Some of y'all live in such a bubble that you don't realize that the voters support most of the government stuff you complain about.
Discussion
Like, if you say to someone "The government has too much debt and needs to stop spending and printing money!", they'll be all #metoo.
But try suggesting all the stuff you'd have to cut, to balance the budget and begin paying down the debt, and they'll be like, Nah, bro.
They agree with you, in theory, but not in reality. Or they're just pretending to agree, so that you'll shut up about it.
Another example is "People should use Nostr, so that they can't be censored.... and neither can anyone else." 💪
Yo, that sounds more like a bug than a feature, to most people. They all know people whose stuff they don't want to see and they have stuff they want to aim at very specific people.
A better mantra is "Write what you want. Control what you read".
why pay the debt? just default it
Both the government and the populace prefer inflation to default.
I prefer a default
Until it's actually about to default. Then it always gets spooky
Default would be nuts. 😂 Absolute chaos.
That does not make it incorrect. 😂
You can't escape that pain forever & the longer it goes on... 😜
The longer it goes on, the less acute the chaos and the more time people have to look for an alternative.
I think that is too defeitist an attitude.
Reality is not defeatism.
Governments ruling at the consent of the governed means you should aim any effort at changing the mind of the governed. So long as you see them as two contrary-minded entities, will be how long you live in frustrated confusion.
Yes! That has become my conclusion. We need to change the voters because the government is too entrenched to change without overwhelming interest in doing so, which we don't currently have.
I don't know any freedom-minded people who are unaware that most people are retarded.
Most people are of middling intelligence and of middling knowledge and their combined decisions will generally be superior to those of any individual.
Depends on the individual, remember the most intelligent are generally driven to the fringe because they are a threat...
Intelligent people are single points of failure and when we've let them lead we sometimes ended up with worse governments.
If you believe you have the right to vote to steal other people's property to fund your hairbrained ideas then you're a retard.
The relative intelligence of a retard compared to a population of retards is irrelevant.
Also, calling them retards is being charitable. What they really are is evil.
Calling everyone you disagree with a retard, even though that covers 99.99% of the population, doesn't make you look as smart, as you think.
Saying up is down is retarded. Saying theft is good is retarded.
does a society currently exist, in which you would like to live?
Does the fact that rape occurs everywhere in the known world mean we should accept it?
I assume the answer is no then. Is your best explanation that it does not exist because everyone is a retard?
Almost everyone. Evil retards more accurately.
You're also relying in the bandwagon fallacy, btw.
I've only asked questions so far, so I'm curious how you reached that conclusion
It's pretty obvious what you're doing. If I'm wrong, get to the point.
I'm genuinely curious why you hold these views, I'm trying to make sense of them
Forcefully taking someone's property, even if every being in the universe supports your action, is objectively wrong.
I agree with you that states tend to corruption.
What you wrote above does not make sense to me however. If person A believes that object X is their property, while all other persons in the universe do not, what should be done? How is property decided?
You don't know what property is?
Do you have a definition?
Ownership means you are rightfully (i.e. not stolen) in possession of something, you control of its usage, and you are responsible for it.
Examples of things I own:
My body, my time, my energy, and the products of those things.
Something I own is my property.
"Democracy is the will of the majority. So is rape."
I wonder if you're aware that everything you said here relies on a logical fallacy:
"An Appeal to the Masses fallacy, also known as Argumentum ad Populum, is a type of informal fallacy that occurs when an argument relies on the fact that many people believe or do something, rather than providing evidence or logical reasoning to support the claim."
I wonder if you're aware that naming obscure fallacies to someone who teaches rhetoric courses just makes you look like an amateur.
That is the sort of thing you analyze later, to train. Pulling out in a debate is cringe and makes you look like you're avoiding the other person's core argument that you obviously feel contempt for most people, so why should most people give a shit what you say?
Ethos >>> Logos
I'm still here, and don't understand why you think I've pulled out.
Appeal to the Masses is one of the most common fallacies - definitely not obscure.
Saying you're a rhetoric teacher is an appeal to authority, another fallacy. I'm sad for your students.
Please make a point that isn't a fallacy.
1) That was an obvious typo.
2) I wasn't appealing to the masses, I was making a statistical argument about the spread of information for use in decision-making
3) All arguments you don't like are a fallacy.
I'm done talking to you.
"voters" don't support anything, they are NPCs that only repeat what they heard last
Which doesn't counter what I wrote.
Hahahah you think voters are more than piggy banks…
Ha ha ha you think most voters pay taxes.
Everyone in the US pays since most of the taxation now is in the form of inflation
That's why "democracy" is a scam, because most of the population isn't informed enough to have a say. In reality, they only allow voting for certain things, while the rest is decided without the consent of people.
This is the result of decades of brainwashing and dumbing-down society, so the populations are programmed to have no backbone.