Athias

No, I'm no Einstein.

Pros of socialism

• Reduction of relative poverty. ...
  
• Free health care. ...
  
• Diminishing marginal utility of income. ...
  
• A more equal society is more cohesive. ...
  
• Socialist values encourage selflessness rather than selfishness. ...
  
• Benefits of public ownership. ...
  
• Environment. ...
  
• Reduced hidden taxes.
  

• Elimination of Private Property
  
• Elimination of Free-Flowing Prices
  
• Central Planning
  
• Union Regulated Wages
  
• Prohibition of Manufacturing and Distributing Luxury Items
  
• Reduced Product Differentiation and Substitution
  
• Decreased Quality of Goods & Services
  
• Diminished Incentive for Innovation
  
• Rationing
  
• Stagnant National Productivity
  
• Elimination of Individualist Moralism
  

Rumors from the underground suggest a new round of Covid and mandates will be in time for 2024. 

Do you guys know anything about this claim?

OMG, you are saying we should have another Holocaust ?

So why create a modern day Hitler (political martyr) if all elections are legitimate? Why eliminate political opposition through the courts if the voting system is secure and works?

Unless it actually doesn't work...

Why do you hate Jews? My great cousin was Albert Einstein.

Well, democracy was never about voluntary unions of people. If an individual must serve some system against his will, he is not voluntary part of that system anymore. Voluntary unions are the greatest form of freedom, obviously. Its just hard for [some] people to stop imposing themselves on others. Of course, the advantage of voluntary unions is that person can follow such idea even when only few others do. However, democracy cannor be willingly followed by those unwillingly exploited by majority/voting majority.

With so many people refusing to vote, can it still be called democracy, rule of majority?

Still, I do find it amazing that 20% of the population decides your country's faith.

Or 30%, if you count just adults and ignore that 15 year old has an opinion too.

Perhaps that is meant to be the meaning of the word, so rather than saying the "underlying consistency of intersubjectivity," we can just say "objectivity."

The theory of objectivity gives us the perspective that others may not see the world through our lens and may still be correct, creating a more accepting mentality of others' views. If we were to believe objectivity is irrational and the only reality is subjectivity, then there would be no reason to understand the perspectives of others. I believe that reality must be understood through an intersubjective lens, as to understand how others will act, being they are a part of our reality.

Trump got 74 million votes. Only 46 percent of his Party support him now. That is 33 million people.

There are 332 million people in the USA, so only 10 percent of the people in the USA support him.

Yes, I agree that there cannot be such a thing as objective information. This is because information must be observed and empirically verified, which is against the nature of objectivity. I also agree that all information that is gathered must be subjective, as it must be perceived in order to be considered verifed, and I agree that consensus is not a bases for objectivity, but a collective subjectivity.

Can you elaborate on why you believe "objectivity is irrational," and what this implies?

"Objective reality": refers to the theoretical world that exists independently of personal opinions or beliefs. It's the reality shared by all individuals. In contrast, "subjective reality" is influenced by personal opinions, emotions, and perceptions, varying from person to person. It's the individual's unique interpretation of the objective reality.

"Irrational": refers to thoughts, beliefs, or actions that don't follow logical reasoning or are not based on evidence and sound judgment. It contrasts with "rational" thinking, which involves logical and reasoned decision-making guided by evidence and coherent thought processes.

I would agree that it is irrational to believe that the objective realm exists with certainty, but not to acknowledge its theoretical existence, along with its practical implications.

Why is the left so irresponsible.

So you think Slovenian sex workers should become First Lady?

Without a more specific definition I have only the one I understand as standard.

Under that definition "partipating" and "enabling" have some relevent differences.

No, it was her labor which was partially coerced.

It is my position that there is very little a slave can do to be a hypocrite even if he has a principle of emancipation. Working doesn't make him a hypocrite, nor does receiving benefits. Even loyalty doesn't make him a hypocrite. Helping to prolong or begin the enslavement of others is about it.

Well at least you're consistent in your error.

Accepting welfare doesn't support the system, and neither does voting for liberty.

The only question you need to ask to know this is: What would happen if I didn't participate?

Welfare: The exact same thing except you would suffer and someone else would get your stolen value, stabilizing the government by increasing support from those who benefited from what was stolen from you.

