disputed. But you would not believe this is true, am I correct?

The two concepts are not compatible.

Maybe to 'you'.

We can give meaning to particular existence, such as our own, but it's not inherent.

Again, this could be disputed, and refuted, very easily and very simply.


Meaning is applied according to individual criteria, not discovered as preexisting.

Did 'you' discover this, as preexisting, or did you just apply this, according to your individuality?

>And, is life a gift to some, or to no one, to you?

To some, not to me.

Oh poor 'you'.

By the way, who are some, which 'you' propose life is a gift to?

[henry quirk]

Immanuel Can wrote:

That's where Communism ends...as it has, every single time in history.

To each according to need from each according to ability is where it began. It was an ideal , then an ideology, than a type of political regime.

At which stage did it go wrong?

right at the start

[Advocate]

>How is it even possible to gain consent with some one BEFORE they even exist?

It's not. That's why it's the ultimate nonconsensual act.

>By the way I would be more concerned about the actual mess you are creating, with the resources that you use, unnecessary, and which are actually needed for ALL of the extra ones who are yet to be conceived.

You're saying an actual person should give up resources to hypothetical people. I also support efficiency and sustainability which means using less resources, but that's not at issue here.

>Again, how could consent be gained from some one BEFORE procreation of them has even begun. To me, it seems impossible to gain consent of those who are have NOT YET even be conceived of. But maybe you can explain how?

Again, that's the problem i raised not an addition to the conversation. It can't be consensual so it can't be considered for the good of anyone but the parents..

>And, how do you KNOW what has been adequately, or ever, considered, or not, by any one person let alone ALL people here?

I don't, that's why i used words like "typically".

>If you want to talk about pure egotism how about we look at and discuss ALL of the resources that these parents, and you, use up and destroy completely unnecessarily so, and just for your own greedy and selfish 'selves'? Or, do you not want to look at and discuss this.

You're welcome to in a different post but that's a different topic.

>By the way, procreating is about the MOST NATURAL thing One does.

Yes, and overcoming the state of nature is the most fundamental thing civilisation does.

>>Meaning is mind-bound and existence is not.

>This could be disputed. But you would not believe this is true, am I correct?

It is true, whether or not i accept it.

>>The two concepts are not compatible.

>Maybe to 'you'.

The strength of my conceptual space is that it answers all philosophical questions coherently. You don't have to accept it. It's a framework for understanding. Schitzophrenia and whatever you're doing are also frameworks for understanding.

>>We can give meaning to particular existence, such as our own, but it's not inherent.

>Again, this could be disputed, and refuted, very easily and very simply.

Everything can be disputed but not everything is disputable. 2+2=4 is indisputable because fucking nuts people's opinions don't matter in intelligent conversation. That there is meaning outside a mind is an opinion that can only be held by fucking nuts people with a completely imaginary ontology. Serious thinkers need not take non-serious thinkers' ideas seriously.

>Did 'you' discover this, as preexisting, or did you just apply this, according to your individuality?

Again, my framework is sufficient to answer all philosophical questions coherently. In what sense is that not sufficient for you?

>>>And, is life a gift to some, or to no one, to you?

>>To some, not to me.

>Oh poor 'you'.

That response is widely recognised as "being an asshole".

By the way, who are some, which 'you' propose life is a gift to?

Anyone who says so. I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of their feelings, especially since most of them have primarily or only feelings-based cognition.