1 0

The laws are made up by idiots in Congress: proof: the law stated black people were 1/3rd of a person.

The law stated that black people were required to be slaves.

The law in nazi germany made it legal to kill jews.

So, now that we know laws are made up bullshit by people in Congress, the question is then why was jesus born?

Jesus was born to save you from idiots in congress. The bible is a set of instructions to save you from idiots with an imagination. The funny thing is jesus isnt real himself, he's also made up. Being clever, they wrote a bullshit story to help you overcome bullshit.

The shepherd eventually eats the sheep it protects. The pastors collect money from their sheep, guiding them to safety.

So, now you need imaginary jesus to save you from imaginary laws. Who enforces idiots imagination?

The idiots in congress use dollars, which is fake money, imaginary money.

Imaginary money to control the minds of gullible people.

Beachslim 8 Oct 14

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

1 comment

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


Everything in the Bible except the New Testament is crap. The Ten Commandments are trash. That said, if you're looking for heroes to gain a moral code from, you're probably better off getting your code from a Marvel or DC superhero.

Superman, Batman, Spiderman, Wonder Woman...none of them would tell slaves to obey their masters.

Once in awhile lying can be a good thing. Parents can be which case it might not be good to honor them. The first five are all basically saying nothing of value. The last five aren't bad advice in general...but there are exceptions to most of those.

Ditch Jesus. Hellboy is better. Hellboy is my hero. Hellboy was a demon brought to Earth as a child, but he was raised by a loving human father, and thanks to his father he fights to protect humanity. His catchphrase is:

“What makes a man a man? A friend of mine once wondered. Is it his origins? The way he comes to life? I don't think so. It's the choices he makes. Not how he starts things, but how he decides to end them.”
-Guillermo del Toro

Now...another thing I'd like to discuss is how you believe society would keep from collapsing into anarchy with people eating each other's pets without laws.The fact that bad things have been done by governments doesn't mean we don't need governments. The solution is just to get better governments. That way we can avoid the Nazism, while also avoiding devoting most of our energy to defending our canned beans from our neighbors with guns because there are no police forces because we have no laws.

@Beachslim I don't think that's an unreasonable statement. That would reduce unwanted wars. Also, while immigrants make the choice to come here, people born here did not. I think it would be fair to have some type of system in which you agree to sign a contract to both pay taxes and gain certain rights, and you don't get those rights unless you pay taxes.

I may or may not be so fond of it in practice though. I'm not sure.

That said, when I don't steal from you through taxes, and that lack of theft harms others, in some contexts you're stealing from those others. Nobody earns exactly what they make. What we earn is partly through skill and effort, but partly luck and the assistance of our communities.

I think, therefore, there's also a strong ethical argument for forced taxation...because if your money doesn't go to food stamps, then someone on food stamps may not be choosing to go hungry either. Maybe they can't work. Also, black didn't choose to have their ancestors screwed over which likely led to modern black poverty.

That said, I think you just made one of the better conservative arguments...but I think a good at least partial counter to that is that we're all constantly experiencing problems we didn't choose to deal with, and if we're not compensated, that's in some ways similar to the government stealing from us.

So, in other words, poverty will often be due to historical ramifications and if we don't have safety nets like food stamps, or perhaps even more assistance, those people may have been treated unfairly and our failing to correct that is the perpetuation of that unfair treatment of them, just as if we'd taken their tax dollars which led to their poverty.

I don't have a problem with describing taxation that wasn't agreed to as "theft." I think that the most harmful aspect of most theft comes from the fact that it's not predictable nor organized. Taxation is organized, in theory designed to achieve the greater good, and predictable. Me being robbed on the street is terrifying, dangerous, and rewarding destructive behavior.

That said, maybe the only way to ensure that our government keeps focused on being as good as it might is through making at least some taxation optional.

