the limits of fascism

[gaffo]

True, but hardly relevant if you think that we can possibly live without. I'd rather have a system that LEAST threatens others by the barrel of a gun. We still require a system BY the people without pre-associated favor to the selective power of those with guns who don't want ANY 'government'.

well, I'm horribly skewed in favor of a natural rights libertarian minarchy: as minimal as you can get, as impotent as you can make it

That's fair. I share it to the degree it could be done without affecting negatively against the majority regardless. I'm somewhat 'libertarian' too but cannot determine to what degree a system can be run without abuses somewhere regardless. We NEED 'regulatory' bodies, for instance, which, if able to enforce, act to 'police' those with power. By "power", I think of it in the same way as we use it in math as multiple multiplications which 'accelerate' the ability of those with more to gain 'powers of more'. The inverse is true as well. Those with 'less' power tend to be 'decelerated' in power, negating 'power' of multiplying multiple fractions that approach ZERO fast!; or, if the power is 1/2, this would mean the square root of square root of square roots, etc., that halves the power towards having NO capacity to do anything about anything: indifferent to 'slavery'.

if you wish to know more about the Libertarian mindset, ignore Henry - he is an authoritarian Trumper (he thinks he is a liberatrain but is not).

find someone else to talk to about Libertarian mindset - me? - a full bore liberal, and libertarian.

------------------------

clue here:

regardles if one is left or right, if one is a REAL libertarian, they are antiathoriarian by nature.

Henry is to pro Trump to be a real libertarian.

Rump has prooved himself via bogus claims of "voter froud/etc....................a clear dictator!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and no Libertarian would side with a such a man.

clue per libertarians:

We affirm the concept of the Rule of Law - so if rump is actively underminging it with bullshit claims about he won - well TRUE Libertarians (be they right (not reich) or left - will call out the thug Rump/

Henry never has nor will, so Henry is as /Libertarian as i am a Reichbuglican.

[henry quirk]

The government is that collective entity which claims authority to regulate your life from even before birth. At birth, at least, there is an implied agreement that must be understood and eventually accepted.

current govs -- all of 'em -- are the enemy...not a one has any authority that doesn't come directly from the barrel of a gun

so you reject the us dec of independence - that a legit gov is one that rules by consent of the governed.


interesting.

nope, wrong, do not pass go, do not collect $200

[gaffo]

well, I'm horribly skewed in favor of a natural rights libertarian minarchy: as minimal as you can get, as impotent as you can make it

That's fair. I share it to the degree it could be done without affecting negatively against the majority regardless. I'm somewhat 'libertarian' too but cannot determine to what degree a system can be run without abuses somewhere regardless. We NEED 'regulatory' bodies, for instance, which, if able to enforce, act to 'police' those with power. By "power", I think of it in the same way as we use it in math as multiple multiplications which 'accelerate' the ability of those with more to gain 'powers of more'. The inverse is true as well. Those with 'less' power tend to be 'decelerated' in power, negating 'power' of multiplying multiple fractions that approach ZERO fast!; or, if the power is 1/2, this would mean the square root of square root of square roots, etc., that halves the power towards having NO capacity to do anything about anything: indifferent to 'slavery'.

oh, abuses happen...problem is we keep hirin' nutsacks to oversee nutsacks

try this instead...

the government of a minarchy has four parts:

*local, minimal, constabulary

*local, minimal, court of last resort

*a sensible, border-stationed military

*a militia

the militia is us, our job: to, minimally, tar & feather, or maximally, hang from lamp posts, anyone in the first three branches who oversteps...oversteppin' defined as any unjust violation of a citizen's life, liberty, or property

and, once a year, for no reason at all, the militia gets to shoot anyone in the first three branches, in the ass, with rock salt...just as a reminder to the lot, they are employees

wow so you are both an authoritarian - sniffing rumps butt at all times, and more anarchist tham me.

shoot all and a let god sort it out.


you are all over the place.

but whatever.

[henry quirk]

True, but hardly relevant if you think that we can possibly live without. I'd rather have a system that LEAST threatens others by the barrel of a gun. We still require a system BY the people without pre-associated favor to the selective power of those with guns who don't want ANY 'government'.

well, I'm horribly skewed in favor of a natural rights libertarian minarchy: as minimal as you can get, as impotent as you can make it

from me noting your posts = pro trump - i think you are more authoritarian than libertarian.


- you seem fine with a Trump centric gov.