Voting: The exact same thing, except there would not even be the awareness of a counter-force in the population making it all the easier to ridicule and isolate true liberals as "fringe" and "crazy".

They're going to do that anyway.

Also they don't "have" to do that in order to repay the value they stole.

They could just give back exactly the value they stole.

In a pyramid scheme the money stolen from newer victims is used to pay the dividends of the older victims. In the end there is a deficit because the scammers "profit" is that which they steal for themselves. For the government it's a combination of corrupt enrichment, pure waste, and wealth redistribution.

You are admitting that paying the "investment" money to the pyramid scheme is coerced and unavoidable, but that somehow if one can refuse to be paid dividends then one has a moral duty to do so.

This is false in this example too. If you didn't accept dividends would that weaken the pyramid scheme by one iota?

Any value what so ever that can be recovered from the conmen should be recovered. If you recover more than you originally invested then you have a moral duty to distribute it to other victims.

It's that simple, and I continue to see no reason to doubt this analysis.

Yet we know millions upon millions of families "boycott" public school. Do the collectivist care one bit? Do they ever say something like "Well people who aren't using the public school system shouldn't have to pay"

No, they don't think like that. Therefore if we can get school vouchers, we are morally entitled to use them.

If the plantation farms cotton, then butter and sugar aren't what were produced. It doesn't matter if it's the same value. Even if it did money is fungible so it is for all intents and purposes the same thing.

More than one thing can be stolen at a time. If labor producing cotton is stolen and bartered (through any number of intermediaries) for butter and sugar then receiving butter and sugar qualifies as recovering a part of that which was stolen.

It would only be hypocritical if refusing the benefit would prevent the further abuse.

So if the master offers a deal where the slave could choose between receiving the revenue of selling off other slaves or setting them free; then choosing the money is hypocrisy (assuming emaciation principle).

For welfare that would be the realistic expectation that not signing up would prevent further theft.

What was Donald Trump's body count as President compared to his predecessor(s)?

'Shameful': US virus deaths top 400K as Trump leaves office.

non-illusion

the "opposite" of "imaginary"

there must be a "real existence" of a "thing" (depending on your personally preferred definition of "real" and "existence" and "thing" and or "phenomena")

but there is MOST CERTAINLY NOT (necessarily) a "correct view" (of any particular "phenomena")

and i know this by pure logic

The unfairness is that you were asked for a definition of "participation" and gave a concrete example not a definition. I can infer from above that somehow "absent duress" is important.

The product of her labor was taken from her by force, thus her labor was partially coerced.

No one forced Rand to sign up

(I've never seen it proven that she did),

no one forces slaves to put above subsistence quality food in their mouth or beyond basic clothes on their back.

You imply that any action save for those specifically compelled that interacts with the system is somehow hypocrisy.

I say hypocrisy requires violation of a principle. There is no valid principle that states recovering some recompense is condoning the original or ongoing abuse.

True hypocrisy for Rand would be voting to expand or maintain a tax.

True hypocrisy for a slave (who claimed all humans deserved to be free) would be owning a slave.

There is no way to tell.

I disagree. If you extend that logic then voting is legitimizing/enabling the practice.

So if you pretend that you have no needs or desires they will stop stealing? Now that's wishful thinking.

I wasn't clear about "it's" this is analogous to claiming welfare and a slave accepting sugar and butter.

No they are not the same,

but the choice between Taxes and Taxes + Benefits is the question. If there is a moral preference it must be for Taxes + Benefits as that is more just in returning stolen goods and more likely to destroy the system of taxation (however slight the effect).

Then how does "providing demand for their supply" have any meaning?

The only possible benefit of not taking benefits would be to convince someone that you don't need those benefits and thus the taxation wasn't necessary in the first place. If the opinion of the oppressor (the one with the power to end the theft) is irrelevant then so is providing demand.

You are claiming that if a slave makes a pancake he or she is condoning slavery. I continue to find that absurd.

Well not if you define an abstract concept as a concrete example:

... but that's not really a fair test of your statements is it?

I see no reason to accept that exclusion as legitimate.

