[NSFW] Marquess' journal (Cute emo girls inside!)

[Marquess]

Just had the terrifying realization that perhaps if I never started drinking, I'd still be working at my old job. A job that supported my gaming habits perfectly (that's the second, less dramatic, realization).

There is something to be said about being a functional addict for many years or even decades in comparison to crashing relatively fast and then having a chance to reflect on what happened & improve.

Also, after further analysis of my 20s, they don't look as barren as I thought. There are stories there.

Edited July 31, 2016 by Marquess

[Marquess]

I wanted to look at how romanticization of heroin happens in We Children from Bahnhof ZOO. As far as I remember, it's through:

- Seeing the world in a different way (due to social exclusion, lack of money, and the effects of the drug itself)

- (Young) love or whatever passes for it (this is is a subsection of the first point, but it's the key one imo)

Basically, it presents a reality that's unknown to most people in its entirety, but at the same time, almost everyone has experienced a certain aspect of it. It doesn't matter if the reality is terrible; it's different and therefore interesting, especially if presented in a slightly mysterious way.

This can be done especially at the beginning of the story since the experience is in fact mysterious and quite wonderful for the characters themselves. Later, the story can present the terrible truth to achieve both a dramatic effect and honesty & a message.

There isn't all that much focus on the drug itself; the book doesn't spend tenths of pages describing the feelings heroin provides; the focus is on how a character relates to himself, other characters, and the outside world.

That's the actual story, and this is why it works.

k enough green tea for today

Edited July 31, 2016 by Marquess

[Marquess]

Also, I think I'm at the point where I can reasonably write 2K words a day without getting overly exhausted (just somewhat tired). This journal is getting spammed atm; in future, there'll definitely be more short (fun?) posts to make sure the thing is readable.

The beta version of the blog will probably start in a week or so -- just a wordpress blog since I don't know how to build websites yet. (I've pretty much accepted the fact that it's me who has to build it, or I'll never be happy with how it looks & works. It's weird since I want it minimal, but nothing feels quite right so far.)

So those interested in 1k words long posts will be welcome to go there ^^. Posting this much and as freely on a forum about video games addiction is not the best approach. Though I appreciate how Cams allows for free speech; I understand I've written a few unsettling things in the last few days.

Edited July 31, 2016 by Marquess

[Daniel]

If you wanted to survive and procreate in that environment, you, as a woman, had to pick the best possible man you could attract. One that would not only protect you and provide you with food, but also one who could do the same for your children. Reproduction is what we're here for on the biological level, and we can't really escape our biology. As a man, you wanted a woman that is fertile and healthy; that's why men, to this day, value different things in women than women value in men.

This post is "the red pill" as it's commonly understood, or at least how it was understood at first: red pill on gender and gender relations.

Funny thing is, the fit and attractive male and the protector and provider usually are not the same. How would a woman handle this situation? 

[Daniel]

You write very well. Your post about Lana got me hooked, haha. Are you getting website or a free blog?

[Hitaru]

Nope. It's been proven that two parent household is the ideal environment for raising children. Marriage as a social concept serves to reinforce the connection between the parents, which is beneficial for everyone if the goal is a successful family. Children of single parents, usually moms, do significantly worse in life. It's actually better for a child to be given into adoption at a very early age than being raised by a single parent. Link to a presentation with all the sources listed.

I'd like to see a study were all this separated data and your claim are linked into a single theory. I'm almost sure it is somewhere, but I haven't found it yet among all this (very interesting I admit) material you presented, so I won't say it doesn't exist. I also miss reports on single fatherhood, I get the impression all this data is being used to rebuke single moms but I'll concede than single fatherhood when a healthy, respectable (no drugs, criminal history and financially stable) mother is present is practically unheard of. Probably there simply are not enough samples. But it's a critical void in the understanding of this topic.

How can distinctly different types of parenting (two parents vs one) produce identical results? They can't. And since they're not identical, it's on us to determine what are the differences in quality between the two, and if those differences are significant, promote the better one.

Claiming that single parent families produce equal results would indirectly promote such families and would therefore be immoral.

Just because it's easier and more comfortable to claim that all people & their practices are equal, that doesn't mean it's somehow magically neither true nor good.

