What is Unleashed's ideology? He is crazy

I have no ideology. I am interested in personal freedom. The moment you, or some people you voted start telling me what I must believe and what I must do by force (and this is by default), we have a problem.

Does that mean there should be no rules? Absolutely not. There should be rules. There should be no rulers. That's where you idiots miss the point.

Does that mean nobody will lead the company or the bank?

Of course not. It is a private ownership. What it means tho is that you won't be able to impose your bullshit on people or send them over the ocean to die for your oil.

Most of you are so used to being told what to do, and lack the slightest bone in your back, that you think it's ok. It's normal. Well surprise surprise, normalcy that reffers to conformity rather than what is actually right isn't normalcy. It's just that: conformity and familiarity.

Just because you have 100 cancer pantients and 2 healthy people in a room doesn't make the cancer right.

Keep obeying, regardless of what you personally think. (or don't think)

I find it quite interesting you keep dodging my main question.

How do you have rules without rulers? Human beings are very diverse. We have different standards of morality. We have different definitions of freedom. Not to mention that we also have a tendency to take other people's belongings.

For rules to be meaningful, everyone needs to be bound by it. How, exactly, do you propose we make this happen without some kind of arbitrating authority?

Different definitions of freedom LOL

freedom isn't something subjective. You're either free or you're not

We are not.

Kirjoittanut Unleashed, 14.07.2015 at 06:31

Different definitions of freedom LOL

freedom isn't something subjective. You're either free or you're not

We are not.

It is very subjective.

An Islamic radical would be very free under Sharia rule. I would be very un-free under the same government.

There's more to freedom than how much stuff you're allowed to do. True freedom is, how much stuff it is actually plausible for you to do.

I came back because I could sense unleashed.

Fag.


Quitting atwar again

You are just little libertarian

Kirjoittanut International, 14.07.2015 at 07:13

Kirjoittanut Unleashed, 14.07.2015 at 06:31

Different definitions of freedom LOL

freedom isn't something subjective. You're either free or you're not

We are not.

It is very subjective.

An Islamic radical would be very free under Sharia rule. I would be very un-free under the same government.

There's more to freedom than how much stuff you're allowed to do. True freedom is, how much stuff it is actually plausible for you to do.

No one, following ANY religious belief system, is, under any circumstances, ever free.

Kirjoittanut Unleashed, 14.07.2015 at 06:02

I have no ideology. I am interested in personal freedom. The moment you, or some people you voted start telling me what I must believe and what I must do by force (and this is by default), we have a problem.

Kirjoittanut Unleashed, 14.07.2015 at 06:02

You believe in god? I WILL FUCKING KILL YOU, STUPID SHEEP

Kirjoittanut Unleashed, 14.07.2015 at 06:02

I have no ideology. I am interested in personal freedom. The moment you, or some people you voted start telling me what I must believe and what I must do by force (and this is by default), we have a problem.

^Total Anarchism

Kirjoittanut Unleashed, 14.07.2015 at 06:02

Does that mean there should be no rules? Absolutely not. There should be rules. That's where you idiots miss the point.

Who is going to enforce them? the moment you decide who is going to enforce the rules is the moment you start laying the foundations of a state, Even coming up with the rules themselves goes against your freedom because people will need to get together and compromise in rule-making and by taking a look at the current political spectrum, unless you genocide all non-anarchists most of the rules are not going to be of your liking.

-Rule Enforcement Agents
-Constitution

That sounds like a small government to me.

What is going to be the currency?
A) Goods
B) Gold/Silver
C) Paper Currency

A) In Anarchism you can't make complex goods as they require a team and facilities to make them, this facilities will be owned by a individual (because there is no state in anarchism) and this individual will become really wealthy unlike his employes. [Wealthy people are dangerous in anarchism, i will explain you why in my next point]
B) This currency allows the accumulation of wealth [And it will collapse if the citizens are allowed to buy goods from other countries]
C) Who is going to regulate the currency? Who is going to print more money when needed? [Also allows individuals to get wealthy] [Requires the state to function properly]

Now let me tell you why wealth is dangerous in anarchism:
Human nature is not going to change regardless of the government in it,specially because anarchism holds no universal virtues, Rich individuals will marry other rich individuals and there is no taxes so they will never lose money unless they want to use it, you will end up with extremely rich individuals who are related by blood and hold most of the land and most of the wealth and this gives no benefits to the state (Because there is no state and no taxes)

1.- They will buy the Rule enforcements agents
2.- The Constitution is not worth without 1
3.- Oligarchy takes power
4.- Congratulations your Anarchist experiment has failed

Unleashed is machine's fell off bolt. Now without purpose and meaning. Until he is back into machine.