@Beachslim The "greater good" is, as far as I'm concerned, the only true source of morality. I think the only accurate way to judge right and wrong is based on how much suffering an action reduces and how much pleasure an action creates. Your suffering and pleasure isn't inherently any less important than mine, so therefore I should want a society that maximizes pleasure and minimizes suffering for everyone as much as possible, a.k.a. the greater good.

I see individual rights as more of an excuse to violate the greater good than the greater good being an excuse to violate individual rights.

We do need individual rights...but that's for the greater good. That increases a sense of security and predictability and the emotional benefits of self-control throughout a society.

I disagree that we could all become self-sufficient without bought items. Not everybody knows how to farm. Not everyone can afford to farm. Not everyone lives in an area that can be farmed. We're stealing food out of people's mouths if we prevent them from shopping, at least if they've previously been used to shopping. Now...if people have been living in an area without stores since they've moved there and being self-sufficient, that's different.

@Beachslim Very good. Now you're delving into the sorts of ethical puzzles that I find fascinating and a lot of fun.'s my answer.

Let's say we're in a group of 10 people. We eat the fattest person so we'll have enough food. Now, there are circumstances in which that might be necessary. There might be circumstances in which there would be no solution besides either that, or war, view of the ideal solution...someone just volunteering to die so their friends can live.

That said, in your scenario, that's not the only solution. Capitalism would without question be preferable to that according to pretty much every moral code in existent. Even the hedonists who believe the purpose of their life is to maximize pleasure and minimize suffering for just themselves, regardless of what happens to anyone else, would have good reason to be afraid of a system of government in which 1/10th of the population are eaten casually. That's because...there's that old and I think wise saying:

"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I as not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me."

In that sort of way, maintaining personal freedoms and basic rights, even if they're not our own, can circle back and both help ourselves and society.

I also think it's worth noting that there are libertarian socialists - people who believe that socialism is the route that maximizes personal freedom.

There are also capitalists who believe that capitalism is the route that leads to the greater good the most. I like capitalism. I just think it works best with some guidance from a central government. Capitalism rewards people's creativity and effort, and it turns people's natural drive to benefit themselves into a positive force...but I don't think it's good at dealing with emergencies, ethical problems, and long term risks such as pollution and the kind of long term planning that's needed to avert resource shortages long before they occur.

Capitalism, I think, functions like the cells in the body. They're great at doing their job at surviving and evolving, like jellyfish and slime molds do. However, a central government gives that body a brain. That brain can be used for long term planning and dealing with emergencies and thinking about broader worldly issues. I think our goal should be to build the best brain/central government possible.

Regarding your view of socialisms making people lazier...I don't know about that. I think that probably depends on how socialistic the nation is that we're talking about. However, even if it does make people lazier, I'm imagining that it will also improve society in some ways too. It always depends on what type of social programs we're talking about, of course. That's the thing...I don't think it's a good idea to be just flatly opposed to or pro-more social programs in general. I want to hear what specific social programs we're talking about.

@Beachslim That's only one potential category of social program. That would, in some ways, probably make people lazier...but there are other social programs that wouldn't.

That said, if someone is given a college scholarship for good grades, and they have to keep those good grades up, that could be an example of a social program that pushes people to work harder.

With universal healthcare rather than healthcare based on employment, that would result in people being less dependent on their jobs for healthcare. They would have less of a problem with changing jobs until they find something they really love and are willing to work hard at because they like their job. That's another way socialism could push people to work harder.

With unemployment benefits, most of those I'm aware of are temporary. If I remember correctly in my state you also have to show you're looking for a job to get them...but that'll of course depend on the area.