If we finally happen to discover the best model of child raising, we should never directly promote it, but we should not spread lies about all methods being equal either. We should, however, respect freedom of choice among the parent or parents. How can freedom of choice be evil? I'm not appealing to emotion, I'm positively asking.

We would need to define "results", what are we aiming for exactly? Most children raised by single parents don't end up as a danger to society. Even if it was a "worse" method (and that is still a bold statement), if it produced functional offspring, society shouldn't intervene (how could it intervene anyway?). That intervention would be exerting violence against their family core and their individual freedom. Society's only goal should be to preserve itself and ensure an equal opportunity setting for all its members.

How can we differentiate individual experiences and temperament from direct influence of the fact of being raised by a single parent? 

Also, not promoting something is not indirectly promoting something else. It's just not promoting the first thing. You are the first to say people as a whole know better (in the context of the market) so they should be able to know better in other aspects as well. The best ideas will naturally settle given enough time.

This is also why Christianity is good for society overall. The idea of single motherhood is looked down upon and backed by various simplistic justifications, but it essentially serves a good purpose and provides an incentive for women to select for quality men.

I must disagree in your views of Christianity. Women in francoist Spain were socially coerced to look for a husband as fast as possible. That led them into marry the first barely valid candidate in many cases. In other cases they were wooed by romantic schemes in a social context of complete ignorance of relationships between men and women, and absolute submission to them. They didn't have enough information and power of choice to choose freely. 

You, as an anarchist, value freedom. I respect that. Traditional family values are not free. It was a losing lottery for women. In the case of men they didn't look for the best available woman, they just were looking for a healthy vessel to make children (and a domestic servant), which was of course the vast majority of them. Anyone would do for both genders, for completely different reasons.

Anyone can do in a lifelong relationship? That's completely unacceptable.

In all honesty, if women are just a living home appliance that has to be provided and taken care of, then fuck women. Why would anyone want to be involved with them if that was the case? Simply to breed? How overrated. I believe women have by nature a mindset different to men, and that's what make them interesting. Therefore they should be equal partners to have the most opportunities to expand my vision of life. In a traditional family setting, they are just a bother after they fulfill their breeding role. I don't want a fucking maid or a human-sized pet. And I will be against any kind of argument that remotely implies to give them that status.

Traditional families have many advantages, I will never state the opposite. But all those traditional values were used in Spain to justify all kinds of atrocities. Want to be a christian? Want to have a traditional family in a cozy house of a suburb? Fine by me, suit yourself, really. But it should be a damn choice. I'm sick and tired of conservatives and priests getting their noses into other people's business. I'm not saying you are anything like that, you are quite a reasonable proponent. You just happen to share some of their views. I wish those bastards were like you.

(Well I'm quite proud of myself now, any other spaniard would have lost their shit at this point, either if it was a supporter or detractor of traditional values. It's a kinda touchy subject) 

[Hitaru]

Rednecks? What does that mean. Are you going to cite crime statistics in the US now according to race? Because that won't help your redneck narrative very much. List of prolific inventors. See if you can find any patterns.

(Don't really appreciate the insults in this posts' quote btw.)

It wasn't my intention to insult you in any way, please point out where did you feel offended and I'll properly apologize, honest.

Nah I just wanted to say whites can be either great inventors or an absolute waste of air. Most of them are.

And no, actually I don't give a fux about US crime statistics, although I'm a stalwart believer that crime is related to poverty and not to race. There's no race as a whole more inclined to crime. Speaking about crime, police murders. Are white policemen more inclined to unnecesary violence or is it related to whites being majority in the force and everyone of them being armed? I wonder... Yes, most victims are black, and yes they are biased against blacks because racial profiling practices, high black criminality and, well, racism. But that doesn't prove they are more inclined to violence just because their skin color.

While we are at it, there's no gender more inclined to violence. If anything males traditionally exerted violence as a tool, since they were stronger. But they are not biologically programmed to use it as a first multi-tool resort. That's a main conclusion of third wave feminists, and it's bollocks.

Edited July 31, 2016 by Hitaru

[Hitaru]

Both genders have their own advantages and disadvantages.

Artificially created by social norms.

