Rank #11417 on SubscribersLevel 228 Comments: Mind Blower
OfflineSend mail to reaganomix Block reaganomix Invite reaganomix to be your friend
|Last status update:|| |
|Date Signed Up:||8/31/2011|
|FunnyJunk Career Stats|
|Content Thumbs:||7409 total, 8919 , 1510|
|Comment Thumbs:||2883 total, 3930 , 1047|
|Content Level Progress:|| 8% (8/100) |
Level 174 Content: Soldier Of Funnyjunk → Level 175 Content: Soldier Of Funnyjunk
|Comment Level Progress:|| 84% (84/100) |
Level 228 Comments: Mind Blower → Level 229 Comments: Mind Blower
|Times Content Favorited:||692 times|
|Total Comments Made:||1025|
|Favorite Tags:||all (2) | the (2)|
latest user's comments
|#2490 - I know what Marxism is. Do you love me yet? [+] (11 new replies)||06/28/2012 on Politics - politics news,...||0|
#2524 - airguitar (06/28/2012) [-]
I originally thought I didn't like Gary Johnson as much.. But after I got those results I went to his website and I really like his platform, like more than Paul's (because Paul gives a half-assed effort to appeal to republicans like with gay marriage and such). I think I might vote for him, I can't decide.
|#2489 - Picture||06/28/2012 on Politics - politics news,...||-1|
|#561 - Tragedy of the Commons||06/26/2012 on R.I.P George. Last of his kind||0|
|#2330 - Pic related||06/26/2012 on Politics - politics news,...||-2|
|#2328 - While I do believe there should be some restrictions on voting… [+] (1 new reply)||06/26/2012 on Politics - politics news,...||0|
#2360 - airguitar (06/26/2012) [-]
This is a reply to both you and hunman.
I actually find myself disagreeing with both of you. Although you may think the common man may not be smart enough to run a country, this is obviously true, I also think it is elitist to restrict their voting any more or test them. These are not the days where people are illiterate, I think it is an insult to say that people can not even decide on a candidate based on their personal beliefs about the issues.
Reaganomix, the whole idea of Keynesian economics is one where the government thinks that the people are too stupid to run the economy and so the government takes control. One of the reason I hate Keynesian economics is because of this elitism, placing the knowledge of a politician, executive, or economist above that of the average person who is actually engaging in the exchanges.
In other words, nobody except himself knows what is best for him. That even applies to politics, I personally think no politician should put himself on a pedestal above any other american, instead he should consider himself on the same level and to be serving them. Democracy is the best that we have, although hugely imperfect and the only way to make it better is to allow voters to have MORE say in the government.
|#2144 - Picture [+] (15 new replies)||06/24/2012 on Politics - politics news,...||+3|
#2151 - largenintimidating (06/24/2012) [-]
Assange goes for governments, not corporations.
And they're both in the wrong. Just like you keep some things secret for good reason (e.g. unflattering opinions of people that you have to deal with on a daily basis), governments keep some things secret for a reason (e.g. candid assessments of world leaders that can be less than flattering). Same thing with "Collateral Damage"; just like you try not to let people know that you did something incredibly stupid that would irreparably tarnish your reputation (e.g. drinking too much at a wedding and making a pass at the bride before passing out in the toilet), governments try not to let people know that they fucked up (e.g. shooting civilians by accident, which, if it got out, could jeopardize the entire war effort).
TL;DR = Some secrets are kept secret for good reason, and if you dig them up and reveal them to the world without the secret-keeper's consent, you're a dickhead regardless of what the secret was or from who it was stolen.
#2156 - techketzer (06/24/2012) [-]
I completely disagree.
Lying and deception is immoral and outright dangerous enough when done by civilian individuals, just imagine the damage governments could do with it.
No, scratch that, research the damag governments have done with it.
Senseless wars have been fought over nothing but disinformation and secrecy; millions of lives have been lost.
Jeopardizing the war effort? Without lying governments, there would be no war.
And even then, a war that has to be won through the slaughter of innocents and civilians is a war you deserve to lose.
TL;DR: A government that has to lie and keep secrets is a government worth abolishing.
#2164 - largenintimidating (06/24/2012) [-]
Because you've never lied, told less than the whole truth or kept something secret, and if you haven't it's always resulted in the best case scenario.
Some things are kept secret, and some lies are told for good reason. Because sometimes the truth won't set you free, it will just destroy a good friendship or marriage with a one-off moment from years ago that some absolute moralist fuckhead couldn't let be. Maybe that friendship or marriage will be repaired, but it'll never be the same, not stronger for it, but weaker because the trust, which both parties may actually be worth, is gone.