Now, with some sort of living wage, that would probably make people lazier. Really, all I need for a decent life is a computer, a room to sleep in, cook in, and do everything else in, and store my computer in, and then a restroom, and I'm set. If the government would pay for that, and I could get good health insurance too that could deal with really big medical issues throughout my life, I'd probably never work...but there are other socialistic-elements that involve less social support than that. housing, however, might push people to work harder in the sense that it's very difficult to get a job if you don't have an address to put down on your resume and don't have a regular place to shower and store your nice clothes. That could result in more homeless people benefitting society rather than wandering around doing nothing for it and having dangerous lives. There could be some sort of government program for very simple living structures...maybe one room per person with multiple people sharing a bathroom and a stove or something, for homeless people. That's another way social programs could make people less lazy. So long as you don't associate that with living wage...they'd still have a need to work.

@Beachslim I didn't say I necessarily agreed with those programs in the sense of thinking they're good ideas...but I disagree with your view that they'd necessarily result in less freedom. See my above statement about the existence of libertarian socialists who believe that socialism is the best path towards the maximization of freedom. The idea is oftentimes something like, if you're forced to work 2 minimum wage jobs, because there's a low minimum wage...that's not a whole lot of freedom you have, and those sorts of issues. You won't have time for much freedom.

@Beachslim No...people are forced to work. They need food. The only way they'd not be forced to work is if you give them free food and housing and health insurance.

Also, there are arguments that can be a form of wage slavery. I don't feel like that's applicable now in the wealthy west...unless we were to significantly lower the minimum wage, like to the point it was at back when Industrialization was starting up...but that is, at least, an argument for having a minimum wage...which requires a strong central government to take away some freedoms to preserve others.

Keep in mind that I'm just sticking to pretty moderate positions here. In many ways I'm a very dull moderate. I don't research this topic enough to know much about what the best economic strategies should be. I do have some opinions about the basic stuff though.

@Beachslim You believe just about everyone is a communist. Your definition of a communist, therefore, won't be especially useful to most people. What I dislike about communism is that communistic regimes take away freedoms I want. My government in the United States, as well as the U.K. and Canada and all these European nations that tend to be pals do that to a significantly smaller degree than China does.

Yeah, I agree that even the hunter gatherers had to go hunt for food. They were forced to go hunt for food. We're hitting a wall here.

@Beachslim I agree that individual and human rights are for the greater good.

"For the Greater Good" however, is just the root of all sensible ethics, as far as I'm concerned. It's a vital part of moral philosophy. We can't just discard that.

I don't think that "for the greater good" is used by anyone outside of the Vulcans in Star Trek I don't think it's a typical term used by thugs who want to violate individual rights.

@Beachslim No...they were forced to hunt for food or else they would starve. There is nothing about the definition of the word "forced" that implies that a human being has to force you to do it.

You do not appear to understand what the word "forced" means.

The choice to starve or hunt is not an option. Believing otherwise is like me saying, "give me your wallet or I'll shoot you" and thinking that involves the other person having a free choice in the matter and voluntarily giving over their wallet. That is not how crimes work. When I point a gun at someone and insist they give me a wallet...there is no part of that engagement that is voluntary.

For some reason you appear to care more about preventing humans from taking away people's freedoms than preventing the natural world from doing so. I have no idea why. Either way, freedoms are being lost. That's what's important...the loss of freedoms, not the source of those lost freedoms.

Actually, I'd argue...being forced to hunt for food is a much greater loss of freedom than being forced to pay taxes. People who are forced to hunt for food may not find enough and may starve through the winter. A much smaller percentage of people are going to die from paying taxes.

And I think we can tell by just how popular obeying laws of large societies over the years has been that most people see things that way. All throughout history, people have typically chosen to obey the rules of the local society, rather than starve, and throughout almost all of history those rules have been far more restrictive than modern rules...the serfs of medieval ages...the lack of religious freedom in the past...they obeying of chieftains...the Indian caste systems...the un-challenged power of the Samurai...the lack of women's rights....people accepted all of that because they'd rather accept that than starve, and almost every supposed sovereign citizen does too, because they could just move into the woods where the government can't find them and strive to live off the land. They want food though, from grocery stores. They prefer to obey the laws of the land over being forced to forage and hunt for food to survive. There are a few exceptions...not many though. They could move to Alaska. In most of the U.S. they could have problems. The government aint gonna' find them in Alaska though, if they go far out enough.

