He didn't say that. Athough I would like to hear what's wrong with the right as well because they're not much better
Discussion
Left vs right thinking is obsolete and has been for a long time. It's just authoritarian vs libertarian/liberal. Jeff speaks like big pharma corps and big government are separate entities when they're just part of one big monolithic ruling class.
The left fully embraced authoritarianism during covid & any decent liberal was kicked out.
The right is a mixed bag. It appears that Ron Paul & Massie have had a massively positive impact on the right.
Israeli money & influence keep many of them stupid.
Many seem unable to grasp that govt is funded by theft because the intent is to do things people dislike. They are supporters of the govt religion, even if they claim to oppose the current shape of govt. They are easily triggered into more frantic support for the govt religion if someone disrespects the flag or some similar such nonsense.
But they are generally not completely mentally broken & braindead like most of the left is now.
Left is a mixed bag, too. You can trace this all the way back to the schism between Marx and Bakunin
They are a mixed bag of authoritarians who want to destroy property rights & enslave others.
My comment about Marx and Bakunin had evidence. (Type "Marx versus Bakunin" into a search engine.) Your comment replying to it had none.
The left is basically some mix of the following:
- Pro UBI (success based theft)
- Pro Universal Healthcare (theft funded health monopoly)
- Pro Gun Control (monopoly control of personal defense)
- Pro "hate speech" censorship
- Pro Union (advocate mob coercion in contract creation)
- Pro "greater good" (advocate human sacrifice)
- Anti heirarchy (violently opposed to voluntary employment & other natural productive arrangements)
While Bakunin may be more represented by the latter part of the list, all of the above are destructive, parasitic, & authoritarian.
Happy to explain why collectivism always leads ro death & destruction if you'd like.
The "left" is an extremely general term. It basically means opposition to hierarchies. Capitalism is construed as hierarchical because it eventually leads to disparities over time in practice (see big pharma). By this definition the American Revolution was, in fact, a leftist movement for it's time. The reason it's called "The Left" is because in the 1789 French National Assembly following the revolution the commoners were seated on the left and the Aristocrats and High Clergy were on the right.
The point about the American Revolutionaries being left for their time is indisputable. Anyone carrying out a revolution is progressive by definition. Anyone opposing a revolution is a status quo conservative by definition (British Royalists).
It's all just fucking definitions of words, anyway. Another method for the ruling class to keep us all divided and against eachother.
Opposition to natural heirarchy is basically a self loathing desire to not exist. The Pareto principle is a law of nature.
"Big pharma" only exists as a result of govt theft. Theft is a destruction of porperty rights antithetical to capitalism.
A "revolutionary" who doesn't understand the natural laws of the world they live in is just a destructive idiot rebelling against existence.
A successful revolution has to be more productive than destructive.
How can a pleb be opposed to authoritarianism and hierarchy at the same time?
By confusing all heirarchy with coercive or violent heirarchy.
Is there such a thing as confusing all communities with coercive or violent communities?
How many people think unions are perfectly normal?
How many people think "the govt is just us."
Many violent or coercive groups work very hard to blur the lines because they don't want others to see who or what they are & they often don't want to admit it to themselves.
Unions are just as unnatural as any other complex and large system of organizing. How can you claim what is natural? Humans evolved as a social species thousands of years before letters, telecommunications, unions, capitalism or even money was invented. All these things are like a layer 2 or 3 on top of humanity and they often fit awkwardly. The fact that we're even debating this is proof of my claim.
I think being a natural healthy human means engaging in honest trade & negotiating based on the merit of what we have to offer each other. Unions negotiate with threats of force using numbers (usually obtained by threatening individuals to join or be atracked for being a "scab"). There is nothing healthy about humans behaving like dumb animals.
How is a union different from other human collaborations?
"Collaberation" suggests production & cooperation. Holding someone else's property hostage to prevent production as a means of extortion is exactly the opposite of that.
Sounds like judgement has already been passed when we label things as “hostage” and “extortion”. No need to litigate 😄
If I build a factory & fill it with machines, does it belong to me or to the people I hire?
If the people I hire don't like the pay rates they agreed to work for they are free to quit at any time, they are not slaves.
If employees prevent anyone from working or getting into a factory which they do not own, in an effort to get more money out of the owner/employer, what would you call that?