Libertarian my ass.

as usual, you ignore or just don't remember, past conversations, so, as usual, you're just plain wrong

[Scott Mayers]

well, I'm horribly skewed in favor of a natural rights libertarian minarchy: as minimal as you can get, as impotent as you can make it

That's fair. I share it to the degree it could be done without affecting negatively against the majority regardless. I'm somewhat 'libertarian' too but cannot determine to what degree a system can be run without abuses somewhere regardless. We NEED 'regulatory' bodies, for instance, which, if able to enforce, act to 'police' those with power. By "power", I think of it in the same way as we use it in math as multiple multiplications which 'accelerate' the ability of those with more to gain 'powers of more'. The inverse is true as well. Those with 'less' power tend to be 'decelerated' in power, negating 'power' of multiplying multiple fractions that approach ZERO fast!; or, if the power is 1/2, this would mean the square root of square root of square roots, etc., that halves the power towards having NO capacity to do anything about anything: indifferent to 'slavery'.

if you wish to know more about the Libertarian mindset, ignore Henry - he is an authoritarian Trumper (he thinks he is a liberatrain but is not).

find someone else to talk to about Libertarian mindset - me? - a full bore liberal, and libertarian.

------------------------

clue here:

regardles if one is left or right, if one is a REAL libertarian, they are antiathoriarian by nature.

Henry is to pro Trump to be a real libertarian.

Rump has prooved himself via bogus claims of "voter froud/etc....................a clear dictator!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and no Libertarian would side with a such a man.

clue per libertarians:

We affirm the concept of the Rule of Law - so if rump is actively underminging it with bullshit claims about he won - well TRUE Libertarians (be they right (not reich) or left - will call out the thug Rump/

Henry never has nor will, so Henry is as /Libertarian as i am a Reichbuglican.

I'm trying to grant charity to others and finding SOME ground is at least an opening to understanding AND attempting to alter others views. I'm trying another way to argue using "ownership" as per my last response to Imanuel Kan above. I'm not sure it will help but think that for others to understand how the abusive governments occur, it begins with how anyone believes what is one's "OWN". I also helped explain the source of the meaning of 'fascism' there. Maybe you can feedback on that point?

[henry quirk]

well, I'm horribly skewed in favor of a natural rights libertarian minarchy: as minimal as you can get, as impotent as you can make it

That's fair. I share it to the degree it could be done without affecting negatively against the majority regardless. I'm somewhat 'libertarian' too but cannot determine to what degree a system can be run without abuses somewhere regardless. We NEED 'regulatory' bodies, for instance, which, if able to enforce, act to 'police' those with power. By "power", I think of it in the same way as we use it in math as multiple multiplications which 'accelerate' the ability of those with more to gain 'powers of more'. The inverse is true as well. Those with 'less' power tend to be 'decelerated' in power, negating 'power' of multiplying multiple fractions that approach ZERO fast!; or, if the power is 1/2, this would mean the square root of square root of square roots, etc., that halves the power towards having NO capacity to do anything about anything: indifferent to 'slavery'.

if you wish to know more about the Libertarian mindset, ignore Henry - he is an authoritarian Trumper (he thinks he is a liberatrain but is not).

find someone else to talk to about Libertarian mindset - me? - a full bore liberal, and libertarian.

------------------------

clue here:

regardles if one is left or right, if one is a REAL libertarian, they are antiathoriarian by nature.

Henry is to pro Trump to be a real libertarian.

Rump has prooved himself via bogus claims of "voter froud/etc....................a clear dictator!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and no Libertarian would side with a such a man.

clue per libertarians:

We affirm the concept of the Rule of Law - so if rump is actively underminging it with bullshit claims about he won - well TRUE Libertarians (be they right (not reich) or left - will call out the thug Rump/

Henry never has nor will, so Henry is as /Libertarian as i am a Reichbuglican.

yeah, Scott, if you wanna discuss semi-functional alcoholism, stick with gaffo

if you wanna know about a particular strain of moral realism (natural rights libertarianism) and the nightwatchman proxy (minarchy) that could extend out of that moral realism, talk to me

accept no drunken substitutes

[gaffo]

well, I'm horribly skewed in favor of a natural rights libertarian minarchy: as minimal as you can get, as impotent as you can make it

from me noting your posts = pro trump - i think you are more authoritarian than libertarian.


- you seem fine with a Trump centric gov.


Libertarian my ass.

as usual, you ignore or just don't remember, past conversations, so, as usual, you're just plain wrong

my mem i spoor, you know that. i fyou have a point to make - i.e. that you do not sniff rumps rear and is aeal libertarian, show me by posting your beleifs.

from above all you are sating is that all goverments are evil because by nature cannot gov by cossent. so instead lets all get our gus and make hell on earth - anarchist.