Humans created states and hierarchy so they can compete. Thats why you have wars, famine, ideologies, political and economic systems. They are making international alliance to become stronger.

USSR collapsed, but Russian Federation live. USA sanctioned Russian Federation, European Union is collapsing. China is rising, India is rising. Europe lost African colonies, but China and Russia overtake. Germany and Japan lost the war, but winning in economic competition. Austria-Hungary collapsed and lost, but Austria and Hungary joined new economic and military alliance to keep competing.

Its competition. You can either participate, or go aside and watch. But if you want to contribute and try to make a difference, you have to participate.

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 14.07.2015 at 17:10

Unleashed is machine's fell off bolt. Now without purpose and meaning. Until he is back into machine.

Humans created states and hierarchy so they can compete. Thats why you have wars, famine, ideologies, political and economic systems. They are making international alliance to become stronger.

USSR collapsed, but Russian Federation live. USA sanctioned Russian Federation, European Union is collapsing. China is rising, India is rising. Europe lost African colonies, but China and Russia overtake. Germany and Japan lost the war, but winning in economic competition. Austria-Hungary collapsed and lost, but Austria and Hungary joined new economic and military alliance to keep competing.

Its competition. You can either participate, or go aside and watch. But if you want to contribute and try to make a difference, you have to participate.

first time agree with you....

Kirjoittanut Tundy, 14.07.2015 at 10:31

Kirjoittanut Unleashed, 14.07.2015 at 06:02

I have no ideology. I am interested in personal freedom. The moment you, or some people you voted start telling me what I must believe and what I must do by force (and this is by default), we have a problem.

Kirjoittanut Unleashed, 14.07.2015 at 06:02

You believe in god? I WILL FUCKING KILL YOU, STUPID SHEEP

Lel. It's not the belief that bothers me

It's the fact that it is imposed on everyone else by default

Kirjoittanut Unleashed, 15.07.2015 at 01:43

Lel. It's not the belief that bothers me

It's the fact that it is imposed on everyone else by default

Notice how you don't respond to the main reply that i posted just below

Kirjoittanut Tundy, 15.07.2015 at 06:16

Kirjoittanut Unleashed, 15.07.2015 at 01:43

Lel. It's not the belief that bothers me

It's the fact that it is imposed on everyone else by default

Notice how you don't respond to the main reply that i posted just below

It's ok. I know god will forgive me and take me into his kingdom

Atheism and anarchism don't exist. They are just your natural state. You give names for NORMAL things, and normalize sick things like religion. Gotta give names to everything

Let's just call it mental health. An alien concept to the majority of the world population

Out

Kirjoittanut Unleashed, 15.07.2015 at 12:06

Atheism and anarchism don't exist. They are just your natural state. You give names for NORMAL things, and normalize sick things like religion. Gotta give names to everything

Let's just call it mental health. An alien concept to the majority of the world population

Out

The state emerged from the natural state, The lion beat the sheep into submission and formed the state, if we men ever have total freedom again, then the new generation of lions will beat the sheep again and form a new state.

Don't you see the big picture? Anarchism is doomed to fail, it kills the king but it does not kill the crown, somebody will eventually just seize the crown and call himself king.

Kirjoittanut Tundy, 15.07.2015 at 12:17

Kirjoittanut Unleashed, 15.07.2015 at 12:06

Atheism and anarchism don't exist. They are just your natural state. You give names for NORMAL things, and normalize sick things like religion. Gotta give names to everything

Let's just call it mental health. An alien concept to the majority of the world population

Out

The state emerged from the natural state, The lion beat the sheep into submission and formed the state, if we men ever have total freedom again, then the new generation of lions will beat the sheep again and form a new state.

Don't you see the big picture? Anarchism is doomed to fail, it kills the king but it does not kill the crown, somebody will eventually just seize the crown and call himself king.

