[ExI] Just some thoughts, nothing new really

[John Clark]

On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 8:03 PM Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
wrote:

> ### Every time the police lock somebody up on your behalf, they deprive
> him of self-ownership,
>

Yes, that's why I get angry when a president tries to do that with his
election opponent (LOCK HER UP!) and claims, falsely, that he is doing that
on my behalf.  I did *NOT* ask him to do that.


> > *I have the right to cooperate with others to exclude our enemies from
> this planet and the whole universe, as much as physics and technology
> allow.*
>

Do I have a right to say your methodology for determining who is a enemy is
not coherent? I'm also very confused about this entire left-wing right-wing
business and how it fits in with libertarian philosophy. How is being
pro-tariff libertarian and being pro free trade anti-libertarian? How is
allowing women to have control of their bodies anti-libertarian and
putting women in prison for having a abortion libertarian? How is a
president wanting to sue a newspaper for libel libertarian but being a
absolutist on the first amendment anti-libertarian?

*> >> I do know that many illegal immigrants are less intelligent, more
>>> violent than the current majority of Americans,*
>>>
>>
>> >> Did you gain that knowledge from reading tea leaves or by
>> inspecting the entrails of sacrificed animals?
>>
>
> > ### From peer-reviewed and universally accepted research.
>

Please point me to the peer-reviewed and universally accepted research that
shows that the immigrants the Great Wall Of Mexico is supposed to keep out
have a higher crime rate than native born American citizens .

*> **### We are not politicians. Our actual influence on politics is very
> nearly zero. I do not vote by choice, and even if you do, it's a tiny
> effect, if any. We are jokers on an obscure mailing list. [...] it doesn't
> matter if you or I come up with a brilliant idea that would solve our
> society's problems - nobody will listen to you or I.*
>

Wow, that sounds like a speech out of a Ingmar Bergman movie from the
1960's highlighting the despair and pointlessness of life, or perhaps
it's closer to how Woody Allen satirized it:


*"To love is to suffer. To avoid suffering one must not love. But then one
suffers from not loving. Therefore, to love is to suffer; not to love is to
suffer; to suffer is to suffer. To be happy is to love. To be happy, then,
is to suffer, but suffering makes one unhappy. Therefore, to be unhappy,
one must love or love to suffer or suffer from too much happiness. I hope
you're getting this down."*

*> That's why it's best to take it easy.  Shit's gonna happen no matter
> what.*
>

I've got to say from the tone of your posts you sure don't sound like
you're taking it easy.

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20190520/3de1f6c9/attachment.htm>