private property (ISO) is always part of any legitimate definition of the libertarian philosophy of Voluntaryism
Why not start some discussions on the Wikipedia discuss page which currently lacks a meaningful mention of property? Wouldn't that be a better use of your time considering how many people use Wikipedia?
You say I can just ignore your posts about me and my views, but life doesn't work that way. My reputation matters to me because I've worked very hard to build it and ensure my online and offline realities are consistent. From my perspective, your post seemed to misrepresent my actual views. Should I just let that go or say something? You say it's "not about you" but the post is directly about "Luke says this" instead of just "Here's an important part of Voluntaryism that I think isn't represented enough" or some such thing. You make it about me while saying it's not about me. We've talked about this over and over again, but I still don't feel heard.
Let's try a different approach. Let's talk about the ideas of property rights within an interesting concept, UBI. What are your thoughts on Universal Resource Inheritance and the follow up clarification In Defense of Universal Resource Inheritance? That would be more interesting to me. Let's talk about ideas and not about what one person thinks or what someone else thinks. IMO, we don't need to police people's minds or tell them how many grains of salt they can use when they think. :)
Can we interact respectfully and explore complicated, nuanced ideas?
Let's try having a fun, useful conversation about ideas, not about people.
"The presumption is that a few rich central planners (the 1%) can better invest resources than entrepreneurs serving the masses which vote on the products and services they desire by spending their inheritance."
Wow, that article... Just, wow... He calls business owners central planners, but who would he replace those people with other than ACTUAL central planners. Have we not fucking done this before? We don't have enough failed examples from the PRESENT and PAST?!
I just lost ALL respect for Dan Larimer. Communism does not work and never will work. Redistribution of wealth does not work and never will work. Only FOOLS or horribly ignorant people would believe it could. /sigh
I agree, forced REdistribution never works. Voluntary distribution might though (like we have here on Steemit, distributing the rewards pool populated with voluntary inflation). I don't think Dan is a fool or horribly ignorant. I also doubt he'd use force on these ideas, but maybe others would. Thanks for your input.
Seriously. Central planning? Larimer also suggested that we should give up privacy and become completely transparent as a means to fight the state. And...from the article you linked...a “libertarian” tax?
No wonder you supported Adam “fingerprint to homestead” Kokesh.
Kommie Kool-Aid city.
Time to drop the V and stick to the crypto spreadsheets, Luke.
Forced central planning is unethical and ALWAYS objectively results in greater violent conflict. This is why voluntaryists reject it.
EDIT: Now I am sure you will ignore my points and focus on the fact that my message this time was a bit personal. Well, after being browbeaten for months now by you falsely stating and implying that I focus mainly on people and not ideas when I raise arguments, and most recently victim shaming me in regard to the Kokesh threats (as though the whole thing was partially my fault) and in regard to several issues, I suppose I have decided to return the favor.
If you are worried about your rep as a voluntaryist, yes, you might find it advantageous to correct your misunderstandings. I don’t see how if you are correct now, this will negatively affect your reputation anyway. But, perhaps that is the thing of primary importance to you, how others view you?
The beauty of being consistent is you don’t have to worry about it so much. The truth always comes out. If I have said anything horrible or inaccurate about your positions, I would like to know. I will make good, apologize, and correct those things when you show me.
I want you to consider that perhaps certain responses may not have been so seemingly hyperbolic had you not climed that my protests against Jokesh were just “trolling” or because I was “seeking attention.”
You belittle people without even knowing it.
Now I’ve gotten personal, and it doesn’t change my logical argument at all. It stands alone, still.
Thanks for giving your perspective. Did you read the follow up also? It seems many came to the same conclusion that his views were communistic in nature. Note, I didn't give my opinion on that post for or against it, I just asked for yours.
Edit: I replied before I saw your updated comment. I don't think I ever said you were just trolling. I've pointed out my perspective on your actions and why I saw them as I did, but you did not respond to those points. Different personalities and perspectives I guess. Have a good one.
I responded to those points, Luke.
I am actually glad you came here now and commented so much. For all the word salads in which you fail to take any position, actual voluntaryists can see the non-arguments for what they are.
Was I just seeking attention, Luke?
The Dunning-Kruger Effect is real, it would seem.
Trolling implies someone that is trying to hide and spreading false info. When did I do that to Adam? Cite something. Pathetic.
How do you personally define the meaning of words? Trolling to me does not imply that at all. My definition is closer to:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Trolling
My perspective related to your actions have to do with how you’ve treated me. If we can’t agree on the meanings of words then attempts at communication are pointless.
Then fucking stop talking to me, man. I don’t like you.
And my comments weren’t “random,” either. 🤦♂️
And I wasn’t looking for a “knee-jerk” reaction, but was trying to raise awareness.
What an asshole thing to say to me. That the Kokesh stuff was about “attention” and “trolling.”
👋🤮🖕🏼👋
You have brought up the Wiki twice. Wiki is a joke. It is full of disinformation and is never going to be a reliable source of truth. Why would anyone bother and waste their time there? I certainly will not.
Are there other encyclopedias or dictionaries or sources you use for common shared understanding for the current meaning and usage of words?
It's called Voluntaryism because it implies all interaction is voluntary. If someone plans to take my private property by force, it cannot possibly be voluntary. Why is that.... no, I won't write it. I'm done with you.
Where did I imply otherwise? I didn’t write the post I linked to nor did I say I agree or disagree with it. I asked you a question. If Wikipedia is not part of your sources for coming up with shared understanding of words, what is? How can you effectively communicate with others without shared understanding?
My point was made logically and clearly. I explained why I tagged you. I was not having "conversations about people." Thanks, Luke.