Freedom4Me73986:So what is wrong w/ survivalism, self-sufficiency and skepticism about tech?
You tell me. You're the one not practicing any of those things.
So what is wrong w/ survivalism, self-sufficiency and skepticism about tech?
That Menger, Hayek, Mises, Rothbard, and Hoppe would most likely not agree with your view on civilization and "philosophy" on life. That this is not the right forum for you. Instead of trying to inject your asinine theories on how to live that counter the aims of the LvMI that you should go somewhere else.
People wouldn't spend months on an atheist forum and try to convert them to Christianity, or vice versa. It's a waste of time and it's beyond the point of being old.
(Has anyone else noticed this is basically the gist of every single response that is in favor of Freedom4Me73986 continuing to remain active on the forum?)
I'm counting 6 posters not in favor of him leaving as "not funny" reasons
4 posters not in favor of him leaving for him being funny
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
And how are you practicing anti-statism while living in a state?
Did you read what i said? My primitivist beliefs come out of voluntaryism.
vive la insurrection: (Has anyone else noticed this is basically the gist of every single response that is in favor of Freedom4Me73986 continuing to remain active on the forum?) I'm counting 6 posters not in favor of him leaving as "not funny" reasons 4 posters not in favor of him leaving for him being funny
Could you identify them? I have to assume you're including things like "why not just ignore him?" as a "not funny" pledge for him to remain which, I don't exactly count as "I prefer Freedom4Me73986 to just keep on doing what he's doing here."
...and they counter the aims and goals of the LvMI. Can you voluntarily leave the forum or at least stop posting any of your "survivalist" stuff?
Freedom4Me73986:You tell me. You're the one not practicing any of those things. And how are you practicing anti-statism while living in a state?
Oh look. Freedom4Me73986 is faced with the inconsistancy of his proclamations and his actions and tries to change the subject by responding with a question to attempt to flip focus onto someone else.
You should see my big surprised face.
mikachusetts:These sorts of spiteful and bullying threads reeaaaallly rub me the wrong way. There are a lot of damn smart people in this community, and I think we are better than this. The degree to which F4M spams and trolls the forum is being way overstated: he never gets in the way of any "high brow" conversations or debates, his posts are usually relevent to the threads they're in, and he is pretty polite given how much flack he gets. Its fun to pick on the the crazy guy once and a while, and I know I've poked fun at the Free State Movement a few times, but this is the second thread I've seen dedicated specifically to F4M in the last few days. You guys look like 5th grade boys constantly going up to girls just to remind them that you think they're icky. Just don't let this shit get out of hand, because you are going to turn off a lot of people who are here to learn.
Its fun to pick on the the crazy guy once and a while, and I know I've poked fun at the Free State Movement a few times, but this is the second thread I've seen dedicated specifically to F4M in the last few days. You guys look like 5th grade boys constantly going up to girls just to remind them that you think they're icky.
Just don't let this shit get out of hand, because you are going to turn off a lot of people who are here to learn.
QFT
I haven't bothered to get involved in this whole issue until now. Not only do I see no good reason for Freedom4Me to leave, but I also see no good reason for you - yes, you, John James - to keep bullying him like you have been. And that's exactly what it is. You don't want him here, but you're not an administrator (although, according to Daniel Muffinberg, you are a moderator), so you can't actually ban him. The next "best" thing you can do is bully him to the point where he just up and leaves. In my honest opinion, your behavior in this regard is far worse than anything Freedom4Me has done. I don't even think his behavior is bad - I just think it's silly. So I just ignore him and move on. Why can't you do that?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Yeah I don't agree with Freedom4me, but he is free to do as he wishes. No point on making a thread about this. Freedom4me post a lot of annoying crap but i ignore most of it (had to ask why he is on the computer though).
Old Guy, S Dave, Gamma, myself, Mika, Aristophones, Michelangelo
I guess if for whatever reason you don't count OGand S Dave it would be 4-4
Praise Jeeeeeesuuuusss. Ahemmeennnn. Halleluhajahjahajhajh.
You see JJ, you are projecting. It is probably transference of your own inability to cope with your living situation, that you feel the need to make a thread singling out a stranger and trying to get that person to validate and stand on their beliefs. Which, btw, F4Me does without regard to your childish perspective of others. You are the one who then needs validation about, get this, yourself and your beliefs.
Pathetic, kindergarten behavior. But, hey, let freedom reign.
Pathetic, kindergarten behavior.
I agree.
Autolykos:The next "best" thing you can do is bully him to the point where he just up and leaves.
He wants to leave. He said so. A bunch of times. (See the OP for references). I've just never gotten an answer as to why he hasn't. And as I said I was interested in what people would state their preference to be.
So I just ignore him and move on. Why can't you do that?
Why can't you ignore me?
(see what I did there?)