A lot of the benefits women get in society is reserved only for good looking women; absolutely no one cares if a woman is plain or, even worse, below average.

True. Again that's an artificial social construct.

Besides, female beauty lasts for circa 15 years, and what happens after that largely depends on how they've used their window of being attractive. This also explains why most feminists are 30+, overweight, and generally not good looking.

So women are just leeches. As I said before, if that's the case, fuck women. 

Either way, you will need skills to attract women as a man. You can either adapt to that fact or life or spend years complaining about how the world and human psychology works. Feminist style.

Again, proposing women are just a trophy. Honest question, was this this way back in the caves? If it wasn't that whole argument would crumble.

Why exactly is that the case is a different and very interesting question. It has a lot to do with the way humans lived for all of our history save for the last few decades; things like farming, urbanization, contraception, home appliances, etc have made a massive difference in a number of ways we can live our lives if we chose so, but our evolutionary programing remains the same as it was thousands of years ago. Deep down, we're still living in caves.

If you wanted to survive and procreate in that environment, you, as a woman, had to pick the best possible man you could attract. One that would not only protect you and provide you with food, but also one who could do the same for your children. Reproduction is what we're here for on the biological level, and we can't really escape our biology. As a man, you wanted a woman that is fertile and healthy; that's why men, to this day, value different things in women than women value in men.

You say we should embrace our animal nature and let it be? That's against human nature. All human history was a strife to go beyond our animal selves. EVEN if women were biologically programed to be leeches (which I still find hard to believe, but it's a valid possibility) we are now at the point were human survival as species won't be compromised if we give them a place among men, and not below them. Why? Because why not. I reiterate women of the past were awful to handle and boring as hell. If we need them, and we need them, they should prove to be a pleasant experience. Being submissive for social reasons it's not pleasant. At least not for me. 

[Hitaru]

Sociopaths will always try to gain power, but since we can agree on that, why then support the state in any way? It only provides a convenient and powerful mechanism for them to abuse; It makes a potentially troubling situation so much worse.

They are easier to remove than corporate magnates. Compare how many dictators were deposed to how many rich dynasties were forcefully removed from their riches.

Capitalists may form monopolies and attempt to control various aspects of life in a free society. However, this can never last because stronger the monopoly is, higher the reward for the first one who breaks it. As an example, if 3 companies who cheese decide to sell it at a high and fixed price, it's only a question of time before either various mom & pap operations appear that sell cheese at a lower price, or one of the three companies breaks the deal and profits from suddenly overflowing the market with cheap cheese.

Why would an almighty CEO tolerate that? They would buy all their competence using their unlimited resources. In the best scenario. 

Since there's no central government, there's nothing standing in the way of the above scenario. Right now, the 3 companies can convince politicians to, say, introduce all sorts of barriers for small cheese making firms to enter the market.

True. That applies greatly in Spain. However, as I said before, a much more powerful company can buy or sabotage the much weaker aspiring competition. 

Whether the capitalists are "evil" or not doesn't matter; they have to follow the rules of free market in order to stay in business.

 They can break and bend the rules if powerful enough. You underestimate the power of money.

Transition to a free, anarcho-capitalist society could most likely take place through a continuous reduction of the state, and that can only happen by promoting the ideas of anarcho-capitalism and fighting anyone and anything, in some cases violently, that threatens its values. (Islam for example.) 

Anarchists using violence to create a society where violence is not exerted? I'm... not sure if that would work.

[Hitaru]

 

Okay, so you're saying you wouldn't contribute to charity. If you yourself wouldn't contribute, then why do you think it's ok to force others to pay for it? Force them to pay at figurative (or literal) gunpoint?

Actually I would and I did in the past, so the topic is not about me as an individual. What I say is, if giving is voluntary, given the choice, most people will not give. Does that justify "gun-point robbery" as you say? No, I don't think so. It would be equal to say "I'm robbing you to give it to the poor because you won't give by your own". Yeah, so altruist of you, thank you. How much of taxes goes to the poor anyway? Public health, transport and schools (the only services worth of taxes imo) are not so expensive. Most money is wasted. 

How can a private charity agency become indispensable? 

Becoming the only one! What will happen is that a conglomerate of charity agencies will form and play God with the poor. The Nestlé of alms. Delightful. 