@Beachslim There is no such thing as "natural law." That's why I don't understand it. The closest thing to "natural law" that exists, so far as I can tell, is that it is morally correct to maximize pleasure and minimize suffering...and therefore we should strive to maximize the production of pleasure for life, and minimize their suffering, and therefore we'll probably need strong governments.

Now lots of people disagree with that stance of mine, but the reason I mentioned that is to show an example of how other people can have very different views about what basic ethics are than you do. I don't even know what your definition of "natural law" is, and neither will most people, because it's not innate knowledge. There's nothing foundational about it, so far as I can tell. Granted, I don't know specifically what your views are...but I am of the the opinion that there cannot be any foundational ethical rules except for "We should maximize pleasure and minimize suffering," that probably excludes any rules you have out of being foundational ones, in my view, at least.

My view of morality is a math equation...a question of what strategies for society make life forms the happiest and avoids the greatest amount of sadness possible. In my view, I gaurantee that regardless of what your view of "natural law" is there will be instances when I will perceive following your view of "natural law" as morally wrong...because it will not maximize pleasure and minimize suffering for life.

Now...if I did understand your specific views on what "natural law" is, then I could most likely argue why I believe my moral code is superior to yours, and more universal. I don't know your views yet though.

Regarding your criticisms of socialisms and've bizarrely labeled just about everything communisms, and yet we have proof that your descriptions of those supposedly food-short "communisms" are not the way these other nations work. The wealthy western world has tons and tons of social programs. They're doing just I think you need to decide whether "communisms" collapse into food shortages, or just about everything's a communism. You can't have both. Hell, I don't even see how fewer social programs would help China.

There's places like Venezuela that are having problems...but there are arguments that say that's because they were sabatoged by the U.S. But again, you called nations communisms that are far more right-leaning than they are.

@Beachslim You say "it's the makers and the takers the producers and the leeches, the violent versus the nonviolent defenders."

Depending on how much power you have over society...I might be sympathetic. I would think your preferred political party would be one that focuses government controls on large corporations but not much on individuals, and perhaps little on small businesses.

Personal freedoms are important. The more power over society someone has though...the more we have to control that power.

@Beachslim The definition of natural law you just made does not match the definition of natural law you've been describing. That's because there's nothing about "If you don't eat, you'll starve" that implies that communism is bad, or taxation, or that implies any moral code at all. You're leaving out important elements of it to the extent that I cannot possibly know what your view of "natural law" is, in any meaningful way.

So...I've briefly looked up the term "natural law.." I find it baffling. It appears to be a real thing though....whatever it is.

@Beachslim I am your statements. I have no idea what your recent post means.

A force of nature literally can be the same as violence against people. A hurricane can involve violence against people.

I don't see how it matters that "nature demands that humans work and produce."

@Beachslim I agree with your statement about not being able to change the laws of nature...and absolutely none of that explains why socialism is bad.

@Beachslim You have yet to say anything that's common sense that I've misunderstood or disagreed with you about. Your opinions are perhaps the most baffling opinions I've ever heard. Your attempts at explanations have only led me to having more questions and zero answers. These ain't simple ideas you have here...whatever they are.

@Beachslim No...they're not simple. Were they simple, I'd not have been scratching my head for the hours and hours we've been discussing this. That's a pretty reliable sign that you've failed the simplicity test. Another sign of failing the simplicity test is if other lots of other people have not already thought up and agreed with your views before you told other people about them. That's why you're only going to find a minority of people who agree with you. If there are things you're right're going to have to find better ways of explaining those things or you and your pals who share your worldview will continue to be a minority.

@Beachslim Yeah...socialism depends on violence to get stuff...keeping in mind how broad your view of socialism is.