---you never show me more than this philopspy to me.

---but i just a nuuter liberal libertarian - you affirm the former by deny the latter of me.

[henry quirk]

from me noting your posts = pro trump - i think you are more authoritarian than libertarian.


- you seem fine with a Trump centric gov.


Libertarian my ass.

as usual, you ignore or just don't remember, past conversations, so, as usual, you're just plain wrong

my mem i spoor, you know that. i fyou have a point to make - i.e. that you do not sniff rumps rear and is aeal libertarian, show me by posting your beleifs.

from above all you are sating is that all goverments are evil because by nature cannot gov by cossent. so instead lets all get our gus and make hell on earth - anarchist.


---you never show me more than this philopspy to me.

---but i just a nuuter liberal libertarian - you affirm the former by deny the latter of me.

keep drinkin', bud...it's doin' wonders for your postin'

when you sober up: go back and read what I've written, not just here in this thread, but in multiple threads...'till then, I ain't wastin' another second on you

[henry quirk]

That's fair. I share it to the degree it could be done without affecting negatively against the majority regardless. I'm somewhat 'libertarian' too but cannot determine to what degree a system can be run without abuses somewhere regardless. We NEED 'regulatory' bodies, for instance, which, if able to enforce, act to 'police' those with power. By "power", I think of it in the same way as we use it in math as multiple multiplications which 'accelerate' the ability of those with more to gain 'powers of more'. The inverse is true as well. Those with 'less' power tend to be 'decelerated' in power, negating 'power' of multiplying multiple fractions that approach ZERO fast!; or, if the power is 1/2, this would mean the square root of square root of square roots, etc., that halves the power towards having NO capacity to do anything about anything: indifferent to 'slavery'.

if you wish to know more about the Libertarian mindset, ignore Henry - he is an authoritarian Trumper (he thinks he is a liberatrain but is not).

find someone else to talk to about Libertarian mindset - me? - a full bore liberal, and libertarian.

------------------------

clue here:

regardles if one is left or right, if one is a REAL libertarian, they are antiathoriarian by nature.

Henry is to pro Trump to be a real libertarian.

Rump has prooved himself via bogus claims of "voter froud/etc....................a clear dictator!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and no Libertarian would side with a such a man.

clue per libertarians:

We affirm the concept of the Rule of Law - so if rump is actively underminging it with bullshit claims about he won - well TRUE Libertarians (be they right (not reich) or left - will call out the thug Rump/

Henry never has nor will, so Henry is as /Libertarian as i am a Reichbuglican.

I'm trying to grant charity to others and finding SOME ground is at least an opening to understanding AND attempting to alter others views. I'm trying another way to argue using "ownership" as per my last response to Imanuel Kan above. I'm not sure it will help but think that for others to understand how the abusive governments occur, it begins with how anyone believes what is one's "OWN". I also helped explain the source of the meaning of 'fascism' there. Maybe you can feedback on that point?

instead of bein' charitable, why not just address and challenge the content offered?

I wrote a fairly plain & direct response, to you, up-thread, about a natural rights libertarian minarchy

I'd appreciate your sober take on it

[gaffo]

That's fair. I share it to the degree it could be done without affecting negatively against the majority regardless. I'm somewhat 'libertarian' too but cannot determine to what degree a system can be run without abuses somewhere regardless. We NEED 'regulatory' bodies, for instance, which, if able to enforce, act to 'police' those with power. By "power", I think of it in the same way as we use it in math as multiple multiplications which 'accelerate' the ability of those with more to gain 'powers of more'. The inverse is true as well. Those with 'less' power tend to be 'decelerated' in power, negating 'power' of multiplying multiple fractions that approach ZERO fast!; or, if the power is 1/2, this would mean the square root of square root of square roots, etc., that halves the power towards having NO capacity to do anything about anything: indifferent to 'slavery'.

if you wish to know more about the Libertarian mindset, ignore Henry - he is an authoritarian Trumper (he thinks he is a liberatrain but is not).

find someone else to talk to about Libertarian mindset - me? - a full bore liberal, and libertarian.

------------------------

clue here:

regardles if one is left or right, if one is a REAL libertarian, they are antiathoriarian by nature.

Henry is to pro Trump to be a real libertarian.