Not that taxes are doing a better job, to be honest. In the end, nobody gives a fuck about the poor. That makes free schooling and formation all the more necessary. It's the only realistic way to climb the ladder.

The fact that there are rich people and that there is inequality is unimportant. In a free market, the fact that someone is successful doesn't mean anything is taken from those who are unsuccessful. If anything, those that struggle benefit from successful capitalists since they offer them jobs and also support various charities.

Again, money gives power, and power is addictive. And in the case of wealth, hereditary. 

Your argument, if I understand it correctly, is basically that capitalism in itself is oppressive and the state is just an expansion of that. I hope to show that that's not the case.

 Capitalism as free trade and competition is not oppresive. Capitalism as permissiveness is. The state is a necessary evil. The state as institution should be small and handled by the most number of people possible with the less difference in authority as possible. The state as a concept of community we are all a part of is an absolute necessity. We should encourage individual progress while defending our interests as a group. That's the only way we can really thrive.

[Hitaru]

If you wanted to survive and procreate in that environment, you, as a woman, had to pick the best possible man you could attract. One that would not only protect you and provide you with food, but also one who could do the same for your children. Reproduction is what we're here for on the biological level, and we can't really escape our biology. As a man, you wanted a woman that is fertile and healthy; that's why men, to this day, value different things in women than women value in men.

This post is "the red pill" as it's commonly understood, or at least how it was understood at first: red pill on gender and gender relations.

Funny thing is, the fit and attractive male and the protector and provider usually are not the same. How would a woman handle this situation? 

That's some poor editing, since I didn't say that 

Hey, thank you @Marquess for providing a constructive debate. We are very different in many things but we've been able to expose them peacefully without saying anything about each other's mother, that's refreshing. Really refreshing. You don't know how things are over here. 

We can go on but it's probably going to get really confusing, I was enthusiastic and didn't realize my spamming until I finished 

Just had the terrifying realization that perhaps if I never started drinking, I'd still be working at my old job. A job that supported my gaming habits perfectly (that's the second, less dramatic, realization).

There is something to be said about being a functional addict for many years or even decades in comparison to crashing relatively fast and then having a chance to reflect on what happened & improve.

Also, after further analysis of my 20s, they don't look as barren as I thought. There are stories there.

I feel you here. Being in the slippery slope makes things worse in the end. Despite that, we are here now. That's the important thing. You know, silence is part of the music. Years of inactivity will make any achievement much more awesome. 

[Marquess]

I'd like to see a study were all this separated data and your claim are linked into a single theory. I'm almost sure it is somewhere, but I haven't found it yet among all this (very interesting I admit) material you presented, so I won't say it doesn't exist. I also miss reports on single fatherhood, I get the impression all this data is being used to rebuke single moms but I'll concede than single fatherhood when a healthy, respectable (no drugs, criminal history and financially stable) mother is present is practically unheard of. Probably there simply are not enough samples. But it's a critical void in the understanding of this topic.

I think the issue may be the lack of data, and there's also that fact that it's ultimately the mother that gets to decide who to have sex with & whether to have an abortion or give up the child for adoption. They are the gatekeepers. At least in a reasonably civilized societies.

If we finally happen to discover the best model of child raising, we should never directly promote it, but we should not spread lies about all methods being equal either. We should, however, respect freedom of choice among the parent or parents. How can freedom of choice be evil? I'm not appealing to emotion, I'm positively asking.

We would need to define "results", what are we aiming for exactly? Most children raised by single parents don't end up as a danger to society. Even if it was a "worse" method (and that is still a bold statement), if it produced functional offspring, society shouldn't intervene (how could it intervene anyway?). That intervention would be exerting violence against their family core and their individual freedom. Society's only goal should be to preserve itself and ensure an equal opportunity setting for all its members.

How can we differentiate individual experiences and temperament from direct influence of the fact of being raised by a single parent? 

Also, not promoting something is not indirectly promoting something else. It's just not promoting the first thing. You are the first to say people as a whole know better (in the context of the market) so they should be able to know better in other aspects as well. The best ideas will naturally settle given enough time.

