27 October 2013

Throw Down The Gauntlets

Questions for Free-Market Moralists - NYTimes.com

|| Based on the link above, there were SEVERAL paragraphs of utter commie monarchist horse shit, then these questions. The problem is, fascism, that these questions come with propagandized and nearly illiterate answers. You/one can click the link to read the drivel and the narrative, but I'm going to ride this socialist pony, after all, airing my free speech is only the fair thing to do. I've defenestrated the author's specious answers because of their equivocations, for example, after the each question the writer puts, "If you say yes, then you think..." and that's absurd. If you believe that, I have a mountain to sell you. One/you can't know the reader's thoughts, nor speak in absolutes without showing evidence, especially when basing the argument on theoretical units of value. To the author, get a dictionary, I don't THINK I can dumb it to your level. ||

1. Is any exchange between two people in the absence of direct physical compulsion by one party against the other (or the threat thereof) necessarily free?

| | Yes. (i know you pinkos disagree). Even to the strictly dystopian de-regulatory property laws, in any action of bartering or commerce, the currency, be it money or goods, has a value. The act of commerce is not value, except for those buying inventory for a business (in which they are paid for their services), this process is deemed legally as the exchange of items, legal to both sides of the political spectrum, insomuch that both intend for people to have time when they are not laboring. I don't object to this being a question, but I do object to its premise, in legal terms it misleads the witness, by implying that all exchanges are done by compulsory measures, and thus is attempting to justify (his client's) felonious extortion. | |

2. Is any free (not physically compelled) exchange morally permissible?

| | Yes. The right to create for the community being the goal of community ownership defines non compulsory exchange between the productive members of society and the bureaucrats as essential, and thus allows any exchange to be permissible when acquiring the results of work, for each, community, family, or self, and to disallow exchange would be a contradiction to that effort, and the lack thereof results in the dictionary definition of a system of slavery. Next question. | |

3. Do people deserve all they are able, and only what they are able, to get through free exchange?

| | This question has no answer, for it presumes that the ability of a person is restricted to the approval of spiritual forces, thus hypothetical and irrelevant, but I'll speak on it.

A person is no more than they are, if the exchange is limited to ability then credit/financing would plausibly deemed illegal for its inefficacy and the ideas of 'need' and 'want' would not be an element to the human condition, and, confining the definition of ability to worth subjects the argument itself to the very conditions of limitation and becomes a blatant contradiction to the overlying political tyranny, as I mentioned in question one. Next question. | |

4. Are people under no obligation to do anything they don’t freely want to do or freely commit themselves to doing?

| | Yes. 'If you say yes, you're a this or that' shut the fuck up. This question is difficult, but only because it's the first actual question the writer produces that isn't suckling in primacy. I can answer it, because I'm not 7-years-old anymore. I'm this many [holds up 30 middle fingers].

This question addresses "Chaos theory", such as, the questions of society that ask whether we need protect, defend, or adjudicate ourselves. This I, in my own individual brain where I form an identity with or without the approval of society, think is considered the "harm principle," whereas actions have results, and what level of those results become consequences and their differing from illicit behavior that a community deems taboo or tabloid, all of which cannot be relevantly identified, or controlled for that matter, if any level of hypocrisy is ruining the scientific necessity for regularity.

Let's say, a haughty political-party-douche-bag fascist who is paid to write bullshit articles, or a privileged disconnected and vain affluent child writes an article, (or both as it seems,) then closes it with a lengthy fallacy to match the opening statements, decides to say that their defamation of "conservatives" needs to be protected (hugely ironically being conservative in and of itself), yet find those defamed and abused to have earned said writer's dilettante useless hate without venerable evidence to the point. This would be a double standard, and any egregious compulsion would lack compunction. Trees fall on houses, but that's not a reason to burn forests. Half of nothing, is still nothing. | |

|| What the fuck, only four questions? ||
|| Vive la résistance, Maquis ||
|| @mjbanks ||