![Lolbertarians [GIF - 522KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/jAkqSx.gif){kind=link}
>it's question of who should
Who has the moral authority to say so?
>You're arguing yugos are more true than fords because you're driving a yugo
Ah, so are we saying this is strictly a relativistic issue?
I am trying to speak to issues of authority and justification.
Let's try to situate it in practical terms. You are calling us to fight against Jewish control because you say it should not continue. Without any kind of moral backdrop, their 'right' to control is just as fair as yours. On your terms, this is simply an issue of who can stake a claim and back it up.
On what grounds should people take up your fight? It's certain you think that people should find Communism wrong, and that they should be defending something you say is theirs. We'll take this to be something like shared history and cultural legacy. Okay, that sounds great. I'm sure there are people who will agree with you, a majority of which likely frequent sites like this.
But it raises the question: why do so many people who share your cultural background also believe Communism is a good thing, or, a form of progress. They will argue that just because something hasn't existed in the past, doesn't mean that it doesn't represent a form of progress. Especially given the fact that these Jews have such an entrenched global-scale power structure, what reason have you given people to fight for your cause (when it might mean the total eradication of their currently comfortable life)?
Without an appeal to some moral authority, you've got, "Well, well, we are the same color and our ancestors shared this ground. You ought to defend it."
If this kind of thing is the best you've got, a kind of morality-free game theoretic situation, you've got shit. You're seeing it play out now. Go. Gather up your hardline trad conservatives and see what you can manage. Anybody intelligent can see you're going to fail, and fail miserably.
The truth is incredibly relevant here. We require an appeal to something higher than being offended about violation of non-aggression principles. Men need to be unified by something transcendent to themselves, and in this day and age, that's not the notion of freedom. We've run that course about as far as it can go. We need righteous structure now, and that doesn't happen in a libertarian society. You will never foster the kind of group ethic and tendency to self-sacrifice by fighting in a cohesive way through libertarian principles.
Let's try to situate it in practical terms. You are calling us to fight against Jewish control because you say it should not continue. Without any kind of moral backdrop, their 'right' to control is just as fair as yours. On your terms, this is simply an issue of who can stake a claim and back it up.
That is how the world works, yes. If you lose it doesn't matter how right you are. You still lost.
On what grounds should people take up your fight?
Because it's in their interests to do so.
But it raises the question: why do so many people who share your cultural background also believe Communism is a good thing, or, a form of progress.
Because jews infiltrated the media/education system and my forbearers were too tolerant of them.
what reason have you given people to fight for your cause (when it might mean the total eradication of their currently comfortable life)?
Nothing. They won't recognise that they're fighting for their survival and the survival of their people until their life ceases to be comfortable.
Without an appeal to some moral authority, you've got, "Well, well, we are the same color and our ancestors shared this ground. You ought to defend it."
No. Nationalism is a natural inclination in all humans. It has currently been suppressed in white people but it will reassert itself given the right conditions.
If this kind of thing is the best you've got, a kind of morality-free game theoretic situation, you've got shit. You're seeing it play out now. Go. Gather up your hardline trad conservatives and see what you can manage. Anybody intelligent can see you're going to fail, and fail miserably.
We are. Yes.
The truth is incredibly relevant here. We require an appeal to something higher than being offended about violation of non-aggression principles. Men need to be unified by something transcendent to themselves, and in this day and age, that's not the notion of freedom. We've run that course about as far as it can go. We need righteous structure now, and that doesn't happen in a libertarian society. You will never foster the kind of group ethic and tendency to self-sacrifice by fighting in a cohesive way through libertarian principles.
Oh boy, this crap again.
I never once argued that a libertarian order should be atheistic, that I'm atheistic, or that a property rights system should be the totality of anyone's world view. I argued that it's a good way of delimiting power. That's it.
Next time you feel the inclination to slide the conversation into something completely irrelevant, please feel free not to.
>Oh boy, this crap again.
I had a similar thought.
If you have the time, please walk out for me how a monotheistic religious tradition (that is, a socially functional religious system) exists in a libertarian political paradigm. I'd really like to know how this works. Not only is this sort of freedom totally anathema to any theological framework, to make it so would remove almost all of the features of God that constitute the positive social effects.
It is in the nature of a true religion to be prescriptive in all of the relevant factors of life about which people would be concerned over their freedom.
Evolution. It passes moral judgments like a God running a death game. Determining who who is righteous and keeps their chance at living forever (though their descendants), and who is unrighteous and falls into oblivion (ending the long line of ancestors). Your ancestors are you, and you are literally made out of the pieces of their essence, what makes you unique are your genes and every gene in your body is inherited as a copy of a genes from one of your ancestors, a part of what made them unique, they live on in you, and you will live on in your descendants, should you have any. Seeing new organisms emerge with copies of your genes is like living beyond death, and you can do some small part of this while you are still alive. Direct propagation on one's genes, through bearing offspring, is not the only way, indirect methods also exist, such as others who share genes with you passing them on by having offspring of their own, thus there is a moral hierarchy established in relation to yourself with all things that live on this planet. All that lives on this planet is your family, you have different circles of family around you, and since they share more genes in common with you, you must place more value upon your more immediate circles than on those that dwell in the far periphery, all these circles around you are a hierarchy of the moral obligations you have to them, and sacrificing the organisms of a far circle for those of a close circle is not only a good move, but a moral commandment. Thus is resolved the inherent flaw in every moral system, the lack of a hierarchy of moral priority, now we have one: relatedness. Racism is a morally necessary value, and the reason for the instinct's existence is clear, a farther circle threatens the reproductive success of the closer circle. We have another moral hierarchy to consider in "youth", since the moral edict of nature is the propagation of one's genes, those who are younger have a greater opportunity to pass on their genes, those who are older have less of such a chance, thus nature itself decrees that children are a great treasure. This is the reason that any who harms a child or limits their ability to reproduce in the future, is worse than one who does the same to an adult, this is the cause of instinctive feelings of protection for the young. We have transcendence and higher powers, we have moral righteousness and a connection with others, we have meaning and purpose to our lives, it only takes some basic effort to find it, because it's pretty fucking obvious to me.
If you have the time, please walk out for me how a monotheistic religious tradition (that is, a socially functional religious system) exists in a libertarian political paradigm.
Easy, a bunch of people buy land and they dedicate their lives to their god.
(post is archived)