Jackson LaRose: Marko:So I assume you wouldn't be found anywhere near the Alamo? Hey if Santa Anna let me do whatever the hell I wanted till the end of my days, I'd jump over that wall so fast...
Marko:So I assume you wouldn't be found anywhere near the Alamo?
Hey if Santa Anna let me do whatever the hell I wanted till the end of my days, I'd jump over that wall so fast...
And if he didn't?
Marko: The Late Andrew Ryan: I was merely attempting to point out that simply because you place the importance upon all people receiving freedom, he only puts this importance on himself receiving this luxury, and as soon as he does so you use the same talk that someone would use in favor of you not paying your taxes... Yeah but I wouldn't force him. At most I would try shaming him into it. But for the purpose of this topic I am merely curious.
The Late Andrew Ryan: I was merely attempting to point out that simply because you place the importance upon all people receiving freedom, he only puts this importance on himself receiving this luxury, and as soon as he does so you use the same talk that someone would use in favor of you not paying your taxes...
I was merely attempting to point out that simply because you place the importance upon all people receiving freedom, he only puts this importance on himself receiving this luxury, and as soon as he does so you use the same talk that someone would use in favor of you not paying your taxes...
Yeah but I wouldn't force him. At most I would try shaming him into it.
But for the purpose of this topic I am merely curious.
Ok, no problems there except quite frankly Larose doesn't seem like somone who would be shamed into doing just about anything.
I think that this thread would be more interesting if you threw in the consequence that the state would only give you your freedom upon the condition that you stopped opposing them.
The Late Andrew Ryan: Ok, no problems there except quite frankly Larose doesn't seem like somone who would be shamed into doing just about anything.
That's true lol. But he was military so maybe I can trick him.
Marko:And if he didn't?
Than I would fight for whichever side I thought would allow me to do what I wanted the most.
The Late Andrew Ryan:I think that this thread would be more interesting if you threw in the consequence that the state would only give you your freedom upon the condition that you stopped opposing them.
Interesting twist, but I was just curious if and why folks would/would not hold to their goals, rather than if they valued freedom over a state.
Jackson LaRose: Marko:And if he didn't? Than I would fight for whichever side I thought would allow me to do what I wanted the most.
Why fight at all? You said you are important to yourself, so why put yourself in danger?
Marko:That's true lol. But he was military so maybe I can trick him.
LOL
Marko:Why fight at all? You said you are important to yourself, so why put yourself in danger?
Good point, and it was fairly obvious that they would be killed... so maybe I would just wait and join Houston's army instead.
But why do even that? If you want to be free of Mexico all you need to do is split. Move to some place else and presto! Freedom, without having to put yourself at risk for it.
Marko:But why do even that? If you want to be free of Mexico all you need to do is split. Move to some place else and presto! Freedom, without having to put yourself at risk for it.
I guess it would depend on how much I liked living in Mexico
What, you are such an accomplished soldier your presence/absence is going to decide the war? You can always come back if Houston wins. So what further excuse do you have not to split?
Marko:What, you are such an accomplished soldier your presence/absence is going to decide the war?
If all the potential soldiers thought like that, there would be no army to resist the Mexicans.
What's it to you though? You only care about yourself, right?
Marko:What's it to you though? You only care about yourself, right?
Yep. But if I value a free self, rather than an oppressed self, I might find it worth fighting for.
Jackson LaRose: Marko:What's it to you though? You only care about yourself, right? Yep. But if I value a free self, rather than an oppressed self, I might find it worth fighting for.
If you value your self then don't you value living a better quality of life?
The Late Andrew Ryan:If you value your self then don't you value living a better quality of life?
Sure. Is this directed at me?
We've come full circle, but I think along the way you skipped something and aren't telling the whole story. But I am not going to press you on it.