A different form of violent force comes through forcing people to work in a capitalistic society so that they don't go hungry.

It's the same thing. need to decide whether or not "socialists" and "communists" are dragging societies back to the stone age...or everybody's a communist/socialist.

Given how broad of a definition of socialism and communism you have...remembering that the wealthiest nations in the world are all, at least a little, communistic to you...communism is working out great. They're not dragging anything back to the stone age.

Hell...Vietnam is the richest nation in Southeast Asia. A Communist-esque government style doesn't seem to have driven them back to the stone age.

@Beachslim's not that simple, and that's the point I'm trying to get across.

You do have a point that taxation is oftentimes theft, and government force can be deeply harmful to people in some ways that very understandably enrage them.

That said, you're ignoring the other half of the story that I think you need to notice too. There is a good chance that covid took more lives of black people because black people are, on average, poorer than many other groups and may not have as many resources to take off work. Also, at times, Native Americans have sold off their land to have more wealth. Prostitution, too, is something people often do because they'd rather prostitute themselves than not eat. Also, down in Africa, there's a guy who makes jigger-digging videos that we westerners with certain tastes sometimes watch for amusement. The result of westerners watching jigger-digging videos for amusement means more money, whether through Youtube ad revenue or just attention to spread the word that they need donations. ramification of capitalism is that the less of a social safety net you have, the more you will be pushing the poor, the mentally handicapped, the unlucky, the historically disenfranchised, and the abused into prostitution, shaming themselves for the amusement of the rich, selling off their ancestral land, or just dying. Now...covid isn't really that bad, but if something worse comes up, it's probably going to kill a dispraportionate percentage of racial minorities, because they'll tend to be less wealthy than white people.

Now, so far as I can tell, both you, and the people responsible for the Chinese revolution, have your reasonable points. Yeah, socialism can make people lazy. Yeah, powerful central governments taxing the populace can be a very hurtful form of theft that understandably greatly angers people.

Also...just like the people responsible for the Chinese revolution often believed, capitalism can be a system in which those who lie the most and exploit their workers the most will, at times, benefit the most. It is a Darwinian system, at root, and there's nothing ethical about social Darwinism.

All you people aren't paying enough attention to nuance, in my opinion. In addition to being a greed-driven, parasitic, cold, cruel way of doing things, capitalism is an ultra-efficient way of accomplishing things that need to get done by the people who know how to do them. Centrally planned economies have had a ton of trouble dealing with food shortages, because it's so hard to predict just what the needs of societies are.

Also, our governments are essentially missing a brain without a strong central government. It can't do anything big. It's like a slime mold, when it could be more like a world-saving human.

Your whole argument is without nuance. All your arguments are basically worthless because of that. You appear to be driven by blind idealism and opposed to this vague idea you have of being forced...but all governments, and anarchies, involve various types of force. The question is just what types of force we're willing to accept. That's what we need to be talking about.

@Beachslim I agree completely. That said, we have an obligation to think about the consequences of our government types. Prostitution due to poverty is not nearly as negative of a thing as being forced into prostitution by some gang of criminals at gunpoint. It is still a negative thing though. That's the sort of nuance I think you need to admit more often.

I fear your government preferences equally as much as what most people describe communism as. The reason I fear your government choice is for reasons such as...some people want reparations for segregation and the unfair treatment of black people in the past. I don't, because I think a network of social programs...perhaps scholarships for the impoverished...can do everything reparations can do in a more fair way because, obviously, it's not just black people who've been screwed. Part of that fairness would involve taking the most resources from people who appear to have the most excess resources and giving them to people who are screwed by the world in various ways. If that doesn't happen though, the people who benefitted from slavery and from a government that was responsible for segregation continue to benefit and the people who were screwed by that government due to segregation and police abuses and etc. never get their compensation for that and could, for all we know, continue to have extra struggles forever, through no fault of their own.

@Beachslim But you're not moving on. You're carrying the past with you because you're unwilling to attempt to correct imbalances that will, without that correction, continue to haunt people who've been screwed. Greater access to wealth as children tends to exponentially help those children. They'll have more money to afford psychologists and good colleges.

Therefore, if you don't want black people and Native Americans and certain Asian minorities to be near the bottom level of economic power forever through little to no fault of their've probably got to make sure their kids all have similar advantages as other groups. That means good schooling in impoverished intercity environments. That also probably means stuff like taxpayer funded community colleges.

@Beachslim What percentage of Earth's population white people make up is totally irrelevant to anything we've discussed.

For the third time...what you call "communism" has been working out wonderfully all over the world. We have proof that you are incorrect about "communism" bringing nations to their knees...keeping in mind your vague definition of communism.

No...race does have something to do with it. You not wanting to see it doesn't make it go away.

Yeah, my proposed solution is to use force to correct violent behavior by the government attacking innocent citizens...keeping in mind your definition of what you mean by the government attacking innocent citizens.

What I'm talking about is a type of force...but it's a type of force we can expect and predict, so that makes it far less harmful than other types of force.

How do you get reliable funding for government programs without taxation being mandatory? If it's donated, that can change unexpectedly.

Finally, I'm not aware of anyone who's arrested old people for going to church.

@Beachslim For the fourth time or whatever, your definition of communism has been proven to be the most effective forms of government on Earth. On the other hand, your preferred style of government has never been tested. Also, I never once implied that the government is never wrong. You did not get that impression from reading any posts I've typed. That impression came from you or someone other than me.

Taxing people is protecting innocent people, which we know because that's where we get most of our protection from. I don't want a volunteer police force. Now, if there is a way to reliably pay the police voluntarily...I'd perhaps be down for that, but it better be reliable.

One downside of having a police force paid for by donations, however, is then the poorest, most crime-ridden areas are going to have the weakest police forces.

You're doing what you accuse me of doing. I've examined both pros and cons of capitalism and socialism. You're just blindly trudging ahead, talking about how capitalism is perfect.

In your ideal society, in which nobody is taxed by force, the poor would suffer greatly in various ways. Hiring police and firefighters and such based off donations means all the more disadvantage to the poor communities that can't afford those donations.

Your society would, so far as I can tell, result in McDonald's controlling the military and police forces...and filling all schools that rich kids don't go to with McDonald's ads. Wal-Mart would control the closest thing we'd have to public schools, etc.

Furthermore, eventually, those huge corporations would automate enough that they have very little need for they'd become, basically, gods of the country and we'd have no way of taxing them to gain anything back from what they take from society in resources. We'd be starving on street corners, begging McDonald's employees for hamburgers...when instead, a better society could just tax the hell out of them so as to afford a living wage once automation reaches the point where corporations become that powerful.

You could at least emphasize that, while you're not fine with taxing individuals, you're fine with taxing corporations. That, at least, seems semi-reasonable to me.

That said, if we only tax corporations...that's putting all our eggs in one basket, and if they leave because of those taxes, we're totally screwed, so I'd think we'd need taxed individuals too.

@Beachslim By that reasoning we've never lived in what you call "civilization" and, quite possibly, no one ever will.

Have you considered advocating for anti-natalism? Anti-natalists believe it's morally wrong to create new life. I'm thinking spreading that view is about your best hope...because your ideal goals for society have never happened before, appear to be quite unpopular now, and if they do ever become more popular, they'll be extremely experimental.

I don't know if you'd prefer feudal times with different sorts of laws...or tribal times when, in some ways you were probably freer, but in other ways you probably had much stronger restrictions, or stone-age times when for all I know people wandered around doing whatever they wanted, with the down side of being eaten by sabertoothed tigers and dying at 30...but I can't think of a time when human beings have, on average, lived in any type of wondrous society that's been much greater than now, if better than now at all.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:276990
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.