Yes we should. We are aiming for success in life & higher quality of life, and two parent families with both a mother and a father are the ideal way to achieve that.

The best ideas do naturally settle given enough time. That's why we the two parent families are the norm and everything else is shunned for the most part.

I must disagree in your views of Christianity. Women in francoist Spain were socially coerced to look for a husband as fast as possible. That led them into marry the first barely valid candidate in many cases. In other cases they were wooed by romantic schemes in a social context of complete ignorance of relationships between men and women, and absolute submission to them. They didn't have enough information and power of choice to choose freely. 

You, as an anarchist, value freedom. I respect that. Traditional family values are not free. It was a losing lottery for women. In the case of men they didn't look for the best available woman, they just were looking for a healthy vessel to make children (and a domestic servant), which was of course the vast majority of them. Anyone would do for both genders, for completely different reasons.

Anyone can do in a lifelong relationship? That's completely unacceptable.

In all honesty, if women are just a living home appliance that has to be provided and taken care of, then fuck women. Why would anyone want to be involved with them if that was the case? Simply to breed? How overrated. I believe women have by nature a mindset different to men, and that's what make them interesting. Therefore they should be equal partners to have the most opportunities to expand my vision of life. In a traditional family setting, they are just a bother after they fulfill their breeding role. I don't want a fucking maid or a human-sized pet. And I will be against any kind of argument that remotely implies to give them that status.

Traditional families have many advantages, I will never state the opposite. But all those traditional values were used in Spain to justify all kinds of atrocities. Want to be a christian? Want to have a traditional family in a cozy house of a suburb? Fine by me, suit yourself, really. But it should be a damn choice. I'm sick and tired of conservatives and priests getting their noses into other people's business. I'm not saying you are anything like that, you are quite a reasonable proponent. You just happen to share some of their views. I wish those bastards were like you.

(Well I'm quite proud of myself now, any other spaniard would have lost their shit at this point, either if it was a supporter or detractor of traditional values. It's a kinda touchy subject) 

Traditional family values are far from perfect, but they're what works best for most people. Most women are happiest when married and with children. More sexual partners a woman has, lower the chance that she'll end up in a happy marriage. Therefore, it makes sense to urge women to marry young instead of having all sorts of different partners and probably ending up pregnant and unmarried; contraception is an extremely recent part of our cultures. Entire human history versus a couple of decades.

Most women are also passive and submissive by nature and happiest when they have a man that leads them. Most men, at least when it comes to relationships with women, are not, or at least they aren't happy when they aren't in charge.

Edited July 31, 2016 by Marquess

[Marquess]

It wasn't my intention to insult you in any way, please point out where did you feel offended and I'll properly apologize, honest.

Nah I just wanted to say whites can be either great inventors or an absolute waste of air. Most of them are.

And no, actually I don't give a fux about US crime statistics, although I'm a stalwart believer that crime is related to poverty and not to race. There's no race as a whole more inclined to crime. Speaking about crime, police murders. Are white policemen more inclined to unnecesary violence or is it related to whites being majority in the force and everyone of them being armed? I wonder... Yes, most victims are black, and yes they are biased against blacks because racial profiling practices, high black criminality and, well, racism. But that doesn't prove they are more inclined to violence just because their skin color.

While we are at it, there's no gender more inclined to violence. If anything males traditionally exerted violence as a tool, since they were stronger. But they are not biologically programmed to use it as a first multi-tool resort. That's a main conclusion of third wave feminists, and it's bollocks.

Yes there is. Blacks in general are far more inclined to commit crime, including violent crime like rape, than other races. That's not even controversial.

What's controversial is why they do it; some will explain that it's due to social circumstances, even "institutional racism", some will argue about the racial differences in IQ. This is another huge topic, and I think everything I've listed plays a role.

I'm not sure about the violence part. I'd say men are more violent overall, but there's also data that suggests otherwise. I'd perhaps say that women tend to be more indirect in their violence and perhaps harder to deal with for that reason. A man will fight you, and you'll be friends after, but a woman will focus her life on ruining your reputation forever. And this is, of course, a simplification.

(The insult was calling my views childish if I remember correctly, and there was also something about racism before that.)

Edited July 31, 2016 by Marquess

[Marquess]

True. Again that's an artificial social construct.

