We must shame thots

It's for their own long term benefit in a way

> (((data))) @Patrick Clifford
@Yev kassem
That's a step too far
Data is data
Make your own conclusions tho

That level of solipsism

Consensus is useful for those who don't have the ability to go through the data themselves

It's a shortcut

Especially since the academia has been subverted

Meh it's not directly subverted

It's just that there is a general selection bias against Conservative voices in academia

@Patrick Clifford

> reality has a left wing bias
@Nerthulas
What do you think of race and IQ?

Or racial differences in general?
@Nerthulas

The whole ideology of the left is based on egalitarianism to some degree

> philosophy?
@blanc
Even contrapoints conceded that schools of philosophy are essentially leftwing echo-Chambers

That's why contra quit

> I do not actually think that reality has a 'left wing bias'
@Nerthulas
Yeah I figured you're being sarcastic

> how can you stand a tranny speaking
@blanc
I don't
It's like nails on a chalkboard listening to a grown man try to sound like a 9 yo loli

And that's with western scientists

In China for example most people don't even question divergent evolution in humans

China is practicing eugenics

Explicitly

The west is practicing dysgenics
Implicitly

> HEY i just BTFO the idea of left wing bias on actual science and yall ignored it
@blanc
Althype made a video about that shit
He said what you said more or less

So I heard that all before

> Er der dysgenics; yes, the world is f*cked, but that's the norm; suffering is going to get far worse once full dive VR becomes a thing and you can torture being for millenia in the most gruesome ways while only seconds have passed; be glad you're not those future people <:varg:552804477590044674>
@Vanessa Cross
Bruh I wasn't trying to black pill people
Dysgenic societies aren't stable

The usury economic model isn't either

That means the whole thing is gonna collapse on itself naturally

It's like a self inoculating virus

Here's a black pill
dysgenic societies can survive (and may well be the norm) in a constantly collapsing cycle

So we constantly rotate from orwells dystopia(tyrannical regimes that rule through pain) then revolt against execcessive order

To Huxley's dystopia(tyrannical regimes that rule through shorterm pleasure)then revolt in an attempt to establish order.

So this might go on till the stars die out

It's dystopian either way

Eugenics movements are at an inherent disadvantage optics wise

Coz its for the few not the many

Most of the world will oppose you
Coz most of the world is low IQ garbage

> Eugenics could be sold, if you just focus on weeding out criminals and people with major disorders
@Alien Strasserist
So long as that subset of people doesn't constitute the majority of the population

Liberty is a measure of the degree of decentralisation of the process through which groups organize the imposition of force @virtue

> Liberty is a measure of the degree of decentralisation of the process through which groups organize the imposition of force @virtue
A more decentralised system allows for more competition amongst differing models of governance

But it's also less powerful
As centralized military structures are more efficient at using force

But free markets naturally tilt towards monopolies

Eventually some billionaire is gonna get a private army big enough to enslave you @Chawosaurian

@Chawosaurian
Free-market competition incentivises the lowering of prices relative to competitors through 3 types of behaviours
1-lowering cost of production through increasing efficiency of automation/decreasing wages
2-lowering profit-margins
3-eliminating competition so you don't have to do 1 or 2

> you need 1 and 2 to do 3
@Chawosaurian
Until you don't

Amazon is literally maintaining a monopoly by operating on a net loss(decreasing the prices temporarily more than the small businesses can)

Because it can absorb the loss without longterm damage
@Chawosaurian

> @Ed
>
> we set up laws making sure that step 3 doesnt happen.
> You need step 1 and step 2.
> If you dont constantly try new things and test people
> you collectively forget what you know
@virtue

Yes
We use laws
Which are imposed by a monopoly we chose
To stop the monopolies we can't control

But it's not constant
It's just long enough to solidify the consumer base @Chawosaurian

> @Ed
> Eh, no I dont think we are creating monopolies.
> We are not directly controling companies.
> The law just set the common framework
> for all the companies
@virtue
The government is a monopoly on the use of force

Trade only exists as a consequence of the threat of force against all those who don't satisfy their end of the bargain

> Isn't that contracts you're talking about, @Ed ?
@The Eternal Swede
Yes

What stops a rich guy from getting a private army and enslaving us in a free-market

> if you are dishonest nobodies gonna trade with you
@Chawosaurian

You're presuming perfect transmission of information between individuals

You can maintain a good overall reputation
While breaking a couple of contracts here and there

Even more so if you own media companies that spread corporate propaganda

> @Ed
> Honor was enforce by the chief,
> the chief is STATE
@virtue
Yup
An ethical monopoly on the use of force

The model you're proposing is gonna lead to ultra-capitalist hedonism

Where the law is simply what the wealthy dictate on any given day
@Chawosaurian

> @Ed
>
> what defines the state is that there is an authority
> which mediate social conflicts
> and force solutions
> and make rules = laws
@virtue
I agree

No
Private property isn't the only type of property

You lose the common-wealth

The state has to impose a unified rule of law that concordes with the moral character of the voting base

The state is a corporation
that you subscribe to
To prevent violations of your property rights

> is a corporation that enslaves you and violates your property rights at will
@Chawosaurian
No
There are 2 types of property
1-Private property
2-the common wealth

If I shit in a river the state can detain me for violating the commonwealth

> if nobody owns the commons
@Chawosaurian
The commons are collectively owned by the investors that invested in the government(corporation)

Stole it from whom?