If a robber stole your car and said you could have a wheel back if you fill in a forum, and you have no other means of gaining any value back that is your only countermeasure. If anything up to driving a tank to the robber's house and blowing him away (or having a mediation company do it for you) is justified then anything lesser is also justified.

In what way does accepting government benefits enable the system?

If anything it brings it to its rightful collapse sooner by showing it can't even deliver what it promised.

It's like sending your kid to private school while being forced to pay taxes for public school.

but it could be said that the act of simultaneously submitting to taxes AND allowing government services to be focused on fewer people is enabling behavior.

The equivalent in the slave plantation would be refusing rations, but going out after a hard day of labor and fishing for your own food. Does that convince the master that slavery isn't worth it?

Hardly, he has to buy less grain for you now and it seems even more profitable.

It may serve some poetic purpose to stand like a statue in a field while they whip you, but there is no moral basis for calling someone a hypocrite if they don't do that.

They have the right and the duty (if they value their life) to do the best they can until escape or counterattack becomes feasible.

If working doesn't make you a hypocrite, why would accepting the fruits of your labor in whatever small quantity they are returned?

How do you define "participation"

and how does your given definition imply hypocrisy?

Keep in mind hypocrisy is acting in contradiction to stated principles, and one of Rand's stated principles is the golden rule.

In other words, she would not be a hypocrite to shoot back.

She was very clear about the moral error being in the "initiation" of force, not counter attacking.

we can apply your argument to a slave plantation

No more than one participates in the practice of slavery by failing to go on a hunger strike as a slave.

I see no reason to believe that, please provide an argument.

While I do understand her point, she was still a participant in that which she had condemned as an immoral welfare system. Her collection of social security checks is not akin to filing a grievance or conscientiously objecting. Yes, the government stole her income, but since the government generates no (morally) legitimate income, she was essentially remunerated with stolen funds. It's like being robbed and then accepting installments of repayment using money the robber stole from someone else. While receiving some of the stolen amount may have been a conciliatory resolution to her dispute, she was definitely a hypocrite, morally.

No, one is still very much a hypocrite because tacit legitimization is being provided in one's acceptance. Social security payments aren't doled out on one's own terms; it's on the government's terms. And it neither prevents nor stops the government from its continued thievery.

No, it's like being robbed and then accepting installments of repayment using money that was equally stolen from you as anyone else and which would not be returned any other way.

This isn't hard to figure out.

That's how much in government payouts you can accept without being a hypocrite in any way.

That's what I've done for myself, and my family. Let me tell you, there is still plenty I'm ready to recover.

If your metric for success is getting elected, then you could say the same thing for basically any third party. It's essentially impossible to get elected right now as anything other than a Republican or Democrat.

There are a lot of communists masquerading as Democrats,

and a lot of libertarians masquerading as Republicans.

Sounds like true liberalism has never been tried ;)

If it was true it is not hypocritical even in the slightest.

Her theory is that they stole from her. If someone steals from you, it's not hypocritical to get some of it back.

However, Obelisk seems a mistery. No Egyptian God was named Obelisk. Geb maybe reminds of Obelisk by being God of Earth.

However, the last name "Tormentor" doesnt fit in with Geb.

You mentioned Asar. I thought that was just different name for Osiris.

I have been thinking a lot about this. If I am to believe in some God, it should be the God I can see.

When I saw Slifer as a kid, in Yugioh season 2 episode 17, it was for the first time I have seen an actual God in glory.

I remember cheering "Kill them, Slifer, kill them!"

Later I learned that Slifer is one of three Egyptian Gods. In my mind, he is the coolest God among the three.

He is red and black, which are my favorite colors.

I am pretty sure Slifer would beat Christian God in battle. He could also beat muslim's Allah, I think.

No one ever seen Christian God or muslim god, but we have all seen Slifer. We know he is real. There are videos of him, and photos.

Slifer has two mouths, which make him look very cool.

He also has control of lightning and skies, and he is a dragon with large wings and long tail.

Plus, Slifer is Yugi's favorite God. Yugi is a good person. He fights for justice. So I am on the right track.

He is red and black, which are my favorite colors.

There is only one other explanation for the propaganda and weaponisation: He's a deep state plant and this whole thing is a kabuki play that ends in a police state.

Is it racism?