I don't think there is such a thing as warring for your own sake. Maybe if we are talking about a person defending his property. But in most conflicts where it is not about something immediately tangible but about something as abstract as freedom - no chance. There are few freedoms that can be gained by warring and risking debilitating injury, but can not be gained by running away and exploiting loopholes. And there are no freedoms that are worth risk getting crippled or killed if you are going to be the only beneficiary of them if you win. A person doesn't fight for himself. War is much too terrible for this and the costs far too great to ever be able to make it worth wile. Fighting in a war only ever makes sense as charity. Fighting for something other than yourself. When people draw a line in the sand and put on a grim face it has nothing to do with them personally any more. Them folks in Alamo didn't refuse to consider slipping away at night because they valued a free self. Had they valued a free self they would have been off to live in a log cabin in Wyoming in a heartbeat.
Jackson LaRose: The Late Andrew Ryan:If you value your self then don't you value living a better quality of life? Sure. Is this directed at me?
Yes. If you value a better quality of life then why don't you desire the inherently more stable and better off system? Furthermore exactly how free are you when you can consider your entire home to be a little patch of earth that isn't enslaved and the rest of earth to be enslaved? Don't you want to expand your possibilities for freedom as well?
Jackson LaRose:Yep. But if I value a free self, rather than an oppressed self, I might find it worth fighting for.
Question - might it be possible, starting from the egoist position, to bootstrap your way out of it? Such as, granting the egoist starting point, what if it can be shown that a higher quality of life is enjoyed by making yourself care about others?
JAlanKatz:what if it can be shown that a higher quality of life is enjoyed by making yourself care about others?
Value is always subjective.
The Late Andrew Ryan:Yes. If you value a better quality of life then why don't you desire the inherently more stable and better off system? Furthermore exactly how free are you when you can consider your entire home to be a little patch of earth that isn't enslaved and the rest of earth to be enslaved? Don't you want to expand your possibilities for freedom as well?
If I'm free, then I'm not constrained to my personal patch of property.
Jackson LaRose:Value is always subjective.
The subjective theory of value is objective.
Marko:We've come full circle, but I think along the way you skipped something and aren't telling the whole story. But I am not going to press you on it.
Go ahead, press.
Marko:There are few freedoms that can be gained by warring and risking debilitating injury, but can not be gained by running away and exploiting loopholes. And there are no freedoms that are worth risk getting crippled or killed if you are going to be the only beneficiary of them if you win. A person doesn't fight for himself. War is much too terrible for this and the costs far too great to ever be able to make it worth wile. Fighting in a war only ever makes sense as charity. Fighting for something other than yourself. When people draw a line in the sand and put on a grim face it has nothing to do with them personally any more. Them folks in Alamo didn't refuse to consider slipping away at night because they valued a free self. Had they valued a free self they would have been off to live in a log cabin in Wyoming in a heartbeat.
Sure, they were willing to die for a concept, an idea. I'm not that kind of guy, I guess.
Conza88:The subjective theory of value is objective.
If you take it as such, sure. I can't really find a way around it, but that doesn't necessarily mean there isn't one.
JAlanKatz:Such as, granting the egoist starting point, what if it can be shown that a higher quality of life is enjoyed by making yourself care about others?
If you find it to your benefit, sure. I care about people, but only because it makes me feel good. I don't think there is such a thing as pure altruism.
Jackson LaRose: The Late Andrew Ryan:Yes. If you value a better quality of life then why don't you desire the inherently more stable and better off system? Furthermore exactly how free are you when you can consider your entire home to be a little patch of earth that isn't enslaved and the rest of earth to be enslaved? Don't you want to expand your possibilities for freedom as well? If I'm free, then I'm not constrained to my personal patch of property.
Then what of the possibility of the better system which will grant you a better quality of life? Wouldn't you want that achieved?
The Late Andrew Ryan:Then what of the possibility of the better system which will grant you a better quality of life? Wouldn't you want that achieved?
Sure, but it all depends on what the individual considers "better". I have fairly simple wants, so it's hard to really envision a reason for me to care about the existence of a state that completely leaves me alone. This is what I aspire to, except in the Northeast.
Jackson LaRose:This is what I aspire to, except in the Northeast.
What about chicks? And the latest Internet stuff? And laziness?
Why anarchy fails
AJ:What about chicks?
Got one.
AJ:And the latest Internet stuff?
Won't need it anymore.
AJ:And laziness?
Laziness is good, but I can imagine I would have more down time than if I worked 9-5. After all, the Europeans all thought the Natives were layabouts when they showed up here. And if I wanted to be completely lazy, I could be. I would starve, but if I value sloth that much, it would still be my choice to make.
