cynical_sheet

So, there is really no objective justification for the existence of US government, because its supposed purpose it to protect 'basic rights', such as life, liberty and pursuit of haaapineeess(i.e. ensure that subset of homo sapiens species can release endorphins, dopamine, anandamide...). Since rights don't exist, there is nothing to protect. It's kinda like paying security staff to protect non-existing house. BTW, contingent rights flow from natural rights and if those are illusory, then all rights and laws are not justifiable.

What natural right do these regulatory agencies (or group of thugs known as government) have to regulate free people who choose to associate freely? What they are doing is deeply immoral.

'Troll' seems to be a name for someone whose opinions you disagree with. Since internet is a huge echo chamber, any sign of contrary opinion is seen as trolling (like 'Are you serious?' or 'This guy must be trolling'). Calling someone a 'troll' is a psychological defense mechanism where a person is trying to use a label (i.e. do ad hominem) instead of rethinking their beliefs, which is hard to do.

You are an animal >... mammal >... species- homo sapiens sapiens-

Why do you think that being a member of a particular species somehow excludes you from a set of objects that can be poached, mainly animals? If lions are poached, then humans can be poached as well. Why would a bio-chemical process known as homo sapiens be more important(or sacred, if you want) than a bio-chemical process known as a lion and be excluded from something that can be applied to all animals?

I am not inconsistent.

Where exactly did I write that it is (morally) wrong to push for a higher minimum wage? I am not writing that it is wrong to push for $15/hour. I'm writing on why American workers have a hard time competing with people in Asia or South America, many of whom work for $15/day. That's why, among other things, companies are leaving for Mexico or Vietnam.

Students are taking huge government-backed student loans, so that they can go to college and study sociology/gender studies(or some other worthless field) and then get a job in the government or non-profit. Do you see the circular nature of that?

My point is that most people(except some spoiled & stupid rich kids) who are studying sociology now would NOT do it in a truly free market environment, because:

a) There wouldn't be many government jobs or government-inspired jobs waiting for them. b) 18 yo couldn't get student loans to study these subjects. Why? For the same reason homeless drug addicts aren't getting $10 million loans from banks. It's a bad investment for a bank to give unreliable people money. Likewise, sociology(or some other worthless field) majors couldn't get a loan, since their earning potential is very low. c) No welfare. Since there wouldn't be welfare checks to fall back on, most people would think twice about what to study and their choice would not be sociology.

Why does it matter if sociology or political science are focused on what I wrote above? It's not like they're going to solve the problem of parasitic people with worthless degrees, since they are one of them. They won't eliminate entitlement mentality. They won't promote trades, because if they did, then why didn't they study trades if they're so great?

They won't do anything, except enrich themselves with high-paying parasitic office jobs in the government or some non-profit.

What is your point? What does people making 6 figures on this site or 7 figures on some other site matter?

Is what I'm writing true or not?

You mean you don't want to live in a world where you actually have to learn useful skills, so that you can trade with other people who have learned to do something you find useful?

I've already addressed that when I mentioned 'rampant entitlement mentality'. It's people thinking that others owe them something just because they happen to be members of homo sapiens species. Entitlement 101.

It's not a coincidence that most of the people studying philosophy, sociology, gender studies etc. are leftists, many even radicalized (e.g. anarcho-syndicalism in philosophy departments).

That's why the leftists need a powerful state. Since they are useless parasites, they have to make money by working in government or non-profit or government-inspired jobs.

Americans are living way above their means with rampant entitlement mentality. You see a lot of these paper-shuffling office jobs where nothing of value is produced; people studying worthless subjects(sociology, political science, gender studies etc.) plus there is an assumption that everyone needs to go to college; trades are looked down upon; push for $15/hour minimum wage; entitlement mentality with welfare etc.

You have very little of that in China + some other countries and that is their appeal.

I don't even know why people then write papers, do research or discuss things when they could call someone dummy or label what they are talking about as 'pseudo-X'. What is 'pseudo-philosophical' about the questions asked? It is your reply that is a diatribe devoid of any substance.

  'We can define greatness however the fuck we want, because as far as we can tell we're the only self-replicating assemblage of molecules that knows or cares what greatness even means.'

Hmm, this is not cool. I sense emotional rage from the beginning. 'Greatness' or 'great' is actually well-defined. What you're writing is that many humans can use language. That's obvious. Fish can swim, birds can fly, some fungi inhabit radioactive space. It's all shuffling of particles.

  'So if, during whatever time we're not spending making more copies of ourselves, we decide we enjoy shuffling molecules into a particular arbitrary pattern, who the fuck is going to tell us that isn't greatness?'

It's not greatness, because greatness cannot apply to almost everything. Imagine that every email you ever get is labeled as 'important'. Well, if every is important, then labeling it as such become useless and just clutters you subject line. Same with the word 'special'. If everyone is special, the no one is. These words, like greatness apply to minority of things or otherwise they become useless. So, since shuffling atoms is done all the time everywhere, labeling that as greatness makes no sense.

  'When you ask why we should bother making copies of ourselves on a different pile of dirt than the one we're currently on, you might as well be asking why we should go on making copies of ourselves at all.'

Yes... and?

  'There is no endgame. There is only doing interesting shit, doing boring shit, and death. I choose interesting shit.'

These 3 activities and events are also shuffling of particles. So, fundamentally, there is no distinction between them in the end. Since death requires the least amount of effort, it would be the best choice for creatures looking for an easy way out.

Thanks for replying. You make a good point.

I'm referring more to when the Sun explodes and wipes out Earth or when universe goes cold, becomes inhabited by black holes, which will also be gone - a dead universe.

You are only saying that certain bio-chemical structures reshuffle atoms in a different way, which in most cases suits their survival. You're judging a fish by its ability to climb a tree. Also, you make it seem that there is an objective scale which measures 'levels' [of greatness, I assume]. But, there is no evidence that such a scale exists. You pick these arbitrary shuffling of molecules, like building skyscrapers or going to another rock[Mars], as great or progressive. That is the result of having an unjustified bias towards your own species. Many animals can do things humans can't do and vice versa. But, that is just a difference, not an objective superiority or inferiority.

You made a great point. He puts building skyscrapers into a definition of greatness(an abstract term). But, why is that great and ants building they own habitats not great? They are small, so you can't expect them to build big habitats for humans.

Imagine saying that humans can't live and thrive in radioactive environment, like some fungi in Chernobyl do and therefore they are not great. Greatness means being able to live in radioactive environment.