Violent Interventionism and the "Oppression" of Biological Limitations
What if I told you that the biological limitations of your body aren't imposed on you by other people?
What if I told you that, absent a mutually consensual agreement, it isn't anyone else's responsibility to provide for your biological imperatives?
It's wonderful when people voluntarily choose to cooperate and help each other, but that's not what happens with democracy, socialism and communism. What happens instead is a race to the bottom, an infantile rejection of the ultimate conclusions of logical deduction from facts and principles known to be true a priori, and the total breakdown of social cohesion as the force of this collective temper tantrum escalates.
When stupidity, laziness, poor decision making, scapegoating, and inability are unconditionally incentivized through subsidization, you get more of it, which causes dysgenic effects - especially since the expropriation with which subsidization is funded disincentivizes productivity.
If you need a visual aid, watch the movie, "Idiocracy".
Leftism, which is a polite way of saying "violent interventionism", is always regressive, and always results in the opposite of the allegedly intended effect. You can not determine output prices without input prices. You can not express demand in terms of supply without output prices. You can not make people equal by creating a protected class of expropriators and giving them a territorial monopoly on expropriation - and that's EXACTLY what a state is. It is historically and logically indisputable that the mass rejection of the property norms of first use and consensual exchange ALWAYS leads to chaos in the long term.
Argumentation and debate presuppose a mutual expectation that one party should change their mind so that physical conflict over some scarce resource can be avoided and a peaceful resolution can be reached. Stop pretending it's a debate if you're just going to initiate a physical conflict and take the scarce resources you want from others by force regardless of the outcome.
Fully agreed. This seems to resonate on an idea I've been debating lately: you have no 'rights' in the sense of what we think of. They are concepts developed out of requirement resulting from the existence of the 'state'.
No 'state', no 'rights' and if the state is fictional, then so are 'rights'.
But to make it easy, I say you have a 'right' to seek out your wants and needs, food, water, shelter, healthcare, et cetera, but no 'right' or guarantee to acquire or keep any of those things.
Not to plug myself(but yeah it is) I cover my thoughts on this in the following writeups:
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@sic-savidicus/end-the-hyphenate-war-a-clarification-of-rights-and-reality
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@sic-savidicus/stories-from-the-comments-freedom-rights-and-rape
Excellent points, btw.