Sounds like a pretty good life then, but how is the State really stopping you from doing that now?
AJ:Sounds like a pretty good life then, but how is the State really stopping you from doing that now?
Let's see: squatting on someone else's land, or not paying property taxes, hunting out of season, fishing out of season, illegal snaring, illegal fires, possession of firearm, bow, or crossbow without license, hunting without license, fishing without license, being over 18 and not having current picture ID, the list really goes on and on.
So buy some land, and maybe get a gun permit and an ID every 10 years or whatever. If you're way out in Wyoming or somewhere I don't think anyone will find out about any of that. It might be a risk, but probably way down on the list considering the situation you're talking about.
AJ:So buy some land,
I don't think they would accept oak leaves as payment for property tax.
AJ:maybe get a gun permit and an ID every 10 years or whatever.
Without an address?
AJ:If you're way out in Wyoming or somewhere I don't think anyone will find out about any of that.
So I get to move to a place I don't want to be, and become a fugitive? Wow, that does sound pretty awesome.
AJ:It might be a risk, but probably way down on the list considering the situation you're talking about.
Believe me, I've lived with creeping paranoia about every action I've taken before (owned by the military for a while). It is not fun.
Well Jackson, on a personal note, I think there are ways to do what you want and have it work out fine, especially in some other country. I'm sure there are forums for such things.
AJ:Well Jackson, on a personal note, I think there are ways to do what you want and have it work out fine,
Yeah, it's possible.
AJ:especially in some other country
I like the northeast. I've spent all my years familiarizing myself with the local flora and fauna. Moving would suck.
AJ:I'm sure there are forums for such things.
Haven't really looked, but I don't doubt it.
AJ:So buy some land, and maybe get a gun permit and an ID every 10 years or whatever. If you're way out in Wyoming or somewhere I don't think anyone will find out about any of that. It might be a risk, but probably way down on the list considering the situation you're talking about.
There is no such thing as buying land in the US. You are a renter, and have to pay rent each year or get evicted. You cannot live the kind of life he is talking about and have money to pay rent.
JAlanKatz:You are a renter, and have to pay rent each year or get evicted. You cannot live the kind of life he is talking about and have money to pay rent.
That, in summation, is why I am against the government. Their policies have made simple subsistence impossible in my preferred geographic region of residence.
AJ:Well Jackson, on a personal note, I think there are ways to do what you want and have it work out fine, especially in some other country. I'm sure there are forums for such things.
I aspire to a similar life that Jackson talks about. I live part of it now, but the gov't still has those damn taxes and the regulations here to burn a simple small fire, even though I live in the woods, are just plain stupid. All the other arguments Jackson made as well. And what about chicks or the internet?...lol Cause it's the wilderness?
AJ. You sound just like a statist here, not meant to be pejorative. The love it or leave mentality, "...work out fine, especially in some other country...". God knows I've argued against the same mentality by gov't lovers that have visited this forum and other venues.
No sir. This is my property. The gov't can love that or leave it.
Jackson LaRose: Say tomorrow, your respective head of state sends you an email stating, "you and you alone have total carte blanche. Do whatever you want, we will completely leave you alone." Would you still want the state scaled back/abolished? Would you care anymore? Why or why not?
Say tomorrow, your respective head of state sends you an email stating, "you and you alone have total carte blanche. Do whatever you want, we will completely leave you alone." Would you still want the state scaled back/abolished? Would you care anymore? Why or why not?
*check e-mail*
"Wow, this is obvious spam, why didn't Gmail catch this?"
*delete*
Latest Projects
"Even when leftists talk about discrimination and sexism, they're damn well talking about the results of the economic system" ~Neodoxy
JAlanKatz: AJ:So buy some land, and maybe get a gun permit and an ID every 10 years or whatever. If you're way out in Wyoming or somewhere I don't think anyone will find out about any of that. It might be a risk, but probably way down on the list considering the situation you're talking about. There is no such thing as buying land in the US. You are a renter, and have to pay rent each year or get evicted. You cannot live the kind of life he is talking about and have money to pay rent.
Who do we rent from?