Governments keep their candid assessments of world leaders secret for the same reason private individuals don't tell everyone what they think of them. You can't live with that kind of person; the kind who pass off the fact that they lack the social skills to hide their, possibly petty and biased, criticisms of others as just them "being brutally honest".
Without lying government's, there would be constant war, because diplomatic fuck-ups wouldn't be covered up. They'd just be left in the open, feeding simmering resentments between countries and their people, forever damning every country as an asshole because the human brain isn't designed to conceive of the fact that other people are just as complex emotionally as you. Countries in the same situation as the USA and USSR during the Cold War would have wiped out humanity 20 times over, because the methods that the CW was fought with wouldn't work if lying was impossible.
All wars involve civilian casualties. It's a sad fact that collateral damage happens when you pit men with weapons against each other on such a scale. No war is won by killing civilians, and broadcasting that it happened by accidentdoesn't help anybody.
TL;DR = Lies and secrets are necessary for society to work, because brutal honesty is a quick-fix solution that only allows the person practicing it a moment of relief before everything goes to shit.
#2173 - techketzer (06/24/2012) [-]
I have and I'm not proud of it. It blew up right into my face often enough, too.
"Because sometimes the truth won't set you free, it will just destroy a good friendship or marriage"
Yeah, because relationships based on lies are so great.
I'd rather have an outright enemy than a "friend" who doesn't consider me worth being honest to.
"Without lying government's, there would be constant war, because diplomatic fuck-ups wouldn't be covered up."
Now kindly tell me, what diplomatic fuck-ups would there be without lying governments?
Without one government double-crossing another, then throwing the people it's supposed to protect into war to keep the lid on or as last resort when getting caught?
Everything else you said relies on that invalid circular logic and comes toppling down right now. God, I love popping balloons like this.
"broadcasting that it happened by accidentdoesn't help anybody."
It's the truth though and however unconvenient, the second you try to supress it you become a tyrant of Stalinist scale.
TL;DR: Lies and secrecy are cancer that poison everything they touch. At best.
At their worst, they're timebombs waiting to trigger violence and bloodshed, on any scale.
#2191 - largenintimidating (06/24/2012) [-]
Then you're shit at telling lies, but I doubt you would have minded nobody finding out about them, and having some third party rip it from a diary of yours and then broad
A relationship based on a lie is very different from the situation I described. To be based on a lie, the very foundation of the relationship must rest upon that lie. I'm talking about the kind of lie where something inconsiderate done once without much forethought is kept secret because it'll ruin things for no good reason, because you'll be pissed about it for twenty minutes, and then realize you're being an idiot, but by then the damage is done.
Of course, this would require the friendship/marriage to have gotten anywhere with both parties telling each other what they dislike about the other from day one, since opting not to tell the person you just met that you fucking hate how they ruffle their hair would be suppression of the truth, and then you're just as bad as Stalin. Congratulations, human society is done for as nobody is capable of socializing, since to do it succesfully requires less than total honesty.
I'm sorry, there would indeed be no diplomatic fuck-ups, because we'd have skipped the part where we try to be nice to each other, and just gone straight to "fuck you, no fuck you, this means war".
Example: Country A opens diplomatic relations with country B, and starts off with "I want your oil, and that's why I'm talking to you. I couldn't give less of a shit about you people if I didn't". Country B responds with "well you can't have it, and by the way, I think you're a bit of a prick, so fuck you". Country A then invades, because there's no need for a pretense other than "we want their shit". Negotiations, after all, would require less than complete honesty.
Since you went for essentially Godwin's Law, I'm done with this one.
TL;DR = Society can't survive with total honesty, because the human brain literally cannot have as much sympathy for anyone else as it does for itself.
#2201 - techketzer (06/24/2012) [-]
There's a difference between a personal secret that's nobodies business and the state making secrets of things concerning the whole collective.
One deserves to be ripped out of its secret folder and be broadcasted. Preferably internationally. Guess which one I mean.
And guess how much of your bullshit analogies go out of the window with that.
That's right, all of them.
A nation willing to invade another one for nothing else than resources will not be stopped by diplomacy.
What a laughable notion.
"Example: Country A opens diplomatic relations with country B, and starts off with "I want your oil, and that's why I'm talking to you. I couldn't give less of a shit about you people if I didn't". Country B responds with "well you can't have it, and by the way, I think you're a bit of a prick, so fuck you". Country A then invades, because there's no need for a pretense other than "we want their shit"."
You think international relations work like this? You must live in some dreamworld.
This is ridiculous.
"TL;DR = Society can't survive with total honesty, because the human brain literally cannot have as much sympathy for anyone else as it does for itself."
That statement is literally impossible to prove, if there's anything literal about it.
TL;DR: You haven't said anything logical in that post. Not a single thing.
#2192 - largenintimidating (06/24/2012) [-]
Just in case you didn't get it, we're done here.