Nah, good looking women are just more arousing to men. Beauty is objective in certain traits like facial symmetry, quality of hair, etc. There are certain cultural elements to it, but it's generally well established how a beautiful woman looks like.

Besides, female beauty lasts for circa 15 years, and what happens after that largely depends on how they've used their window of being attractive. This also explains why most feminists are 30+, overweight, and generally not good looking.

So women are just leeches. As I said before, if that's the case, fuck women. 

I don't see how that follows. I'm absolutely certain that there are still ways to find happiness for unmarried women after 30, but it may be a rough ride for most.

Agreed on fuck women part :^).

Again, proposing women are just a trophy. Honest question, was this this way back in the caves? If it wasn't that whole argument would crumble.

They are and they always were in a sense. High status, successful men will always surround themselves with gorgeous women.

You say we should embrace our animal nature and let it be? That's against human nature. All human history was a strife to go beyond our animal selves. EVEN if women were biologically programed to be leeches (which I still find hard to believe, but it's a valid possibility) we are now at the point were human survival as species won't be compromised if we give them a place among men, and not below them. Why? Because why not. I reiterate women of the past were awful to handle and boring as hell. If we need them, and we need them, they should prove to be a pleasant experience. Being submissive for social reasons it's not pleasant. At least not for me. 

Giving birth to children and raising them isn't being a leech; it's as close as a human being can get to being a god; you almost literally get to shape a living human's brain. It's a great thing.

I think it's down to every individual to decide whether having children makes sense for them, and that the choice for having children should always be made from purely selfish reasons.

But it's something most women enjoy and find fulfilling, so instead of telling them that they can still have kids at 45 (very hard and risky), fuck a football team and pursue meaningless degrees in bullshit social sciences with no market value, we should promote a lifestyle that benefits both them and the society. I'm saying "we should" because that's what raises everyone's quality of life, which is, again, my only goal.

I don't care about what's right or wrong; I care about individual freedom and quality of life.

Dear modern women: Dogs are not your children

[Marquess]

However, as I said before, a much more powerful company can buy or sabotage the much weaker aspiring competition. 

If they buy them out, that's a voluntary agreement. Sabotage can lead to social shaming, hurting the offending company's profits. Would you support a company that's known to sabotage its competition, especially if there were other options available?

They are easier to remove than corporate magnates. Compare how many dictators were deposed to how many rich dynasties were forcefully removed from their riches.

They can be removed, but at what cost? Why give them a way to gain power in the first place? Corporate magnets are subjected to free market and have to either play by its rules or lose influence. But after all, if your products/service is truly superior, you surely do deserve to rule the market.

Why would an almighty CEO tolerate that? They would buy all their competence using their unlimited resources. In the best scenario. 

Sounds good to me. In that case, I'd set up a small cheese operation myself and collect millions after a few months :^).

 They can break and bend the rules if powerful enough. You underestimate the power of money.

So you're saying that people are capable of evil acts. Fine. But why give them additional means for doing that? Government only gives said rich people more power -- power to gain unfair advantage on the market. If rich people truly are as perverted as you say, why give them a government as well?

Anarchists using violence to create a society where violence is not exerted? I'm... not sure if that would work.

I didn't say that. I'm saying that using violence in order to defend yourself isn't a violation of a non-aggresion principle.

[Marquess]

 

Okay, so you're saying you wouldn't contribute to charity. If you yourself wouldn't contribute, then why do you think it's ok to force others to pay for it? Force them to pay at figurative (or literal) gunpoint?

Actually I would and I did in the past, so the topic is not about me as an individual. What I say is, if giving is voluntary, given the choice, most people will not give. Does that justify "gun-point robbery" as you say? No, I don't think so. It would be equal to say "I'm robbing you to give it to the poor because you won't give by your own". Yeah, so altruist of you, thank you. How much of taxes goes to the poor anyway? Public health, transport and schools (the only services worth of taxes imo) are not so expensive. Most money is wasted. 

How can a private charity agency become indispensable? 

Becoming the only one! What will happen is that a conglomerate of charity agencies will form and play God with the poor. The Nestlé of alms. Delightful. 