There are no lions there. We are the same species. Except some sheep decided to dress up like lions and brainwash everyone else into thinking "we need lions to rule over us". And because they do it from an early age, everyone believes it and submits. When in reality, there are no lions and only sheep in lions costume, therefore sheep have no right to rule over other sheep. Illusion crushed, Freedom is your birthright. Well, now you kinda helped my argument xD

Ty Tunder. Always a good friend lol

PS: And lets not forget the Monster Lion up in the Sky. He watches over, so you better obey us !!

hahah. Funny lies humankind lives.

Kirjoittanut Skanderbeg, 14.07.2015 at 17:10

off topic quote that Pheonixking929 is simply doing to get my attention

YES, you got the gif!!

I will actually argue that freedom is slavery.

There is no such thing as total freedom. There must be an equivalent amount of freedom and slavery, and the only questions are how much of each there's to be and how the two items are going to be distributed.

I have said this several times, but you cannot have a right without somebody shouldering a responsibility.

Kirjoittanut International, 16.07.2015 at 05:07

I will actually argue that freedom is slavery.

There is no such thing as total freedom. There must be an equivalent amount of freedom and slavery, and the only questions are how much of each there's to be and how the two items are going to be distributed.

I have said this several times, but you cannot have a right without somebody shouldering a responsibility.

Well, you can actually have rights without responsibility but that would make you no better than a beast

Kirjoittanut International, 16.07.2015 at 05:07

...
I have said this several times, but you cannot have a right without somebody shouldering a responsibility.

in analysis of this, i'm becoming even more convinced that rights are a fiction - a figment of the imagination. i can define the responsibility... but i can't define a right. Can you give a concrete example of a right?

Kirjoittanut Unleashed, 14.07.2015 at 06:02

I have no ideology. I am interested in personal freedom. The moment you, or some people you voted start telling me what I must believe and what I must do by force (and this is by default), we have a problem.

Does that mean there should be no rules? Absolutely not. There should be rules. There should be no rulers. That's where you idiots miss the point.

Does that mean nobody will lead the company or the bank?

Of course not. It is a private ownership. What it means tho is that you won't be able to impose your bullshit on people or send them over the ocean to die for your oil.

Strongly agree- i can't be constrained to supporting an 'ism' as they are all metaphors for something else, and can be misinterpreted no matter how much agreement there is in definitions.

However, the bottom line is 'non-interference' - not imposing by force or coercion your beliefs on someone else... if they truly are superior, they would stand for themselves, and i would adopt them voluntarily. If i adopt only inferior views voluntarily, then i will die by those inferior views, and you and your superior views will still 'win' out - so systems using force and coercion are inferior models based on the fact they can't even survive on their own.

Kirjoittanut Tundy, 16.07.2015 at 08:43

Well, you can actually have rights without responsibility but that would make you no better than a beast

Or if you are human that would make you an...
• infant
• mentally handicap'd

Kirjoittanut Goblin, 16.07.2015 at 14:54

Kirjoittanut Tundy, 16.07.2015 at 08:43

Well, you can actually have rights without responsibility but that would make you no better than a beast

Or if you are human that would make you an...
• infant
• mentally handicap'd

Kirjoittanut Unleashed, 14.07.2015 at 06:02

There should be rules. There should be no rulers.

B-but how?

Kirjoittanut brianwl, 16.07.2015 at 13:37

in analysis of this, i'm becoming even more convinced that rights are a fiction - a figment of the imagination. i can define the responsibility... but i can't define a right. Can you give a concrete example of a right?

The right to a fair and free trial, for one. Which means that someone has to shoulder the responsibility of giving you one.

Kirjoittanut Gandalf The Jew, 16.07.2015 at 17:16

Kirjoittanut Unleashed, 14.07.2015 at 06:02

There should be rules. There should be no rulers.

B-but how?

Do you need a "leader" to know it's wrong to commit a crime?

Are you that stupid that you cannot differentiate between the two?

Lainaa:

Kirjoittanut Tundy, 16.07.2015 at 15:30

Or if you are human that would make you an...
• infant
• mentally handicap'd

What do you mean "no"? ...i didn't make this up, laws did.