You used a Communist version of Godwin's Law, and next you'll probably fulfill the Law to it's fullest, but more importantly:
I've got better things to do than argue on FJ with some 14-year old (or maybe college-aged) kid who still believes in absolute moralist fuckwittery because he can't understand that the reason people think he's a prick is that his "brutal honesty" is not, in fact, proof of "how much more real than everybody else" he is, but instead just simply known as being an asshole.
#2177 - anon (06/24/2012) [-]
I think the lie "we'll bomb the shit out of Japan if you don't surrender" helped end WW2, even though we only had those bombs that we used.
#2265 - anon (06/25/2012) [-]
you misread his comment shit for brains, what he said was the two atomic bombs we dropped was all we had, which is true, we only had two atomic bombs, so we did in fact lie when we said we would continue to bomb them cause we already launched all we had and they weren't wiped out yet
|#6365121 - Picture [+] (1 new reply)||06/24/2012 on FJ Pony Thread||+1|
|#2096 - Yes, good goy, keep watching show for little girls. Remember, … [+] (1 new reply)||06/24/2012 on Politics - politics news,...||+4|
|#2077 - Then the chart is correct Libertarian Right is very c… [+] (1 new reply)||06/23/2012 on Politics - politics news,...||+1|
|#2073 - well what's your political opinion? [+] (17 new replies)||06/23/2012 on Politics - politics news,...||0|
#2081 - anon (06/23/2012) [-]
Anarchy. No. Why?
>People want power
>Power requires a group or army
>Groups require organization
>Organization forms into states
>states form into governments
>Governments reform and no more anarchy
>Humanity has a nuclear war
>Only a few survive the fallout in underground caves, new mutated animals roam the earth
>Humanity crawls from the pits, those with technology from the old world are considered gods
>These gods are forever remembered throughout history
>New society eventually forms and last of technology is destroyed
>Medieval ages pass
>New society is formed, decides anarchy
>New nuclear war
Wash, rinse, repeat
#2095 - whiskersthelong (06/24/2012) [-]
#2128 - techketzer (06/24/2012) [-]
What you are describing is the fucking opposite of a voluntary society.
The exact fucking opposite.
Really, you fucked up badly here, and the fags thumbing you up showed their ignorance and how easily impressed people are by a fiery speech, whether it makes sense or not.
I don't say anyone should share if he doesn't want to. I never would.
It's their absolute right to keep everything they have to themselves and I'd rather protect them and their property from other people's illicit attacks than try and force them to "share" or otherwise part with it.
Why that? For fear of the same thing happening to me should it become common practice.
The only reason anyone should ever part with anything he has is when voluntarily making a deal he thinks is beneficial to him.
And yes, of course I'd hate to be forced to part with my rightly earned wealth for reasons I do not agree with. I'd hate to be forced to do anything, even if I agree with the reasons.
Voluntary society is all about that. Voluntarism. No shit, eh? ;)
Everyone has the absolute free choice what to do with his life, ideas and property. (As long as he does not infringe the rights of others, of course. That's the general taboo line.)
Here's a link:
Everyone makes mistakes, but mixing up Voluntarism and Communism?
Holy fucking shit, I didn't know that was even possible.
Left and right is harder to distinguish between, if you think about it.
#2163 - whiskersthelong (06/24/2012) [-]
I see what you mean, and you do have some good intentions there, but you need to learn to live in the real world. What you misunderstand here is human nature. In an anarchic system, with nothing to stop them, criminals would run around killing and stealing. Who would lift a finger to help his fellow man, when he could rob him instead? The purpose of government is to PROTECT and to oversee operations, and provide minimal services. Recently, it has grown much too large and oppressive, with laws now dictating what is good for you, like trying to force you to buy healthcare you don't want, or telling you how large of a soda you need to drink. However, only a child would think that everything would be sunshine and rainbows without a government. Think of a cake. What hold it together are eggs. And this small ingredient is the difference between a cake and a pile of mush. That is government. Really, just stop being a child for a second. Don't you think this hasn't been tried before? Volunteering only works on a small scale, like giving to charity, or helping your elderly neighbor with housework. This is not how you run a country! If you want a volunteering society, all you have to do is never leave the internet. Here, if someone creates something in his free time, it will never hurt him to copy it and share it with the world. You know why? Because this is the only place where you can eat the cake and keep it. And enough already with the profanity.
#2172 - techketzer (06/24/2012) [-]
You appear to be a very dogmatic person and you're making an ungodly mess of this.
"In an anarchic system, with nothing to stop them, criminals would run around killing and stealing."
Me and my gun would stop them from violating me and my loved ones, just as we do now. Police? Police is there to mop up the mess, not prevent the crime.
Also, nothing prevents me from teaming up with my neighbours and practically the whole community to keep the peace
"Who would lift a finger to help his fellow man, when he could rob him instead?"
