431–440 of 493 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yrvind.com - this guy built some interesting and inexpensive boats and has sailed all over.
Really appreciate that link, thanks. Hadn't heard of the guy before. Only started to explore his blog. I watched this video [1] to get an idea about the man and his boat design philosophy and it's very cool. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bca5_uyH9E4
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thoreau was talking about the perils of excess consumption in Walden, published in the 1850's.
And going to his mom's house on weekends and washing his clothes and eating out of the pantry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If someone put you into a sealed room and then turned a 5G cell phone access point on and off on the other side of the wall you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. You are suffering from delusions. If your healthcare providers are telling you anything different then they aren't helping you.
Wow, your scientific reasoning is great. How much power is the access point using? How many people are using the access point? Is data being actively transferred on the access point? Do you mean 5G like in 5 GHz or 5G like in 8 to 36 GHz? How long does one need to sit there to feel the effect? Does mid band 5G pass through walls? Numerous researchers have already come out with the issues and the difficulties of testi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry to hear about your health problems, they sound very real to me. >I’ve tested it every way I can to rule out placebo. I'm genuinely curious, could you tell me a little more about how you did that?
Thanks. So I have two meters. One that measures radio frequencies up to 8 GHz. And I have another meter that measures the frequency EMFs like from households and that measures both electric and magnetic field separately. The simplest thing I do is not to measure an area before I am in that area for an extended period of time. So say if I am sleeping in a hotel, I see how I feel and how I sleep, and sleep probably the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the coercive nature by which wealth is redistributed to other people that brings upon the questions of morality. If I'm forced at the end of a barrel of a gun to give up any portion of the fruits of my labor to support others, it is immoral.
You’re selfish.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the coercive nature by which wealth is redistributed to other people that brings upon the questions of morality. If I'm forced at the end of a barrel of a gun to give up any portion of the fruits of my labor to support others, it is immoral.
The fruits of your labor have already been facilitated a lot by the labor of others - you have received education, lived in an urban area with modern infrastructure and availed various public facilities from water to transportation at the cost of other people's efforts. Were you immoral then?
You're not addressing my point at all. You're just rambling trying to justify your position.
No one ever simply admits to being in favor violence and murder towards their fellow man. Just admit it instead of diverting and attempting an attack on the person presenting the position.
You love that the State sticks guns into peoples faces and forces them to fund the endeavors you support. Can you even do that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I wonder what the motivation is here, I've heard this sentiment expressed many times. I think it's the fantasy of having complete autonomy, of being completely free in the sense of never having to do anything that you don't want to do[1]. At least, that's that's the aspect of it that resonates with me. But it's only that -- a fantasy. Much like other things that we fantasize about, it's impossible as conceived beca…
> But it's only that -- a fantasy. Much like other things that we fantasize about, it's impossible as conceived because it dwells on the upsides and omits the downsides If one is OK with the downsides, it's completely possible, and a lot of people have done it for extended periods of time, even whole decades...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the coercive nature by which wealth is redistributed to other people that brings upon the questions of morality. If I'm forced at the end of a barrel of a gun to give up any portion of the fruits of my labor to support others, it is immoral.
If the majority of people in your country agrees that wealth redistribution is bad, then just elect a government that will stop doing it.
If I don't support the potential outcome, how could I justify participating?
Here's a scenario for you:
11 people in a room. They decide to take a majority vote to murder one of the 11 at random. What's your vote? No? What happens in the case you're outvoted? You are now complicit in murder. Vote yes? You are now complicit in murder. Casting your vote is your acknowledgement that the you accept the results. The only moral action is to object, conscientiously and refuse to participate.
Now stand in a room of 300,000,000 people where the end result of your participation is endless evil and murder. Congratulations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But it's only that -- a fantasy. Much like other things that we fantasize about, it's impossible as conceived because it dwells on the upsides and omits the downsides If one is OK with the downsides, it's completely possible, and a lot of people have done it for extended periods of time, even whole decades...
I'm sure that there are people who have done this, but I'm also sure they're exceedingly rare. Almost always, people living independently like that are still relying on some aspect of society to some degree. They trade for products they can't manufacture, for instance, or benefit more indirectly (such as benefiting from the society's efforts to maintain some level of peace).
So? It's not like society would dissapear overnight, and those people would be left with no such recourse.
The person asking just asked for some place without taxes and no price on a plot of land you can claim. They didn't say they want to move all of society to that, or that they want to make a point by relying on their own self entirely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the coercive nature by which wealth is redistributed to other people that brings upon the questions of morality. If I'm forced at the end of a barrel of a gun to give up any portion of the fruits of my labor to support others, it is immoral.
I don't know what to tell you, but according to that standard the only solution to avoiding your kind of coercion is to kill yourself or end the universe. 1. Your parents gave birth to you, so they are the source of you feeling that something is just or unjust. Go complain to them that they brought you into this universe. 2. Take away the guns of the government. End result: other people still have guns. Organized vio…
2. How about take away the government?
3. Why are you obsessed with guns? Is it because I used the word gun? Feel free to replace the word 'gun' with rocks, sharpened sticks, nuclear weapons, fists, etc.
I get what you're saying "by the way". The weak should be subjugated at the feet of the strong. In your scenario human beings are the "meat and animals" and the government are the epitome of the evolvoled being.