Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

Jan 22, 2020, 1:38 PM Libertarianism SUGGESTS to you (falsely, by Abrahamic false promise) that you are in control of the terms by which people will tolerate your existence (proximity, participation, survival) – you are not in control of it. They control it. Because the network of promises (habits norms etc) that they cooperate by what they depend upon for survival, risk mitigation, consumption, comfort, and joy. You are only in control of which polity you choose to participate in on their terms. Now, this is a male attempt to adopt a female means of persuasion. But a female is intrinsically valuable and a man is not. So your participation isn’t desirable. In fact, the maximum female, minimum male participation is desirable. So no libertarianism is (a) an attempt to claim you have intrinsic value by the threat of withdrawal from cooperation (b) except that if you don’t want to cooperate on the group’s terms then we don’t want you, and frankly, you’re not only dead weight but better off gone or d–d. And so if you don’t want to cooperate on those terms the question is why do we let you live? Worse, since Aryan reciprocity and Christian forgiveness are the optimum social economic political and strategic orders – and the only reason you can disagree with them is to parasitically live off the Aryan-Christian commons, then you are stuck with not only explaining why you should be tolerated but why anyone living anywhere on earth should tolerate you. You don’t have to do anything except NOT impose costs upon others. (Again, (((They’re all cognitively Female))) so it makes perfect sense that they would develop libertarianism as if they were intrinsically valuable when they’re intrinsically parasitic.)

Jan 22, 2020, 1:38 PM Libertarianism SUGGESTS to you (falsely, by Abrahamic false promise) that you are in control of the terms by which people will tolerate your existence (proximity, participation, survival) – you are not in control of it. They control it. Because the network of promises (habits norms etc) that they cooperate by what they depend upon for survival, risk mitigation, consumption, comfort, and joy. You are only in control of which polity you choose to participate in on their terms. Now, this is a male attempt to adopt a female means of persuasion. But a female is intrinsically valuable and a man is not. So your participation isn’t desirable. In fact, the maximum female, minimum male participation is desirable. So no libertarianism is (a) an attempt to claim you have intrinsic value by the threat of withdrawal from cooperation (b) except that if you don’t want to cooperate on the group’s terms then we don’t want you, and frankly, you’re not only dead weight but better off gone or d–d. And so if you don’t want to cooperate on those terms the question is why do we let you live? Worse, since Aryan reciprocity and Christian forgiveness are the optimum social economic political and strategic orders – and the only reason you can disagree with them is to parasitically live off the Aryan-Christian commons, then you are stuck with not only explaining why you should be tolerated but why anyone living anywhere on earth should tolerate you. You don’t have to do anything except NOT impose costs upon others. (Again, (((They’re all cognitively Female))) so it makes perfect sense that they would develop libertarianism as if they were intrinsically valuable when they’re intrinsically parasitic.)