I'd like /pol/ to consider and comment on this comic.
Nigga I ain't reading all that
>>540113195Just from the thumbnail I can tell that reading it won't be worth my time.
>>540113195>Gambling, drugs, faggotry are just matters of mutual consent and individual rights.That's a jewish framing, alright.>We should be allowed to ruin your life with casinos, unfair usury and any other bullshit we come up with because you consented to it and you have a right to chose your own downfall.Kikes always go granular and hyper-individualist when talking about the cost for the whole of society is the real issue. After all, it's never their society they ruin.
>>540113195After reading the introductory paragraph, which had numerous grammar mistakes, I was done. Also, it makes no sense. Also, tl;dr
>>540113529See panels 12 and 13.What concern it is of yours if a life not your own is ruined by none other than that person's own choice, other than that you think of them as your property?
I can't imagine the punchline is worth the effort.
>>540113707>what concern it is of yoursWhat concern is it of yoursCan you please learn english and come back when you aren't a brown, retarded moron?
>>540113707>concern it is of yours if a life not your own is ruinedHow about banning you from installing your exploitation/misery machinery in our country to begin with?The concern of the leviathan is, ofc, ideally a simple matter of protecting the nation and its people. Just because people have the right to make bad decisions, nobody grants you a right to exploit it. Throughout history, it took corrupt politicians to look the other way for any of this shit.
>>540113844You're perfectly right that I mistakenly interchanged those two words. I still assume that you understand what I meant, since you aren't retarded. So what's your response?
>>540113896>installing your exploitation/misery machineryMeaning what, aside from banning mutual consent?>exploit itWhat does this mean?
>>540113195Not reading all that shit lol
>>540113195And to think that my generation was able to capture very complex political ideas in a form of a relatively simple vulgar spray painting
>>540113978>Meaning whatDo you even understand the pic you posted?It's explaining in the framing paragraph that it's talking about gambling, drugs, porn and prostitution. All detriminal activities with clear downsides to the participants. The only real winner in any of those are the third-party providers who run the business.From this vantage point, it should be obvious that debating the consent of the actual gamblers and whores is a retarded distraction. It deliberately misses the core of the issue, i.e. the benefit of the third party who runs this shit. Thus, the question isn't "don't people have a right to consent to have their weaknesses exploited?" but rather, what gives you the right to establish such an exploitative business in the first place?
>>540114276Even if there's a third party involved and this business is still entirely run on mutual consent, then what right have you to stop it?Though I note a seemingly implicit acknowledgement in your reply that such business WITHOUT a third party is acceptable. That's progress, I suppose.
>>540114484>implicit acknowledgemenNot really. You're hallucinating there. It's just the reality of pretty much all of these, not like some dude-weed guy growing his 5 plants in his basement is really the issue with drugs or some guys playing poker on the weekend the main concern with gambling. If this doesn't go without saying, the only real implication here is that you're not sincere about discussing this.>what right have you to stop itSame right a government has to stop you from serving poison in a restaurant (even if people consent to eating it).
>>540113195This presupposes the atheist materialist worldview that there is no objective good or evil, but then engages in the fallacy that it IS GOOD to allow people to do whatever they want based on mutual consent and it IS EVIL to disallow/judge/not be permissive without any kind of foundation for this moral system.This is Wile E Coyote morality. You ran off the cliff and no longer have ground beneath you. We let you retarded Hitchensites have your way for twenty years and you destroyed society.You can't have it both ways, you spiritual nigger.
>>540114662Then you think that you have no right to end your own life? Why?See panel 13.
>>540113195>literally a LEFT CANT MEME type memeyou really outdid yourself this time
>>540113707because i might run into him on the street, or he might actually have a jobhe should be deported to india, and so should youto be with your kind
>>540114701You'd laugh at yourself if you were familiar with the artist. His name is Steve Ditko and he absolutely agrees with you on the existence of objective good and evil. Look him up; you might be pleased by what you find.
>>540114741>you think that you have no right to end your own life?What a non-sequitur. Can you not see the difference between some guy building a casino to get rich off of hijacking people's dopamine receptors vs. ending your own life?>How can you justify making me a sacrificial slave to the public?That's what the murderer asks when he's sent to prison too. He was just exercising his superior strength. Do you think the state had no right to mute his martial superiority either?We're all slaves to the public order. There's no other way to maintain it, but ofc, a kike would try to drive a wedge into that.