Say you are having a look around at a toy store in the USA. You see a certain doll selling for $20. Nearby, you see a dark skinned version of that doll selling for only $14. Is it:

A. Priced according to the law of supply and demand

B. Evidence of systemic racism

C. Both A and B

D. Some other explanation

Many have asked how I know there is such a thing as a "deep state" and can infer its motives. This is how, if these were organic interests created by the world views and values of political tribes they wouldn't switch so rapidly and with such perfect inverse images.

George Bush was a deep state puppet. Colin Powell and Cheney were probably deep state influencers.

Obama either puppet or influencer.

Trump was not deep state and impeded them

Biden is either a puppet or influencer, probably used to be influencer

This is the true dynamic of our age. The social issues of "conservative" vs "liberal" is a puppet show for the ignorant masses. The only real choice is between deep state and non-deep state.

Only the policy on military spending, inflation, and foreign domination matter to the deep state. Only those who threaten that agenda are labeled racists. Only those who threaten that agenda are so "dangerous" as to wararnt subversion of elections beyond mass propaganda.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHhEwRplV7M

Do you not notice similarities of subjective experience among various individuals in certain aspects of reality such as quantity consistency?

A bias is something a person would prefer due to its benefits for that individual. I don't see how this benefits me specifically. I also don't see the circular reasoning you are abstractly referring to.

My point remains because we were able to discover new chemicals and create new compounds before we could see the atom.

Second, it's hard to say what qualifies as an image of an atom. I could claim my photograph of the couch is a picture of atoms.

Does this image seem like an atom to you: https://www.news-medical.net/image.axd?picture=2018%2f7%2fCornell_atom_image_a61c3418583143b9a8197696f3b31f23-310x240.jpg

The idea I'm presenting is that we have been able to make much use of theories and concepts in all aspects of science.

It doesn't establish a proof of independence of the mind.

It establishes a proof that the theory of independence of the mind has much application in our subjective reality. Again, I say it is the "theory of objectivity" that is useful to us, not objective reality as a place.

You are suggesting in order to theorize an objective reality we must experience it. While I see you draw a connection of experience, I believe it's more reasonable that by understanding our many subjective experiences and the underlying commonalities we are able to theorize the ultimate subjective reality or the reality devoid of subjective experience, which is the theory of objective reality, regardless of whether we've experienced directly.

The basis for proposing a theory of objectivity is its utility. I'm not proposing that there is a world beyond subjectivity. In essence, whether the objective world exists or not is irrelevant since we can never experience it, but the theory of objectivity has served many purposes in our subjective realm. Therefore, out of practicality, I find the theory of objective reality essential to understand.

It's more than merely a perception,

it's an underlying consistency,

It seems to me that you are suggesting that numbers and empirical evidence are merely perceptions of individuals, I am in agreement.

However, it is not the point. I'm trying to explain that the underlying consistency among subjectivity can be better understood by using the theory of objectivity. I do not claim it to be a real place or something that can be experienced since by definition objectivity cannot be experienced, but that the theory can be utilized to benefit ourselves.

Would you explain what materialist misconception you are trying to avoid?

They are commonly accepted to be,

and without a sufficient explanation besides "They're not," you are hardly convincing me.

Then let me rephrase myself so you may follow. "The theory of objectivity is a crucial aspect of reality to understand." Since people are incapable of experiencing a world devoid of experience such as an objective reality it is merely theoretical and henceforth why objectivity is referred to as a theory. Thus, when I say objectivity is a crucial aspect of reality to understand I am referring to the theory since there is nothing more than the theory to understand.

I cannot know for certain if a meteor with strike my home, yet I make the assumption it will not.

Simultaneously, while being uncertain since I don''st know,

Every time anyone goes to their home, they are acting on the unknown presumption a meteor will not strike. I consider this to be evidence that we can act upon the unknown.

Secondly, I am referring to utilizing something we cannot conceptualize in our mind through theoretical representation,

I may not fully understand how a car, fridge, phone, or laptop work, yet I put them to use daily

Similarly, the objective theory of the world cannot every be understood or experienced, yet we can utilize the theory in many ways since it is meant to be the underlying concept of subjective reality, bettering our understanding of others.

We can think of the theory of objectivity as a refrigerator. We do not need to understand the inner workings of its entirety to make good use of it. I refrigerate my groceries everyday and I don't have a complete understanding of how it works, yet its helpful to me everyday in my subjective world. Similarly, it may be impossible to comprehend the objective world, as previously stated it is unperceivable, yet this does not render it unless or absurd, but unknown and available for use.

Being the objective view is the theoretical concept underlying our subjective experiences, by understanding the objective view we can make predictions and better understand our subjective views along with others rather than being completely blindsided to an underlying commonality and being ignorant towards the ability to predict others subjective lens which we obviously can do to a certain extent by using knowledge about the objective world and by viewing other's personalities.

I believe I understand that your stance is if we can never truly experience the objective reality then what is its intended purpose. The purpose would be to understand the bias in our own emotions and subjective lens and by understanding the underlying theoretical truth we can better interpret and understand the subjective lens of others.

As I said, I am remarkably familiar with the topic, and I have argued for Solipsism in the past and still do. Nonetheless, I see utility in understanding the underlying theoretical concept behind our subjective views of the world and see we can use this to make predictions and better understand our world. A primary example of this would be the theory of atoms. No one has directly experienced or been able to see an atom since they are far too small.

Nonetheless, the theory of atoms has allowed us to invent electromagnetic generators along with new materials and chemical compounds. It is in this way that theories and concepts are crucial to understanding and navigating one's life.

That is an assumption, but it is also an educated assumption which makes it a theory, and as I explained above, I believe that theories and concepts are a crucial aspect of understanding the world.

This statement refers to the philosophical concept of "noumena" as introduced by Immanuel Kant, a prominent German philosopher. In Kant's philosophy, he distinguishes between two realms of reality: the noumenal and the phenomenal.

1. Noumena: This refers to the things-in-themselves, the ultimate reality that exists independently of human perception and cognition. Noumena are things as they are in their true nature, beyond our ability to perceive or fully understand.
   
2. Phenomena: This refers to the world as we perceive it through our senses and interpret it through our understanding. Phenomena are the appearances or representations of the noumena that we can access and comprehend through our senses and mental faculties.
   

The statement suggests that "noumena" is an assumption made by Kant that has limited or no practical application in the field of epistemology. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature, sources, and limitations of human knowledge and understanding. It seeks to understand how we come to know things and the conditions under which knowledge is possible.

The criticism here is that Kant's idea of noumena, being things that exist beyond our perceptual and cognitive capacities, cannot be known or accessed by humans. Since epistemology deals with knowledge and understanding, concepts that are beyond the reach of human knowledge would have no application in this context. In other words, if noumena cannot be known or understood by humans, then they are not relevant to the study of epistemology, which focuses on the limits and possibilities of human knowledge.

My perspective is that if there exists an underlying structure that permeates all of our subjective views, then by formulating theories about the objective realm, we can gain insight into our subjective perspectives and biases. While I acknowledge that the world cannot be directly experienced in an objective manner, I believe we can theorize about it, and the theory itself can be known and help us understand our subjectivity. Therefore, I see the objective realm as unknowable, but the theory of the objective lens is knowable, as evident in my current conception of it. Ultimately, what we can grasp is not the world in isolation from perception, as it remains unknowable, but rather the shared essence among our subjective experiences—a collective subjective theory (theory of objectivity, not objectivity) that can be known.

Many people agree that quantities are independent of perception because it is consistent among all individuals that the number remains the same.

This would make it an attribute of the object and not of the perceiver, which makes it an objective and not a subjective attribute.

Being that it is self-evident to most people and myself that numerical quantities are objective and independent of perception, could you explain why you believe otherwise?

Objective:

1. Objective refers to something that exists independently of individual opinions, beliefs, or perspectives.
   
2. It is based on measurable and verifiable information that is consistent and replicable across different observers or measurements.
   
3. Objective information is not influenced by personal feelings, biases, or interpretations.
   

Examples of Objective:

• Empirical Data: Scientific measurements, experiments, and observations that can be objectively verified.
  
• Numerical Quantities: Mathematical values such as length, weight, time, etc., that can be precisely measured and expressed.
  