Not that taxes are doing a better job, to be honest. In the end, nobody gives a fuck about the poor. That makes free schooling and formation all the more necessary. It's the only realistic way to climb the ladder.

The fact that there are rich people and that there is inequality is unimportant. In a free market, the fact that someone is successful doesn't mean anything is taken from those who are unsuccessful. If anything, those that struggle benefit from successful capitalists since they offer them jobs and also support various charities.

Again, money gives power, and power is addictive. And in the case of wealth, hereditary. 

Your argument, if I understand it correctly, is basically that capitalism in itself is oppressive and the state is just an expansion of that. I hope to show that that's not the case.

 Capitalism as free trade and competition is not oppresive. Capitalism as permissiveness is. The state is a necessary evil. The state as institution should be small and handled by the most number of people possible with the less difference in authority as possible. The state as a concept of community we are all a part of is an absolute necessity. We should encourage individual progress while defending our interests as a group. That's the only way we can really thrive.

 

Actually I would and I did in the past, so the topic is not about me as an individual. What I say is, if giving is voluntary, given the choice, most people will not give. Does that justify "gun-point robbery" as you say? No, I don't think so. It would be equal to say "I'm robbing you to give it to the poor because you won't give by your own". Yeah, so altruist of you, thank you. How much of taxes goes to the poor anyway? Public health, transport and schools (the only services worth of taxes imo) are not so expensive. Most money is wasted. 

See, you would donate, I would donate, and it's fair to say that most people on this forum would donate too. If someone doesn't wish to donate at all, that's a choice they're entitled to make. However, that choice can also be made public, and it's then up to every individual to decide whether they want to associate/trade with a person who won't donate anything at all.

Even in the current forced taxation system, people still donate to charity in great amounts. It's reasonable to assume that that would only increase in a free society.

Becoming the only one! What will happen is that a conglomerate of charity agencies will form and play God with the poor. The Nestlé of alms. Delightful. 

Not that taxes are doing a better job, to be honest. In the end, nobody gives a fuck about the poor. That makes free schooling and formation all the more necessary. It's the only realistic way to climb the ladder.

You're so worried about the unlikely scenario of one company controlling everything, but this is exactly what the state is! State forces you to pay taxes and follow all its other regulations; if you don't abide, they send no a bunch of letters, then they lock your bank accounts, and then they pay you a visit in person. If you resist, they will use force, and if you fight that, they will kill you.

The state, or lets just call it the corporation, the company that claims to protect you and work for your best interest, will literally murder you if you resist it.

Now imagine a cable company sends you a letter, informing you that your monthly bill will increase by 50%, and that you'll be killed if you don't pay up. The company would go bankrupt overnight.

State is evil. it does nothing the private sector can't do better + it threatens you with violent murder if you don't submit yourself.

It's mafia.

Again, money gives power, and power is addictive. And in the case of wealth, hereditary. 

Yes, money is power and power corrupts. So why support a system which gives potentially dangerous people even more power? We've covered this before.

 Capitalism as free trade and competition is not oppresive. Capitalism as permissiveness is. The state is a necessary evil. The state as institution should be small and handled by the most number of people possible with the less difference in authority as possible. The state as a concept of community we are all a part of is an absolute necessity. We should encourage individual progress while defending our interests as a group. That's the only way we can really thrive.

I like that you think the state should be small; we can work with that. But why would it be necessary in the first place?

 

[Marquess]

Lets pick one topic and focus on that, Hitaru. This right now is a bit much. You decide.

[Marquess]

If you wanted to survive and procreate in that environment, you, as a woman, had to pick the best possible man you could attract. One that would not only protect you and provide you with food, but also one who could do the same for your children. Reproduction is what we're here for on the biological level, and we can't really escape our biology. As a man, you wanted a woman that is fertile and healthy; that's why men, to this day, value different things in women than women value in men.

This post is "the red pill" as it's commonly understood, or at least how it was understood at first: red pill on gender and gender relations.

Funny thing is, the fit and attractive male and the protector and provider usually are not the same. How would a woman handle this situation? 

Depends on the woman and her environment. Right now, some go with alpha fux, beta bux. This doesn't end very well for most women, but I bet it's hella fun until it lasts.