Aristophanes:You see JJ, you are projecting. It is probably transference of your own inability to cope with your living situation, that you feel the need to make a thread singling out a stranger and trying to get that person to validate and stand on their beliefs. Which, btw, F4Me does without regard to your childish perspective of others. You are the one who then needs validation about, get this, yourself and your beliefs.
Oh look. Aristophanes is upset, so he decides to perform the ol' psychoanalysis attack. Again. Big surprised face.
You would know
I encourage people to look at those links.
Remember when you said when you call out F4Me, then you say he changes the subject to divert the attack to the attacker?
Nah, you're not doing that.
I do notice James bringing up freedom4me in threads that had nothing to do with him. Like this one http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/28705.aspx . I know freedom hasn't answered your questions to your liking- but you've asked him enough times I don't see the point in holding onto it and instead just letting it all go. He brings his own perspective and as much as others might disagree- you don't have to keep questioning him about it if you already know he's not going to respond to your liking- why not just leave it alone and move on? \
And when I said there's no fun in Freedom moving to the woods instead of staying on the fourm- its not because I'm pointing and laughing at him. But because he brings in a perspective that is out of the ordinary so its fun to think about even if I don't personally think its practical.
What do you intend to do with the total votes you tally up from the answers to your OP question anyway? Is there more to it than just getting a number of people that agree with you or are you just having fun yourself?
RevLeft would be laughing right now...
lol I'm laughing that I can get caught up in internet drama sometimes.
I am reading too and can't help but think that JJ's F4me is somewhat like Sieben's Phil Ridley.
I don't click on F4me's videos anymore and notice his lack of specific's to some of JJ's questions. Like any post I feel I can read around it if needed, I vote no on leaving.
Aristophanes:I encourage people to look at those links.
Me too. That's why I posted them.
Well, not exactly "call out"...I simply ask him a question. Again, for a reproduction of a typical exchange with Freedom4Me73986 anyone can easily view the OP of this thread.
So let me get this straight.
All I've ever done with Freedom4Me73986 is ask why he is here and why, if he wants to live in the woods so badly and is actually "anti-tech", does he not leave and quit using the Internet. At most, when he responds to my question with another question (such as "why do you think I'm here?" or something to that effect), I attempt to humor him and offer a guess.
Many times when he refuses answer the simple question, his response is something along the lines of "why don't you leave the state?" This is the sidestepping of the question and attempting to shift the focus back onto the person asking the question that I'm talking about. And as I've told him mulitple times, (a) I never expressed a desire to "leave the state", and (b) it's completely irrelevant, as I have nothing to do with his refusal to live in the woods and stop using the technology he basically says is basically the debil.
This is nothing like what you have done here, which is nothing more than the typical psychoanalysis attack, in which you have no real argument to make so the focus is simply put on the individual and all your time is put into telling the other person how he himself thinks and/or feels, and following it up with your own arbitrary opinion as to why.
As if this weren't asinine enough, when I point out that that's the entire substance of your post, your claim is that I'm trying to change the subject.
But of course, I'm the one in kindergarten.
I don't even think his behavior is bad - I just think it's silly. So I just ignore him and move on. Why can't you do that?
You're asking him why he, unlike you, doesn't adopt a patronizing attitude toward another forum poster. A question like that answers itself. Apparently he is more of an egalitarian than you, ergo takes more issue with unsubstantiated crap being spouted by a dimwitted forum poster and doesn't think him worthy of pity. Subsequentially he does not spare him the treatment he would have in store for a lucid poster. It is an interesting problem, does this situation help show the inhumanity of extreme egalitarianism since it does away with the pitying of and subsequent cushioning of things for the feebleminded? Or is treating with the feebleminded as if with equals inherently dignifying for them and elevates them, in fact, from where they would be otherwise? Does JJ uniquely honor F4M by being a rare person who treats F4M as if he weren't obviously delusional and on some kind of meds (or in the need of thereof)? Or does it make him an asshole? It is an exciting question indeed!
"in which you have no real argument to make so the focus is simply put on the individual and all your time is put into telling the other person how he himself thinks and/or feels, and following it up with your own arbitrary opinion as to why."
You know what I said was true. Other people have also pointed out the basic psychology of a person continually, some might say obsessively, ranting about some random stranger on the internet. You cannot event vote for F4Me to run other people's lives and you care...so much.
"substance of your post"
It is not that big of a deal. Why should I meticulously sift through the forum like you trying to get other peope to think a specific way about a peer? You're a pathetic ebully. I tried to get you to look at yourself with my "typical psychoanalysis attack" (what is stage one? denial?). You think I'm attacking you when I am responding to you attacking someone else.
You must vote republican.
Freedom4Me73986: And how are you practicing anti-statism while living in a state?
I think this needs to be addressed. These are not the same thing. You are professing anti-civilization. JJ and others, such as myself, are anti-state.
From Wiktionary:
Civilization:
1) An organized culture encompassing many communities, often on the scale of a nation or a people; a stage or system of social, political or technical development.
2) Human society, particularly civil society.