Subjective:

1. Subjective relates to individual perspectives, opinions, feelings, and experiences.
   
2. It is influenced by personal beliefs, emotions, cultural background, and individual context.
   
3. Subjective information can vary from person to person and may not be verifiable in an objective, standardized manner.
   

Examples of Subjective:

• Beauty: The perception of beauty varies from person to person and is influenced by cultural norms, personal preferences, and experiences.
  
• Value: The value of an object, experience, or idea is subjective and depends on how individuals perceive its worth or importance.
  

For example, while scientific data and measurements are objective,

their interpretation and implications can involve subjective judgments.

On the other hand, objectivity is crucial for empirical research, making decisions based on evidence, and providing a common ground for shared understanding.

So they ought to take care of their children but if they don't and niether will anyone else what then ought to happen?

IF no one decides to give children the GIFT of adequate food and shelter THEN ???

(Kindly if you have the time and inclination fill in the ???)

So really no one ought take care of children unless they feel like it.

That is consistent anyway.

but I do understand your stance.

When you say all coercion is wrong do you also mean that if one person gets another person pregnant that they should not be coerced or forced into providing for that child financially?

Like do you mean that while people ought to care for their children they [ought not be forced] to

or are you also in favor of [some] coercion [some] of the time?

Sorry to change the subject and we can get back to the rest of that possibly if we decide to. 

This is why I view objectivity as a theoretical concept that has pragmatic purposes, while acknowledging it cannot be proven.

I think it's reasonable to assume that anyone viewing an object must be subjectively experiencing the object.

In this way no one can ever experience the reality objectively, but subjectively.

Regardless, we can theorize what the world is like separated from our perception by using consensus and non-subjective tools such as thermometers.

In essence, every person is a subject within the universe and experiences it subjectively, while the objective realm is a theory of what the world is like independent of perception and is calculated based on empirical evidence.

I believe it rational that a quantity is a non-subjective aspect of reality such as the number of marbles in a bag which could be considered an objective aspect of reality.

The mind is dependent on the brain; there is no evidence for a disembodied mind. I think that mind is merely a name for a collection of brain functions, in the same way that digestive system describes the activities of a collection of bodily organs.

The events that happen in the mind are a form of experience like pain or sound. They are real, ephemeral, and private for each subject. Thoughts, recollections, imaginings and such, are a species of feelings. Those things are dependent on brain activity and have no independent existence.

1) neither past nor future exists. The past is dependent on recollection; the future on imagination. They are useful fictions, like the mind.

2) Mathematics are symbols invented by humans, like language.

They are real in the same sense as thoughts and other feelings.

Because mathematics can be learned by humans to communicate no matter which language they speak, they are thought (not proven) to be universal.

There is no such dependency

the reverse is true.

Both exist but the mental depends on the physical. What depends on mathematics is humanity’s conception of the universe, not the universe itself.

Observations are independent of one mind, not of all minds.

When many minds agree about an observation it is presumed to be real.

This is not infallible, but it has worked well as a practical matter.

Then it is possible that I prefer some forms of coercion to wide spread poverty.

It is also possible I would prefer a commonwealth approach where the funds generated by capitalism equally benefit everyone rather than only the ultra wealthy.

Perhaps then we wouldn't even need to collect taxes.

What im trying to say is. 

  ☆☆☆ 《Athias 》 ☆☆☆ 

Sorry pal , butttt.

( i believe  )  You'd suck big time as a jury member. 

Do you think that a theory with no proof is illogical, or the certainty of its truth?

In what way do you view the objective realm causes logical inconsistencies?

The nature of objective is it is meant to be universal or independent of perspective.

I believe I understand now. You believe what exists is only what is conceived by the mind and nothing outside of it?

Would you agree that the objective realm is theoretical but also pragmatic?

I misunderstood your syntax, my apologies. What do you mean by quanta does not equal objective?

What do you mean by quanta equals objectivity?

Quanta =/= Objective.

What do you believe constitutes an objective property?

Are you categorizing the collection of taxes coercion? 

So at the end of the day no one should have to starve unless no one cares to feed them in which case they should starve. 

Or is there a secret third option I'm missing?

As I've said, no one should starve. I'm just not willing to cosign any coercive measures which would service that end.