There is no edge here, “I statements” are here not for as an indisputable statement, but to be direct and concise. I guess I’ll adopt the debate style.
>Yeah, I’m aware consent of the governed is an aspect of a the political philosophy behind political systems other than democratic ones.
Not my point, I believe juries, not democracy is what provides the consent of the governed in the usa/British empires. I believe that I’m protecting and extending the true value in western civilization, by being anti-democracy; not the sort of thing anyone in the current paradigm is going to get at first brush.
>you mean something like ‘pre-Marxian socialism’.
aye, but the they all were alive at the same time, it would be weird to call marx existence as a time period split
>I thought the debate was rooted in a variety of classical liberalism
I think that’s a red scare sort of myth, the new socialists hate me, I hate them, and socialism connections would have been intentionally forgotten for decades at a time. Marx “won” the socialism debate during ww era and then anyone who liked money existing got kicked out.
>While there are a lot of totally economically illiterate people, you’re making it sound like you’re exceptional in having economics inform your politics, ~~when that’s obviously not the case.~~
Awww how kind of you <3. But no, I was referring to agorism. Economic action as political action, criticizing when you implied that violence and voting are the main ways to change the world.
>That you’d say something like this makes you sound like a common variety of anarchist or ancap who chides some people for participating in the state, e.g., by voting
Good, I intended to. I always worry that i’m not clear. :3
>Voting and going to the farmer’s market aren’t mutually exclusive
All actions have an opportunity cost, thats an exterme example as its dealing with tiny details. But reading the news from dozens of sources is rapidly mutually exclusive with being upto date on the whitepapers in the coin markets.
>What? The most sense I can make of this is that you’re so in favour of the free market and opposed to democracy, presumably as a better way for people to be governed with their consent expressed their their choices in the market,
Awww how kind of you <3. But no, I was referring to agorism. Economic action as political action, criticizing when you implied that violence and voting are the main ways to change the world.
I’m familiar with agorism. When I said there was ‘liberal’ ideologies and ‘illiberal’ ideologies, I didn’t mean to imply that respectively through each voting and violence are exclusively the ways through which people change the world. It’s not a great framing, I admit, but you’re making mountains out of molehills, and positing me as believing a bunch of things I don’t, and assuming I am much more ignorant than I actually am.
All actions have an opportunity cost, thats an exterme example as its dealing with tiny details.
You’re being pedantic. The fact that economically, all actions have opportunity costs, has nothing to do with what we’re talking about here. The time you took to write the above comment imposed an opportunity cost of time you couldn’t spend spreading agorism, or whatever.
I’m not going to engage your comment further, because it’s not worth my time. Another reason I’m saying this things like this in a public comment because I want it to serve as a signal to others on LW that this is how you tend to engage others, and how you persist in writing poor responses even when someone is willing to engage you. Your comments are making bogus assumptions, are full of grammar and spelling errors that make sections of your writing incoherent, and you’re setting things up to be some kind of petty debate when nobody else was reading that into the conversation.
There is no edge here, “I statements” are here not for as an indisputable statement, but to be direct and concise. I guess I’ll adopt the debate style.
>Yeah, I’m aware consent of the governed is an aspect of a the political philosophy behind political systems other than democratic ones.
Not my point, I believe juries, not democracy is what provides the consent of the governed in the usa/British empires. I believe that I’m protecting and extending the true value in western civilization, by being anti-democracy; not the sort of thing anyone in the current paradigm is going to get at first brush.
>you mean something like ‘pre-Marxian socialism’.
aye, but the they all were alive at the same time, it would be weird to call marx existence as a time period split
>I thought the debate was rooted in a variety of classical liberalism
I think that’s a red scare sort of myth, the new socialists hate me, I hate them, and socialism connections would have been intentionally forgotten for decades at a time. Marx “won” the socialism debate during ww era and then anyone who liked money existing got kicked out.
>While there are a lot of totally economically illiterate people, you’re making it sound like you’re exceptional in having economics inform your politics, ~~when that’s obviously not the case.~~
Awww how kind of you <3. But no, I was referring to agorism. Economic action as political action, criticizing when you implied that violence and voting are the main ways to change the world.
>That you’d say something like this makes you sound like a common variety of anarchist or ancap who chides some people for participating in the state, e.g., by voting
Good, I intended to. I always worry that i’m not clear. :3
>Voting and going to the farmer’s market aren’t mutually exclusive
All actions have an opportunity cost, thats an exterme example as its dealing with tiny details. But reading the news from dozens of sources is rapidly mutually exclusive with being upto date on the whitepapers in the coin markets.
>What? The most sense I can make of this is that you’re so in favour of the free market and opposed to democracy, presumably as a better way for people to be governed with their consent expressed their their choices in the market,
Your getting closer to understanding.
This is agorism, the importaint bit to ancap.
For example this was written by spooner in 1858 in “”A Plan for the Abolition of Slavery, and To the Non-Slaveholders of the South”″ “Until such new governments shall be instituted, to recognize the Slaves as free men… sell them firearms and teach them the use of them; to trade with them”
This is a spectrum of course, farmers markets are slightly different from arms dealing. But this is where I feel effective action exists.
I’m familiar with agorism. When I said there was ‘liberal’ ideologies and ‘illiberal’ ideologies, I didn’t mean to imply that respectively through each voting and violence are exclusively the ways through which people change the world. It’s not a great framing, I admit, but you’re making mountains out of molehills, and positing me as believing a bunch of things I don’t, and assuming I am much more ignorant than I actually am.
You’re being pedantic. The fact that economically, all actions have opportunity costs, has nothing to do with what we’re talking about here. The time you took to write the above comment imposed an opportunity cost of time you couldn’t spend spreading agorism, or whatever.
I’m not going to engage your comment further, because it’s not worth my time. Another reason I’m saying this things like this in a public comment because I want it to serve as a signal to others on LW that this is how you tend to engage others, and how you persist in writing poor responses even when someone is willing to engage you. Your comments are making bogus assumptions, are full of grammar and spelling errors that make sections of your writing incoherent, and you’re setting things up to be some kind of petty debate when nobody else was reading that into the conversation.