You are saying that you are against society. JJ is against institutionalized aggression (and I presume aggression in general). These are totally different things. A state may have drawn borders on a map, but it is not actually an area. It is an area where certain people control the monopoly of "legitimate" violence. Other people do commit aggression in the territory of a state. JJ "leaving" the state is really a nonsensical statement. If JJ is against a mob dominating a neighborhood, why must he be the one that leaves? Why can't the mob be the one that leaves? But if you are against civilization, you are saying that either you must leave or everyone else must go. Since you proclaim to follow the NAP, I assume that this means that you would be the one leave, because otherwise you would have to aggress against everyone else in society in order to be away from them.
To put it more simply, you are against all human interaction, whereas JJ is against aggressive human interaction. I really don't see why it makes sense to ask JJ to leave when it is only the aggressors in society that he is against.
Aristophanes:You know what I said was true.
Which part?
I tried to get you to look at yourself with my "typical psychoanalysis attack"
Oh I see. You were just trying to help me! Well color me embarrassed.
(what is stage one? denial?).
Oh I get it. So we just call someone whatever we want and then claim "if you deny it, that means it's true." Very clever. I must hear more about this "heads I win, tails you lose" technique.
You think I'm attacking you when I am responding to you attacking someone else.
I attacked Freedom4Me73986?
And...your attack wasn't an attack? Oh wait, that's right. You were trying to be Suzie Psychologist in an effort to help me. I forgot.
Huh?
"Well color me embarrassed."
It's okay! Many times our own ebully sentiment blocks our ability to have empathy for others.
Well...you're still not getting it. All you need to remember is that you are an ebully. That's it! No clever psychoanalytic reverse psychology. I'm not tricking you and I'm not pretending like F4Me doesn't say some outrageous stuff. You are obsessive and an ebully; venting you perceived inadequecy on, what you think, an easy target. Then 'cleverly' attempting to recruit others in your internet put down campaign to make yourself alpha ebully. Yeah, I'd say about kindergarten.
Psychiatrist. Suzie psychiatrist. And she is here to help.
haha. Just a joke that went over your head. With the ultimate ironic response.
Civilization: 1) An organized culture encompassing many communities, often on the scale of a nation or a people; a stage or system of social, political or technical development. 2) Human society, particularly civil society.
In other words: collectivism
You are saying that you are against society. JJ is against institutionalized aggression (and I presume aggression in general). These are totally different things.
Civilization breeds aggression and so does technology. Why are H/Gs far more peaceful? Tech enables aggression.
Since you proclaim to follow the NAP, I assume that this means that you would be the one leave, because otherwise you would have to aggress against everyone else in society in order to be away from them.
I plan on leaving. I don't care if others leave.
"Civilization breeds aggression"
Have you ever read Hobbes' Leviathan? It has been understood for awhile that individualism is what breeds aggression. That is why so many people clamor for socialism. I thought we were supposed to answer that by saying things like "technology would be far more advanced if it was reserached by private interests." and "The State wastes your money making war machines."
"Why are H/Gs far more peaceful? Tech enables aggression."
Not sure that is true and one doesn't follow the other. H/G commonly clash with one another. And tech makes people's lives easier. Less stress probably = less aggression in general. After all, if not for all of the effort and technology put into food production you'd have a much more stressful life and probably be much more inclined to aggress, no?
And? I hate to break it to you that even in h/g tribes there's a heirarchy.
Men are obsessed with "credibility" in every situation, even on the internet, regardless of how little anyone else cares. Let's not pretend that this is about some grand strategic decision for the LvMI cause. It's about an urge to control things... insignificant things... on the internet where the distribution of odd and normal behaviour is skewed. In every forum it's always the case that more than one person could benefit with an expanded view of options for filling spare time. Some time in the woods, exercise, women... just use your imagination to find things other than trying to win the internet. I've never heard of anyone regretting it. So, the answer is a semi-yes with regard to more individuals than F4M.
"Why are H/Gs far more peaceful? Tech enables aggression." Not sure that is true and one doesn't follow the other. H/G commonly clash with one another. And tech makes people's lives easier. Less stress probably = less aggression in general. After all, if not for all of the effort and technology put into food production you'd have a much more stressful life and probably be much more inclined to aggress, no?
So what? H/Gs are way more peaceful then civilized man. Ag breeds war.
While that is an awesome graphic, then you are basically in favor of Agenda 21. Taken to it's logical extreme, the UN is currently implimenting policies that label "irrigation" and "agriculture" as "unsustainable."
To you anything will lead to war. There is nothing that will not inevitably lead to war. Any human action is in furtherance of anticipation of conflict.
What is wrong with the world now as you see it then? There is no escape from your definition. Read Kenneth Waltz "Theory of International Relations." Nation states are in a state of anarchy, etc., etc. You'll love it...
Books = civ
Ok this has gone on long enough. Please refrain from discussing in public who should or should not be a member here. Thread graveyarded and locked.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat