Infants have the cognitive and emotive development of cats.
It’s hardly any different from aborting a fetus, especially if it’s 7 or 8 months.
Society and the parents have so little invested in it.
Furthermore, it can’t complain.
However, perhaps they should have a good reason for it, like it’s crippled, defected in some way, retarded, or they can’t support it financially.
The same goes for people who’re so retarded they can’t feed themselves, and need to be looked after 24/7. Perhaps they should be put to death, if they have no families, or if their families refuse to look after them and cover the cost of care.
For me, nothing is sacred, convention counts for little. If Descartes doubted his existence, why can’t we doubt the value of human life?
I’m not a Christian, I’m a pagan, some life has more value to me than others.
My pagan ancestors practiced infanticide. Of course my ancestors may have done a lot of things I’m not prepared to do, so that means little to me.
It’s a most philosophical exercise, to base your valuing on your feelings, thoughts and reasoning about things, rather than on convention, wouldn’t you agree?
Why are we here, are we not individuals, or are we a herd?
Ask yourself, would you support keeping retards alive, if you were the one who had to wipe their assholes, clean their shit? Do you really care, deep down? How much? Might our tax dollars be spent on more productive and worthwhile things?
I don’t whites are inherently superior to blacks in any objective sense, as humanity might very well destroy itself via the sciences and technologies whites concocted and dreamt up. Sometimes I wonder about R/K selection theory. Perhaps there is a tendency for Qualitative animals and races, like ourselves, to do better than quantitative animals and races, but it can’t be an absolute, or there’d be no relatively quantitative species, and relatively qualitative species can only do well if the mother and father can protect their offspring from danger until they’ve matured. Manimals are the most qualitative species on earth, and marvel at our accomplishments. We have the power to save and/or extinguish virtually all other life-forms on earth. If our brains were even larger relative to our bodies, think of what we could achieve.
The thought is both simultaneously enthralling, enticing and frightening.
Additionally, I don’t believe whites are much more intelligent than blacks or others in any objective sense. I suspect blacks are approximately as intelligent as us, even though iQ tests tend to suggest otherwise, though there’s conflicting data on the subject, and I really, truly don’t want to make this thread another - does race exist thread, and what are its implications for, etcetera, etcetera. However, their intelligences are likely less advanced and more primitive than our own.
However, I believe whites are superior and preferable in a subjective sense, from my point of view, number one, and number two, I believe their mental and physical abilities are more suited to advanced civilization and culture, the civilization and culture we created.
Birds of a feather, I look out for my own, and I wouldn’t expect any less from blacks or others.
That is not to say I hate or am indifferent to blacks, it’s just that I have priorities, it’s hierarchical.
Ancestry is important, however, so is convergent evolution and merit, perhaps some exceptions could be made for a few exceptional blacks, I’m flexible on the matter.
And again, I don’t think my system would work in a multiracial state, it’s for a homogenous state.
However, the sort of direct democracy I’m proposing, void of racism, could work for a multiracial state, and such a state would still be infinitely superior to the one we have at present, I’m inclined to think.
It’s a hierarchy, some races have contributed more to humanities advancement than others. Europeans and Asians of various sorts, as well as Native Americans to a lesser extent (unfortunately their civilizations were completely wiped out), have all made important contributions to the development and progress of civilization, but curiously, sub-Saharan Africans are largely absent in that department, and I think this is indicative of a profound difference between those who left Africa, who’re all more genetically similar to one another than to Africans, and those who remained.
Of course, there are exceptions to every rule, and some blacks, especially mulattos, may even be more intelligent than I. Of course there are, but again, intelligence is only one factor, I value my race because of everything that it is, not merely intelligence.
I already know what the cure for cancer is, but that’s an aside.
Blacks and others can look for a cure for cancer in their cities. We’ll share some of our technologies with them, and I’m sure they’ll be more than happy to reciprocate. Perhaps if races specialize, developing their own sciences and technics, we’ll produce more diverse and interesting arts and sciences than if we were to mix everyone up.
I disagree, because I’m an egoist. However, my egoism is organic, holistic. I see my race as a lesser extension of myself, and species a further extension, and so on. Merit is important, of course, but so is egoism, I try to balance the two, it can be tricky.
It’s reminiscent of my militiarchy. As you can see, my militiarchy has evolved into something a little more sophisticated, but not necessarily superior. How would your city go about making laws or declaring war? Would it have a constitution? Many laws, few?