You don't get to enjoy the safety maintained by the government if you don't invest in it

Rights are whatever you can defend

I can declare myself king of the world
But I'll be eliminated by the people that have the biggest military

It's about who has the bigger stick

> the government doesnt maintain anything we do
@Chawosaurian
We create the government as an organisation of individuals that we choose

We trade certain private liberties for longterm safety

"For temporary safety"

Read the proper quote

> like eriously why do centritards think only their stupid thug entity can protect us from stuff
@Chawosaurian
Other entities can protect us from stuff

But it has to be a single entity in a given area

What matters is that the corporation operates in accordance with central set of moral standards

Not just which banker can give them more money

The free market always devolves into a centralized system because it's inherently less stable

@Chawosaurian
Has a libertarian system ever actually manifested?

Have you ever wondered why all the problems of the world can be traced back to central authorities ?


Because decentralized organizetions are so unstable(outside of larger centralized hosts) they haven't maintained themselves for long enough to cause a problem to anybody

How does more advanced tech stop the inevitable tilting of free-market systems towards more centralised systems?

The "free-markets" you're talking about only maintained themselves within larger centralized systems

government power needs to be reduced
Nobody is arguing against that

Well shit

I am for propertarianism

It maintains a small federal government
With a free-market of different models of governance within the states within the boundaries of federal law

America was on the right track before the civil war

@Chawosaurian
You have to contend with the fact that your system has never worked in real life

It will inevitably devolve into centralized systems of governance

I would love to declare self-sovereignty and make my private property an independant state

But what stops the guy with the bigger gun/more money

From taking my shit

Small in terms of military power and influence

If I am own land where people around me pay for a private military to protect them from all sides

Then I will also benefit from that protection without any investment into the private military

Huh?

What picture? @Opsal

I am no curt
but I think It's possible in theory(although easily conquered) the main issue is that you'll have to sacrifice the commonwealth

certain types of parasitism will be allowed if the commons are not recognised as legitimate property

The most common description of propertarianism that I've been exposed to is that it's a completion of libertarian logic in the longterm with a broader definition of property
@Opsal

What made you rethink your position?

@Chawosaurian
Goodluck creating ancapistan

It's just a matter of time before centralized systems conquer yours

The state is the army
Everything else is an accesory that's their to maintain it

Bigger centralized systems of organisation can pay for better armies

That's why no libertarian system has ever actually manifested

> @Ed you've read anything about Neoabsolutism?
@Opsal
Not really
In what way does it transcend what propertarianism couldn't?

> The state protects private property goy, now pay up or we'll take your private property from you
@Panikooooos

There is no stable alternative

You either pay to protect the land or you get conquered

Who colonises the land afterwards is irrelevant

Yes

There is no alternative to violence

The NAP only functions within a system that is reciprocal

> I'll see you in 20 years when seasteading becomes popular and I just pay pmcs to shoot nibbas like you who try to tax my property
@Panikooooos
Sure
Pay taxes to stop taxation<:big_brained:396156349676781569>

> @Ed Hurr paying a private company for protection is a tax <:hyperbrainlet:641878745631817738>
@Panikooooos

OK what if I have more money than you and I want to take your property by force and sell it to get more mercenaries
Then what?

That's where you're just pulling shit outta your ass

People won't risk their lives to protect other people's property

Not unless they're paid

> @Ed What if crazy hypothetical number #3525252 tho <:hyperbrainlet:641878745631817738>
@Panikooooos

It's not even crazy

It's literally the same shit that happens throughout history

Colonialism is the norm

> why wouldnt they attack a threat
@Chawosaurian
Threats are relative

If I threaten to take the property of anybody who doesn't have certain set of moral standards

And the moral standards are held by the most powerful people alive

Then who's gonna stop me from stealing other people's shit

> because the state usurped that
@Chawosaurian
There will always be a state to usurp t
Your bullshit ancapistan plans

That's what has always happened


A powerful minority dictates the rules for the exchange of property

A voluntary system devolves into a system of competing colonisers

And when the dust settles down you end up with current governments

> the private forces are more efficient and will work better
@Chawosaurian

The consumers of their services are primarily governments

The "evil" states are more competent colonisers than your ancapistanis

> notice how the most powerful countries have privately owned defense firms providing for the governments military
@Chawosaurian
Exactly

No you fuck

It's a proof that centralized states have more bargaining power