Rump has prooved himself via bogus claims of "voter froud/etc....................a clear dictator!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and no Libertarian would side with a such a man.

clue per libertarians:

We affirm the concept of the Rule of Law - so if rump is actively underminging it with bullshit claims about he won - well TRUE Libertarians (be they right (not reich) or left - will call out the thug Rump/

Henry never has nor will, so Henry is as /Libertarian as i am a Reichbuglican.

I'm trying to grant charity to others and finding SOME ground is at least an opening to understanding AND attempting to alter others views. I'm trying another way to argue using "ownership" as per my last response to Imanuel Kan above. I'm not sure it will help but think that for others to understand how the abusive governments occur, it begins with how anyone believes what is one's "OWN". I also helped explain the source of the meaning of 'fascism' there. Maybe you can feedback on that point?

thanks for reply, and i too affirm charity. My post was per Libertarianism - you showed in interest and gave my 2-cents, and that i thought even though Henry views himself as one - from his prior posts i do not think he is).


If you are truly intersted in Libertarinism - the mindset, I welcome a full disccusion with you about it (I am "left" - henry is "right" (Reich- IMO). - libertarinism is a tent that only demands for the respect of Nature Law (self defense), and the Rule of Law - of th eland - here in america that means the US Constiitution................and where the rule of law fails ammend the constictioiion bvy legal manans. DRed Scott (fully legal - cival war to over turn it) - probibition - fully legal to make alcohol illegal...........and likewise fully leglal to repeal the 20th with the 21st).



Henry is too much of a rump sniffer to be a real libertarian. imo.


I've asked him to "discuss" his views of libertariasm, all he offers if one linerss - some are funny - none offer insight.


again - thanks for reply, i fyou wish to understand Libertariansim, only ask me - though on the lest side of, stiall am, and so undersand its philosophy.

[gaffo]

as usual, you ignore or just don't remember, past conversations, so, as usual, you're just plain wrong

my mem i spoor, you know that. i fyou have a point to make - i.e. that you do not sniff rumps rear and is aeal libertarian, show me by posting your beleifs.

from above all you are sating is that all goverments are evil because by nature cannot gov by cossent. so instead lets all get our gus and make hell on earth - anarchist.


---you never show me more than this philopspy to me.

---but i just a nuuter liberal libertarian - you affirm the former by deny the latter of me.

keep drinkin', bud...it's doin' wonders for your postin'

when you sober up: go back and read what I've written, not just here in this thread, but in multiple threads...'till then, I ain't wastin' another second on you

I shell, love to drink, also bought a 4k tv so now cant see my tests.

but go ahead and inssult, not that i am a pure asshole like you are.

so ya i'm drunk, and while drunk, and to lazy to spell cheeck what i poist (because i know reader can read through my bluriness) - you just show your personal charater.


so while you play the asshole bully pointing ffingers - "hes drunk!!!!!!!!" ya, and?

i post bluryy missspelled words with a point, and you post with one liners with no point.


carry on. bubba.

[gaffo]

as usual, you ignore or just don't remember, past conversations, so, as usual, you're just plain wrong

my mem i spoor, you know that. i fyou have a point to make - i.e. that you do not sniff rumps rear and is aeal libertarian, show me by posting your beleifs.

from above all you are sating is that all goverments are evil because by nature cannot gov by cossent. so instead lets all get our gus and make hell on earth - anarchist.


---you never show me more than this philopspy to me.

---but i just a nuuter liberal libertarian - you affirm the former by deny the latter of me.

keep drinkin', bud...it's doin' wonders for your postin'

when you sober up: go back and read what I've written, not just here in this thread, but in multiple threads...'till then, I ain't wastin' another second on you

I shell, love to drink, also bought a 4k tv so now cant see my tests.

but go ahead and inssult, not that i am a pure asshole like you are.

so ya i'm drunk, and while drunk, and to lazy to spell cheeck what i poist (because i know reader can read through my bluriness) - you just show your personal charater.


so while you play the asshole bully pointing ffingers - "hes drunk!!!!!!!!" ya, and?

i post bluryy missspelled words with a point, and you post with one liners with no point.


carry on. bubba.

[henry quirk]

yes, Scott, let's talk about natural law/natural rights

here's what I've written about it in this forum, many times, across multiple threads...

-----

I am a natural rights libertarian, that is, I'm a moral realist

this means I believe there is a fact about the human individual from which extends a moral fact

Instinctually, invariably, unambiguously, a man knows he belongs to himself.