I believe in very few laws. This is not my ideal city precisely, but mostly, just one ideal city of many, specifically in terms of 0% taxation. This is unique, because despite the rhetoric of many republicans who believe in “lower taxes”, I have not heard any extensive proposals of a 0% tax city. It probably would be difficult to realize. But capitalism is the inspiration. America has thrived on opportunity, the idea that if you work hard, then you deserve to keep what you make, instead of having to pay 10%, 20%, or even 90% of your paycheck to your government. What’s the point of working, when you keep little or nothing of what you make?
You should keep 100% of your paycheck. Why should a middle man step in between employer and employee, to steal part of that exchange? Why is the middle man needed?
Morons argue stupid bullshit, as they have in the other thread. They clamor “We need policemen!” or “We need firemen!”, we need this, we need that, we need this, we need that. No, you don’t. Because in a civilized society, where adults live and are responsible for themselves, and there is a tight knit community, crime is very low. So maybe you DON’T actually need to pay taxes every year for police, fire, hospitals, schools, etc. Maybe you don’t “need” these things like most people think they do. Most people believe in these “government services” because they have a slave morality. They’re peasants or serfs. They are “used to” taxation and rule.
So it is possible to find a group of citizens who aren’t slave minded, but are instead self responsible adults, who don’t eat government cheese and suck on the breast of the nanny state.
What is wrong with receiving every single penny that you earn? For example, there’s a coal miner. He works long hours, 7 days a week. He busts his ass, for a lifetime, to feed and provide for his family. Why should anybody step in, and steal from him, with the excuse of taxation? This is just plain robbery.
Without taxation, people immediately make much more money. For example, I know the average McDonalds worker will immediately take home twice or three times as much income, without taxation. With this extra money, they can afford privatized healthcare plans, if they choose to. Many irresponsible people choose to take the higher risk, pay for no insurance, and so when an accident happens, they’re fucked. But who cares? If you don’t think ahead, then you may not deserve to recover from an auto accident. Fuck you, die. You can’t afford treatment, then too fucking bad. Die on the street. No pity, no remorse, no christian bullshit. Pay for your health. Care for your health. Self responsibility.
You can do this in a 0% tax environment. You cannot do this in a government nanny state who believes they can take care of you, better than you can take care of you.
Some people are self responsible, and taxation is an insult, and an affront, to these types. People who aren’t slaves, who aren’t man children, who aren’t immature at the peak of their lifetime.
The first law in this particular ideal city, one of many ideals, is 0% taxation. And if anybody attempts to impose a tax over this city, then the militia is obligated to use force by any means necessary, to destroy anybody who would impose a tax. The city exists under the principles and virtues of freedom, maturity, self responsibility, and opportunity.
This is a city for masters, not slaves. Not irresponsible children who demand or need a nanny state or daddy government. If you want 50% tax or 20% tax or 0.001% tax, then go live in another city!!! You’re not welcome in this tax free city.
People become richer or poorer, due to your own drive in life. You only can blame yourself for wealth or squalor. Some citizens will choose wealth, some squalor. Some will choose to scrape by, some will choose to become as rich as possible. That’s fair, and fine, and acceptable. I have nothing against extreme disparity of wealth and poverty, as long as that opportunity and freedom exists as well.
In the 0% tax city, a poor man can make it to the top, if he so chooses, by working hard and investing wisely. Also the rich man can fall to the bottom, through various means. Maybe he didn’t pay for a good enough lawyer during a lawsuit. Maybe he didn’t pay for health insurance before he got cancer. Maybe he gambled his fortune away. Fuck it. That’s all fine. And it happens. There’s no bailouts. Rise to the top of your own accord, or fall to the bottom of your own accord.
And have your city conquered by some other city with an army paid for by taxes, of its own accord, and your citizens turned into slaves, of ther own accord. There are no bail outs, and no one to come and rescue you.
What you’ve got here is simply a description of human society before civilisation began, for example in Mesopotamia, with cities competing for power and resources. Some of them had professional armies, and some didn’t. Guess which ones won?
So be it. It is a risk worth taking. And the militia and citizens of the 0% Tax city will gladly spill blood to defend what they have created and own, with their own bare hands. They know the meaning of valuing what you build. They know what it means to earn your take, fully.
Besides, if there was a losing war, then 0% Tax city would go visit Militarchy city and ask for help, in exchange for something of value. Or maybe Militariarchy city just likes 0% Tax city, and both mutually defend each other when wars occur?