>>540114990You brought up the idea of people willing drinking poison. It's hardly a non-sequitur to ask about their right to end their own lives. As for murder, that's obviously non-consensual; an act of force. See the opening paragraph.
>>540114857>RandianEven worse fallacious athiest-materialist nonsense and lacking in a foundation for what is good or evil.You can't just label your preferences objective and force everyone to play along. Not until you can hold up a bottle full of good particles.Good is either a mass delusion of brain chemistry because we are bags of similar reactive matter created from nothing and hurled across the universe for no reason, or it is supernatural and transcendental.
>>540115278Can you hold up a bottle of good particles?More importantly, is it good to force someone to be "good"? See panel 7 (and 8 if you're feeling arrogant).
>>540115132>obviously non-consensualNot automatically, yet you'd still go to prison if we duelled to the death.>It's hardly a non-sequitur to ask about their right to end their own lives.The difference is the intent. You can't decide to kill your restaurant customers with poison - that's murder. The Heaven's Gate mass suicide might be the right example for you to think this through. Nobody got prosecuted for it. Consenting adults commiting suicide. Think you can distill out a difference to pimping out desperate women?
>>540115625Laws aren't necessarily moral. If they were then we'd never discuss their morality. If you kill someone who asked you to then nobody has been offended, except perhaps for you and others like you, probably because you regarded the life that ended as rightfully yours.
>>540115834>Laws aren't necessarily moralThere's no point in overly generalizing. For one, we're talking about criminal law here, which always aims for the dual purpose of punishing and deterring. Ofc, the underlying idea is that death is final and cannot be undone, so it doesn't matter if you think you deserved to take a life if it's in the public interest to not let individuals make these irreversible decisions.Secondly, "nobody has been offended" is just your fiction. If the rules don't apply to everyone, you destroy the incentive to follow them. This is high-trust society 101, but if you're not White, I'd get why you struggle with this. You offend everyone who follows the rules when you break them. Your fictional lack of offense nor any individualistic excuse do matter, everyone can come up with a post-hoc reason for their actions if they have to.
>>540114990>We're all slaves to the public order. There's no other way to maintain it, but ofc, a kike would try to drive a wedge into that.You are right, tough what is right and for the greater good is up to intepretation and changes over time. It's a difficult subject, because it's a very fine line to walk.One one had you want to maintain society, on the other the govrement really should meddle in pepples lives as little as possible and have as little power as possible. And a lot of laws just aren't logically defensible but exist, while many logical laws aren't being implemented prercisely because of how fickle and emotional people are.
>>540116256An irrational rule being broken offends nobody but bootlickers. On /pol/ we often call these sort of people bugmen.As for the public interest, see panel 6.
>>540116419>An irrational rule being broken offends nobody but bootlickers.Yea, but you're not exactly legal pioneer Radbruch finding a flaw in the legislation here. We're talking about the right to kill people. Obviously that's not an irrational rule people widely disagree with. The entire "monopoly of violence" debate hinges on the consent of the people to hand that power to end a life to the state.>How is mutual consent against anyone?Easily one of the dumbest panels in the whole "comic". Mutual consent is not an ultimate value. You can mutually consent to subvert anything a society holds dear and in your myopic framing, the state has no right to stop you from corroding all of its foundations.
>>540116319>the govrement really should meddle in pepples lives as little as possibleI'm honestly not sure either the small gov. nor the EU-style overreach are the right extremes to measure a good government by. Somewhere between the curvature of a cucumber and not eating shit American food, there's a reasonable middle ground, but it's likely defined by necessity, not a categorical refusal to let governments grow too big.
>>540116714See panel 3.It's questionable if a society really holds things so dear if it's so fragile as to be destroyed by non-conforming individuals. What does that say of the rest of society, that they're so easily corrupted without the benevolent blinkers of the state to guide them?
>>540116909> if it's so fragileWhy shouldn't it be fragile? All it takes is a couple of jeets to ruin a river, a couple of niggers to make a bar unvisitable, etc. Society is fragile unless you run it like a third-world shithole where anything goes.Go live in India or some nigger shithole in Africa if you want something that doesn't collapse when people are selfish and reckless. Ofc, none of these places come with the benefits of White societies either.
>>540117141I guess maybe there's no reason it shouldn't be fragile if the individuals that comprise are weak. See panel 15.Should we value weakness over strength?