I would. Why? Because it's the right thing to do. Today I help my neighbour, tomorrow he helps me.
Also he may have his other neighbour watching his back as I just described above.
You're thinking like a child if you think people are helpless without Big Brother watching them.
" Volunteering only works on a small scale, "
Yes, because the state steps in and crushes down voluntary systems once they get too successful to his liking. The state hates competition and destroys it with violence wherever it can.
"The purpose of government is to PROTECT and to oversee operations, and provide minimal services."
I say fuck it. I don't want it.
If you want to lie your life under the control of a tyrant or a council thereof, go ahead, do it. Don't you dare to force it on me though, that way of life is not for me.
(And I know there is no place where I can live free of others governing me, which is a collossal shame. Seems I'll just have to make such a place.)
"Recently, it has grown much too large and oppressive"
They all do. Every single one of them. It may take them years and decades os deception and covert power grabbing, but in the end there is nothing to stop them except from people wanting to live free and choose for themselves.
The circle has just closed itself.
#2221 - whiskersthelong (06/25/2012) [-]
If you get together with your neighbors and form a confederacy, it's still a government. A government doesn't need to be something that stretches from coast to coast, it can even be something as small as a community. You, my friend, are not an anarchist and never will be. What you are, though, is smart. You see the idiocy in winging it alone because you know that you wouldn't live more than a day without help. Really, if you want to see true anarchy, I recommend you go alone to Somalia and try to survive alone for a week. All I am asking of you is to make peace with the establishment, and accept that government always eventually forms itself. This is what separates us from animals, that we can come together to try and achieve a common goal. And I have an entirely different view on Big Brother than you try to paint. I am completely against the nanny state. Once the government starts buying corporations and subsidizing its products with taxpayers' money, it is already known as fascism. This is a cancer that must be eradicated! What fascism does is that it kills the private industry completely. Not even the biggest corporations could combat a business with access to the treasury, a business that doesn't care if it makes money or not, one funded entirely by the people.This is where the line is crossed and government is a burden. My point is that government is not the problem, rather the size of it is.
#2269 - techketzer (06/25/2012) [-]
A voluntary community is ANYTHING BUT a form of government. Me watching out for my neighbour and he in return for me is not a form of government. There is no one governing, there is no one being governed. You're jumping to illicit conclusions in order to push your half-baked ideology through this.
"All I am asking of you is to make peace with the establishment, and accept that government always eventually forms itself."
I will never accept the reign of one man over another by the means of force and violence. Never.
That is what makes an Anarchist; I reject the idea of subjugation, or government as you call it. Freedom and voluntary choice is what I want to live by, not the dictate of a tyrant or a council of tyrants.
Somalia, being dominated and tyrannised by tribal gangs and warlords is anything but a voluntary anarchist society; more like a minefield of inofficial dictators fighting each other for hegemony.
You clearly have no ideas of the concepts we are talking about and are just throwing around big flashy words.
"This is what separates us from animals, that we can come together to try and achieve a common goal."
You're an idiot.
Many species of animals are much, much better at that then we are. Ever heard of ants? Bees?
So you want to live like a mindless ant, just doing what your instinct programming (read: government decrees) tell you to?
Fine, go ahead. Good riddance.
"My point is that government is not the problem, rather the size of it is."
I disagree. I say the principle, the very concept of government is at fault.
That concept being nothing else than the initiation of force and even violence to get what you want instead of respecting the individual rights and freedoms of the people.
A small government will not stay that way. Government is a mechanism constantly grabbing for more control and power, and with it actually being in charge, there is nothing to stop it.
Size is irrelevant, presence is the crucial point.
#2084 - anon (06/23/2012) [-]
Except for that one thing, what do you call it? Oh thats right, greed. Guess which nation in the world has the most oil in reserve? Oh thats right good old america.
And guess which nation is running of areas to go to war with in the middle east? Oh thats right, america.
Oh and guess which nation just stepped up military control in africa and is slowly increasing chinese tensions? Shouldnt take too long to figure out.
Dont even try to tell me people wont always be greedy; read; capitilism.
#2086 - anon (06/23/2012) [-]
No actually Im well aware that not everyone is greedy. What I am aware of, however, is how human contentedness works. You see its kind of like this.
A kid in a third world region would kill for water
A kid in a first world region spills it about as though it was nothing
Now that kid from the developing country moves to a first world country
Slowly over time, he will value water less and less because its become more a part of his life. Eventually he too will be spilling the water around like its nothing.
Get what Im throwing your way?
#2089 - anon (06/23/2012) [-]
Contentedness is subjective. What is considered lower middle class in america is rich in some countries. The longer you live in better conditions the more you yearn for better(er) conditions.