There are actually heaps of great guys who could become fairly alpha with some proper training and encouragement, but most women have an inane idea that men either "have it" or they don't.

I can't say why exactly that is; maybe it's something to do with the fact that women are given free attention and resources by simply existing (if they're at least decent looking) while men have to work to gain value in society. So the concept of bettering oneself may be more foreign to women, or at least foreign in a way of applying it to others. ("I can improve myself, but other people are stuck where they are.")

Some of them are too focused on themselves to even think about how men feel.

Idk, what do you think?

Edited August 1, 2016 by Marquess

[Marquess]

You write very well. Your post about Lana got me hooked, haha. Are you getting website or a free blog?

Oh, thank you. Interesting, since the post on Lana got ignored completely when I wrote it, but then again, what do you even say to something like that.

I'll get a proper website once I learn how to build one; I hope that to happen soon-ish. I'll probably get hosting on Dreamhost (free ID protection and I'm told they're known for supporting free speech) and buy Genesis Framework, and after that I still need to learn enough PHP to do anything. It's not going to be anything special though; a big part of it is just learning how to make a website.

Until then, I'll hang out on a free wordpress blog like a pleb I currently am :^).

Edited August 1, 2016 by Marquess

[Marquess]

Time to wake up and face the truths, sheeple.

PS: I'm also noticing several camouflaged pentagrams in the chemtrail pattern.

Edited August 1, 2016 by Marquess

[Daniel]

You write very well. Your post about Lana got me hooked, haha. Are you getting website or a free blog?

Oh, thank you. Interesting, since the post on Lana got ignored completely when I wrote it, but then again, what do you even say to something like that.

I'll get a proper website once I learn how to build one; I hope that to happen soon-ish. I'll probably get hosting on Dreamhost (free ID protection and I'm told they're known for supporting free speech) and buy Genesis Framework, and after that I still need to learn enough PHP to do anything. It's not going to be anything special though; a big part of it is just learning how to make a website.

Until then, I'll hang out on a free wordpress blog like a pleb I currently am :^).

When you are ready to make the transition to a hosted website, wait for Black Friday. You can get like 3 years of hosting for about $150 at Hostgator. I am currently cleaning the dust from my own blog at Hostgator, I simply installed WordPress, ZenHabits Theme and was good to go. 

[Marquess]

You write very well. Your post about Lana got me hooked, haha. Are you getting website or a free blog?

Oh, thank you. Interesting, since the post on Lana got ignored completely when I wrote it, but then again, what do you even say to something like that.

I'll get a proper website once I learn how to build one; I hope that to happen soon-ish. I'll probably get hosting on Dreamhost (free ID protection and I'm told they're known for supporting free speech) and buy Genesis Framework, and after that I still need to learn enough PHP to do anything. It's not going to be anything special though; a big part of it is just learning how to make a website.

Until then, I'll hang out on a free wordpress blog like a pleb I currently am :^).

When you are ready to make the transition to a hosted website, wait for Black Friday. You can get like 3 years of hosting for about $150 at Hostgator. I am currently cleaning the dust from my own blog at Hostgator, I simply installed WordPress, ZenHabits Theme and was good to go. 

Ha, I actually did that last year. But I was in a different state of mind back then, and my ideas were a lot more limited & pretentious to be honest. Now, I just want to set up something that I like and can grow. I'm also going to use all my online presence, including that of my old WoW persona, to channel traffic. It's the only way.

Checked the ZenHabits, and it looks fine. I do want a little more stuff though: a header and a sidebar for sure, comments and widgets as well.

Care to share your blog though?

[Marquess]

I have to to come up with enough extra money to go see The Cure in Austria in a little less than three months. The band is doing fine, but they're hardly getting younger, so this may be the last chance for me to see them. I basically need circa 100 € for the the package that includes a ticket and a bus ride plus some extra money to look like someone who's going to The Cure concert. 200 € should be enough, and it's very achievable.

This will be my goal for August. You people are so big on sharing goals; here's one.

 

[Cam Adair]

Brainstorm 20 ways you can get that money together!

[Marquess]

Brainstorm 20 ways you can get that money together!

This fucking forum manipulating me into setting tangible goals.

You guys are terrible.

:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^)