>>540117361>if the individuals that comprise are weakWeak compared to whom? Nobody has build better societies than Whites and those are based on rules. Or, as Lacan points out, based on trauma-avoidance.>See panel 15.Another retarded panel. Accepting the limitations of your individual freedom is part of joining any community. Even if you go full "Einziger" Max Stirner-style, it's not the realization of your individualism that's the problem, but the incommensurablilty with the encroachment of others/the outside world.>Should we value weakness over strength?Ofc not, elevation of weakness is christian morality - a jewish tactic that only weakens a nation and promotes dysgenics and social burdens.Ofc, you're asking deliberately without any nuance, as if there's nothing between social Darwinism and a cucked, weak society.
>>540117804It seems as though you're suggesting that many if not most of the collective can resist the allure of nonconformist behavior despite the notion that they supposedly are against it.But I guess that state keeping them in blissful ignorance is for their own good.>If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?I wish there were a less insulting term than bootlicking but I can't think of one strong enough. I wonder how the rest of /pol/ feels about this obsequence.
Well I'm dead tired so I'll be retiring.Maybe I'll rebake the bread later.Good night and good luck, bugmen.
>>540118241>If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free"Why can't we have a Hobbsian Free-for-all?" is a question only asked by the delusional.>bugmenIt ultimately boils down to one's ability to extend one's concern outwards from oneself to one's community to one's people as a whole.The BAP-style globohomo would-be Nietzschean hero in his selfish hyperfocus on his own desires can't do that. He can't even see why anyone would sacrifice as much as a moment of his life for anything but his own selfish interests. This blindness resulting from self-chosen isolation at the core of Hustle culture doesn't really make anyone a bugman who follows reasonable rules, it's just that the self-delusion of one's own greatness doesn't work if you can't portray others as meaningless extras carrying out nonsensical routines. Ofc, just like with all false promises, anything that requires both self-deception and denial of reality can't possibly lead to the desired success. In truth, BAP's anti-bugman becomes the real drone to an ideology he doesn't even fully understand.
>>540113195>I'd like /pol/ to consider and comment on this comic.gay
>>540113195babi's first individual vs group interests balance/conundrum. funny how they always think they've figured something out like it's new or sum shit
>>540113195/pol/ here, the first wall-of-text contains outright falsehoods, namely that drugs/prostitution are inherently victimless and purely consensual. I didn't read past that, because as usual, the whole towering liberal viewpoint has its foundation based in lies, and the author needs to be justly taken behind a toolshed and shot in the head. For the good of society./pol/ out.
>>540118959May you choke in your sleep, faggot. Or have your head caved in by a dark engineer of the night who needs your things more than you do.
>>540113195The argument is a false premiseNo one gives a shit what you choose to do, if you do it privatelyAll the kike-shit presented here are things that are inherently public, like pornography. It's a produce that they are selling. So it interacts with the public. Maybe in an underground way because of the stigma (rightfully) attached, but nevertheless, it's existence must be known in order for it to be sold.If you wanted to draw nasty pictures or make sex videos and keep them in your home absolutely no one cares because ostensibly, no one knows.This "comic" is classic kike pilpulIt's not even a logical argument that properly takes the context of the situation as it truly is into account which is an extremely Jewish thing to do
>>540115459>Can you hold up a bottle of good particles?No, and my ethos does not require it because I do not subscribe to your materialist world view. I do not believe that we are dead matter reacting in a godless universe where everything came from nothing when time started for no reason. That burden is upon you because you affirm it. I believe that your position is retarded.>More importantly, is it good to force someone to be "good"?Yes. It is benevolent and altruistic to prevent people who lack self control from destroying themselves. Self-destruction does not occur in a vacuum, and your hypothetical "I'm only destroying myself, bro" example does not exist in reality. Drug addicts do not go to work to responsibly self-fund their addiction. They victimize others - theft, violent crime, prostitution that spreads disease, accepting resources from the state, etc. Your ancap libertopia does not exist on earth because it is also a retarded, impossible premise. If it were not, we would see one, just like a successful matriarchy or a prosperous country run by niggers.A forced good is still a good because a just ruler has an obligation of benevolence, protection, etc. toward the ruled as is ordained by God. I can't in good conscience allow my brother to smoke crack in a ditch until he dies of overdose or exposure. I have a Christian obligation to help him.I do not have to justify my moral system according to your rules. Your rules don't comport with reality. They are stupid.
>>540113195I AM SILLY
>>540113195SHUTTHEFUCKUPYOUFUCKINGRETARD.