Where in the definition of union do we have that hypothetical?
History
Why not spend this energy on solving for ai/bots than fighting this battle? You can just side step it.
Wtf do ai/bots have to do with bad collective ideology? Are you an ai bot?
Because if you have bots, you can be a pure individual. You don’t need to deal with collectivism.
Groups & cooperation are not problems that individualists want to eliminate. It is simply the belief that *groups matter more than individuals* which needs to be corrected & erradicated.
Groups are abstractions, they don't really exist. It's an imaginary distinction made in individual minds. Groups don't have wants & needs, individual people do.
Any individual should be free to peacefully leave or cease contibuting to any group. If you believe individual wants & needs are less important than the continued existence of any group then you are advocating slavery or human sacrifice in the name of an abstraction.
A group of people bound by location, class, skillset, community and purpose uniting together in solidarity to improve their local conditions sounds a lot like humanity to me.
It's just indefinite word salad around and around with you forever. Let go of your ideology. It's holding you back.
Uniting to hold someone else's property hostage as a way to extort someone. That's your idea of humanity?
You are actively trying not to understand because what I am saying makes clear that your ideology is one of theft & parasitism.
Here's a hint: avoid claiming natural human behaviour for your ideology. It's what every ideologue does. Not original.
I think what a person considers natural says a lot about them. Peaceful & productive behavior is what I consider natural to healthy humans. People who cannot distinguish productive behavior from parasitic behavior are fucked up people.
Your efforts to now deflect from the real issue are weak.
There something to be said about making the same assumption that all unions are “not peaceful” here.
nostr:note1fgq4kskpvuvql6n7qqal6ma2uunyp5raz4esfrtjjrmn7ancz6uqkz79kx
All unions rely on the same underlying threat whether the threat is exercised or not. The term "scab" was not created by peaceful people to refer to people they respect & want to leave free to make their own choices.
If the govt gets all taxes paid without having to arrest anyone, that does not change the violent & coercive nature of taxation. The same goes for unions.
I agree. Both collectivism and individualism have threats of alienation.
I don't think reducing every single human interaction to a strictly accounted economic transacation is very natural, no.
That's like saying it's unnatural for every interaction to take place over a computer, when no one is saying every interaction should take place via a computer. Money is a technology for scaling interactions between people who don't know each other, and prices efficiently communicate changing economic conditions.
No one is saying you shouldn't lend your neighbor a tool or a cooking ingredient if you want to do that. But people who want all economic transactions to be part of a "gift economy" where money doesn't exist, or some other such nonsense, are generally either idiots or parasites, often both.
I wish telecommunications were never invented. I wish all the people of the world lived lives that were 100% local. I wouldn't care what system a community uses to organize itself. An individual could just leave and join somewhere that aligns with his values if he doesn't agree.
Libertarians & rational types would almost never find anyone who aligns with their values in such a world. Most people would just conform to the norms of their tribe & would have no idea anything else existed.
You can still go live a primitive life now, & it would be much easier than at any other time in history. Why don't you?
I'm okay with limited and local hierarchies. It would be acceptable to me if the entity at the top of my hierarchy is known to me personally and part of my geographic community.
I, however, take issue with being dictated to by someone living in a palace thousands of miles away.
I don't eschew all hierarchies. I'm just sensitive to hierarchies that are out of control. Stop turning everything into it's extreme. Classic Straw Man: change an opponent's argumentent into something you can easily defeat.
Anti-state lefties commonly claim to oppose all heirarchy. Voluntary employment arrangements being at the top of the list for most of them.
I take issue with ALL political authority, whether it is local or from afar. But I have never had any problem seeing that employment is simply a form of trade which I can quit at any time. If I were to get myself into a financial situation where I couldn't afford to quit without a major change to my lifestyle, that is a trap I built for myself. It's not anyone else's responsibility but my own.
Lefties often have bad boundaries. They set goals & make demands outside of themselves. Like a business owner who gets mad at someone for "stealing customers" as though someone else offering a service that people prefer is actually a form of theft. Or someone trying to control the pronouns spoken by others as if trying to dictate what comes out of another person's mouth isn't completely insane. No one has any right to future purchases from past customers, no one has any right to demand special words from the mouths of the people around them.
Here are the political boundaries of Medieval Europe. We should return to this. 