I have several ideas as well, why confine yourself to just one?
Nothing’s perfect.
Yes, America is very much based on the premise men are more/less equal, and that one, a monarchy, or a small group of men, an oligarchy, or a large group of men, a democracy, can’t/ought not to rule over others, the way one, or a small group of men, or a large group of men, can/ought to rule over beasts, as it’ll lead to chaos and havoc. America is very much based on the idea of mitigated pacificity and noninterventionism. You and anarcho-capitalists are merely carrying the precept America was founded on to its logical conclusion. No taxes, not even for armies, infrastructure and police. The residents of a community can/ought to attend to these matters themselves.
On the one hand, I think it’s selfishness, the majority, or a relatively superior minority, or relatively inferior minorities, wants to rule over others, control them, dominate them, confer their wealth and resources. On the other hand, it may be easier to do things as a whole, if you have one, or a small group of men, forcing everyone to go in this direction or that against their will. Another is - sometimes individuals fuck up, they mistreat others, even if they haven’t violated their autonomy, and government, be it a militiarchy or a democracy or an aristocracy or what have you, can serve as a correcting force. Of course government often doesn’t serve as a correcting force, rather, it tends to multiply injustices. If citizens can’t solve their conflicts and disputes, via peaceable institutions, what makes us think they can, via warlike institutions (government)?
No, it’s possible some communities, communities made up of responsible adults, don’t need these things. I think it’d be an interesting experiment, to do away with government, with taxes, with spending, with laws. The only government would be the militia, the only law would be - don’t violate another’s autonomy, and don’t allow another to violate your autonomy or anyone else’s, within your community.
I’m sure that it is.
Good question.
Yes, not to mention without inflation from the “federal reserve”, which loans trillions of dollars, ex nihilo, to the federal government at interest.
Sometimes people fall on hard time through little or no fault of their own, like if an earthquake hits, or what have you, a series of unfortunate events. Sometimes people bite off more they can chew, they’re foolhardy, idiotic, stupid, undisciplined, they have one too many luxuries, or habits, or kids, they can’t/won’t put any money aside, they’re underprepared, they can’t cope when disaster strikes, they lose everything, maybe even their lives. We’re all human, we all fuck up, but some people fuck up more than others. Even if janitor x works long and hard, all his life, he doesn’t make a shit ton of money, and the little he could’ve put aside gets spent on his family and/or on coffee and cigarettes in the day, to keep him going, and booze and dope at night to calm him down, which can occasionally fuel his other habits. When disaster strikes, he won’t be able to afford the cost of care. However, he’s still an asset to the community, if the community lends him, or even gives him 20 grand for healthcare, in the long run, it may be worth it, as he’s given so much to the community all those years, and he and his offspring have sufficient years to pay that back and then some. However, all of this can be accomplished without government. Charities could operate voluntarily in such a town for such cases, they could operate via donations, they could be discriminating, saving their generosity for people like the janitor I mentioned, and not wasting it on crackheads and their ilk, who’ve never produced (much of) anything and who have lied, cheated and stolen more than they’ll ever probably repay.
People can always employ collective bargaining against capitalists, collective bargaining doesn’t necessarily have to do anything with government or force. Hey, we think we’re getting paid unfairly, or we think working conditions are poor, unacceptable, if you don’t increase our wages by x, and improve working conditions by y, all of us will quit simultaneously, moving to that company and that one over there, and you’ll go bankrupt, because you can’t man the machines or whatever yourself. Yes, there are plenty of ways people can combat injustices committed by corporations without exercising force, so by and large, I agree with you. Often government, even when it genuinely tries to improve the lot of common folk, gets in the way, like increasing minimum wage often increases inflation and unemployment, fixing prices or wages can allow some companies to corner the market, because individuals could’ve drove the costs down and the wages up further by exercising their freedom of choice, by choosing to buy from x company contra y, or by choosing to work at x company contra y, etcetera. Fixing wages can hurt small businesses, diversity and competition. So for the most part, I agree with you, societies tend to function better with low taxes or no taxes than high taxes, but I think there are some exceptions to the rule here and there, and that some intervention may sometimes be required. I also enjoy the thought of controlling people to some extent, if I may speak candidly.
You can have a professional army without taxes, it could operate by donations, for example, or it could operate by voluntary collective bargaining/contracting.