He doesn't reason it, doesn't work out the particulars of it in advance. He never wakens to it, never discovers it. It's not an opinion he arrives at or adopts. His self-possession, his ownness, is essential to what and who he is; it's concrete, non-negotiable, and consistent across all circumstances.

It's real, like the beating of his heart.

A man can be leashed against his will, can be coerced into wearing the shackle, can cringe reflexively when shown the whip, can be born into subordination, but no man ever accepts being property, and -- unless worn down to a nub, made crazy through abuse and deprivation -- will always move away from the yoke when opportunity presents itself.

Not even the slaver, as he appraises man-flesh and affixes a price to it, sees himself as anything other than his own.

Take a moment or more, consider what I'm sayin' here, research the subject. Your task is simple: find a single example of a man who craves slavery, who desires to be property, not because he chooses it but because it's natural to him.

While you're at it, find a single example of fire that freezes.

I expect you'll be as successful with one as you will be the other.

Ownness (a man belongs to himself) is a fact (a true statement; one that jibes with reality).


Now, morality is all about the rightness or wrongness of a man's intent, his choices, his actions and conduct, as he interacts with, or impinges on, another. Seems to me, the validity of a morality rests solely with how well the assessment of wrongness or rightness agrees with reality, or with statements about reality.

So, a moral fact is a true statement; one that aligns with the reality of a man (not his personality, or opinion, or whims, but what is fundamental to him, ownness).


Can I say slavery is wrong is a moral fact?

Yes.

To enslave a man, to make him into property, is wrong not because such a thing is distasteful, or as a matter of opinion, or because utilitarians declare it unbeneficial. Leashing a man is wrong, all the time, everywhere, because the leash violates him, violates what he is.

-----

as a natural rights libertarian, it's natural I should crave minarchy, a minimal night watchman affair...what follows could pass as the organizin' principles for such an affair...

a man belongs to himself

a man's life, liberty, and property are his

a man's life, liberty, or property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property

-----

liberty, as a function of ownness, is self-direction & self-responsibility

-----

for the record: I hired ORANGE MAN in '16, and tried to re-hire him this year, to wreck shit, plain & simple...to reduce a gov to its minimum, you gotta begin by wreckin' it...ORANGE MAN is not an authoritarian, he's an agent of chaos

as I say, if you wanna know what a natural rights libertarian thinks, talk to him, not some drunk

[Scott Mayers]

Politics of any view doesn't matter when the nature of abuses come from a core drive of all animals to be selfish. I think a division regarding the 'fascism' in discussion is due to those who believe a system requires serving a unique special identity-class of people based most specifically on genetics and some presumed cultural association.

So regardless of our differences here, do you guys at least agree that the problem here is about those who believe in some 'racially' defined 'culture' to govern versus those who don't? The contentious differences of rights to what is or is not one's OWN is relevant here because of our capacity to pass on environmental benefits to those we have personal connection to most personally. As such, those who embrace the racialized governments are biased to passing on 'ownership' privileges to their own while passing on debt to the outside groups BASED on those identity beliefs. This 'strengthens the strain' of purity of those in power who have this racist preference by means of eliminating those who are NOT related to them genetically and culturally. THIS is the threat of 'fascism' for the majority, especially if you are NOT in their ancestral family group and cult.



To Henry on this post:

Ownership of oneself is not in question. But this is one's OWN 'governing', not about a system involving more than oneself. So while I can agree with you in principle, I'm not sure how you can have a functioning and safe society WITHOUT government, or, depending on how far you 'minimalize' its power, what you could mean?

It serves one well IF and ONLY IF one is in power or beneficial circumstances NOW. That is, if you HAVE fortune, you don't risk the loss when and where you LACK others to possibly discover you and further 'regulate' how far you can go. So of course you favor NOT having a system that COULD look at you. But....

Do you think that YOU are imune as an individual to HARM others? Do you discount the kinds of 'harm' as existing if you don't literally observe the suffering due to what they lack where it is specifically due to what you HAVE in excess? Only a government that doesn't discriminate FOR the present ownership powers at the exclusion of the rest is a biased system that TRANSFERS the power to 'govern' to those who 'own' regardless of their worth or degree of harm they pose. A 'minimal' govenment depends on what you expect should be kept. What do you think should be kept and why?

[Immanuel Can]

You are absolutely WRONG about linking fascism to the left

Actually, I'm not. Sorry, but I'm just not.

I understand why it makes you unhappy to realize what Socialism has really done and been, but we have to face history as it is, not as we wish it had been. We don't dare repeat the errors of Socialism: they have simply been the most deadly thing in human history.