Is intelligence good or bad for the human race?

[cupocity303]

If you don't really believe in using force than how is what I believe any different than what you believe?

Because we have different agendas even though we both want it to be voluntarily and without Force.

You probably want everybody to voluntarily agree on Private Property rights and to leave each other alone. This is your definition of Freedom.

Privacy is your main criteria. You are thinking what benefits you as a individual.


I have a different criteria. If it's voluntary and no force used, then let the voluntary part be, some fsort of a Utopian-esque Society that benefits the most amount of people. Criteria being, Benefit of all mankind.

But neither is possible voluntarily, so it's a moot point.

[Kevin Malone]

This part requires a more detailed response.

So you consider yourself a voluntaryist. Good, I do too.

So the question here is not whether or not people should be free and do things voluntarily BUT what they should do with all that freedom.

You gave a bad connotation to the world Utopia, giving me the impression that even if voluntary, without the use of force, you wouldn't be in favor of a Utopian Society with practically everyone benefiting from it. But would rather prefer a platform that only suits yourself regardless of how bad many others might have it.

Am I wrong?

I don't think that any type of utopia is realistic unless someone's utopia involves raping, pillaging, stress, and constant noise. Humans are all different which is why I don't think getting everyone (or even a majority) to live, breath, or even think a certain way is possible.

What people do if they don't use violence against each other is not really a concern to me. What I believe is personal to me (I'm also personally a pacifist, am I hypocrite as a boxing fan? I do beat myself up for it) . I do know most people have hearts, they care, and some people donate their time, funds, and knowledge to help people.

I think we can only have our own beliefs and can not speak for others. What I may think is good and necessary for someone else (a house, a certain food, transportation) may not be something that person supports so who am I to say otherwise?

If people would stop believing in what is essentially a religion which is statism numerous problems would be solved, and a bunch of energy that is currently squandered would create great things. This happens now despite this prevailing belief.

I don't even ponder on the government stuff anymore, not because I think I "solved" it or anything, I just don't believe in violent means to get there, so what is the point exactly? I don't vote, and I'm not for forcing anything. I'm more concerned lately on stuff outside the world involving spirituality and existentialism.

I like discussing this stuff with people like you who have open minds and open discussion. Thanks for your time and thoughts.

[Canelo Phresh]

well if your a tyrant conqueror or satan sure intelligence is bad but if your human or want a chance to make it in life intelligence is good.

[Kevin Malone]

Because we have different agendas even though we both want it to be voluntarily and without Force.

You probably want everybody to voluntarily agree on Private Property rights and to leave each other alone. This is your definition of Freedom.

Privacy is your main criteria. You are thinking what benefits you as a individual.

If no violence is used I have no issue with communes, anarcho-primitavists, etc. and it's not at all about being left alone though I'm pretty much a hermit myself. It's about peaceful interactions.

If you don't think private property is a good principle (I don't necessarily buy into the "homesteading principle" myself) than don't follow it.

Who am I to say otherwise?

I have a different criteria. If it's voluntary and no force used, then let the voluntary part be, some fort of a Utopian-esque Society that benefits the most amount of people. Criteria being, Benefit of all mankind.

But neither is possible voluntarily, so it's a moot point.

I kind of disagree. So many interactions in the world are peaceful and voluntary and most people interact that way most of the time.

Just living that way yourself is a good way to go about things, and I think advances the ideal you strive for. I have a few personal things I won't or will do to sort of advance what I think is a right way to live.

People doing what they believe is the most important thing in my opinion to advancing your ideas. Other people see that, your conscience is clear, and things are accomplished.

Keep your head up...

[cupocity303]

I don't think that any type of utopia is realistic unless someone's utopia involves raping, pillaging, stress, and constant noise. .

I'm not gonna disagree or have a problem with the rest of your post except this part.

This per definition is wrong. Hypothetically Utopia is the pefect socio-politico-legal system. Not your personal desires.

Now under your Government/State free, Law Free Society, with nothing else required (Social Agreement amongst people, Direct Democracy )...... you would be able to rape, pillage without any repercussion.

Sidenote: You don't like paying Taxes. But Voluntarily we could all make a social agreement to pay taxes amongst each other, so certain things like (I hate to keep bringing it back up) Public Roads that we all share & use can be built and maintained. Roads that are interconnected with each other across the country would be free to use for everybody.

Not monopolized by some Private Entity (I.E. Private Business, Corporation), that would dictate to us all.

But you would have to be willing to play along buddy, if you are free to voluntarily not participate, as you would have it, then it's all downhill from there.

[Kevin Malone]

I'm not gonna disagree or have a problem with the rest of your post except this part.

This per definition is wrong. Hypothetically Utopia is the pefect socio-politico-legal system. Not your personal desires.

Now under your Government/State free, Law Free Society, with nothing else required (Social Agreement amongst people, Direct Democracy )...... you would be able to rape, pillage without any repercussion.

Sidenote: You don't like paying Taxes. Voluntarily we could all make a social agreement to pay taxes amongst each other, so certain things like (I hate to keep bringing it back up) Public Roads that we all share & use. Roads that are interconnected to each other across the country would be free to use.

Not monopolized by some Private Entity (I.E. Private Business, Corporation), that would dictate to us all.

How could I rape or pillage without repercussion? Is everyone but me a pacifist who doesn't own a gun?

No one has a monopoly on anything if they can't use force to maintain that monopoly. I'll just leave it at that.

[cupocity303]

How could I rape or pillage without repercussion? Is everyone but me a pacifist who doesn't own a gun?

No one has a monopoly on anything if they can't use force to maintain that monopoly. I'll just leave it at that.

Ahh but just like me you are under the presumption that everyone freely would agree, there would be no force. How is there a guarantee?

You still didn't answer or acknowledge the Voluntary Tax agreement part. Some sort of Tax-system that simply pays for and maintains public areas. Because surely, you're not suggesting that EVERYTHING in the world would be Privately owned.

Which would be another issue in itself. Who would decide how much land each individual would own? Conflict of Interest would come into play.

Just who would own all the miles of land to build Roads? Who gives that person or group permission to own that land privately.

This would be about as hard to agree on, as a perfect Utopian Society

[Kevin Malone]

What you are playing in your mind, is what almost everyone who thinks these type of ideas, goes through.

You are thinking of the "what-if" worst-case scenarios. I've done it for years, and I still do it. There is no problem doing that.

Try to focus on what we have now, and what we could have: The government has a monopoly on roads (maybe private roads could compete, but the government has "unlimited" funds). What type of roads do we have? Well we pay taxes for roads, yet some still require tolls (ON PUBLIC ROADS! It's crazy). The government has a monopoly on snow removal "service" on public roads. Living in Michigan I know how bad and expensive this "service" was. Roads are made exactly the same as they were 30 years ago. There are no true advances in technology. If roads lasted 100 years instead of the short periods we have now that would put a bunch of government contractors and sub-contractors out of work. That would benefit society, but not those dependent on this make-work. We all know that better, long-lasting, roads are better for everyone yet technology does not advance with monopolies. Government uses the "roads" excuse to take people's homes for what they rule is "fair market value" and yet we pay the bill. Government makes nice roads where there is no demand for it, yet they don't maintain roads that are used all the time, another curse of monopolies. Need I continue?

[cupocity303]

How could I rape or pillage without repercussion? Is everyone but me a pacifist who doesn't own a gun?

No one has a monopoly on anything if they can't use force to maintain that monopoly. I'll just leave it at that.

You are having a Knee-Jerk Reaction Karl.

I wasn't talking about you per se. Just made a overall point in general.

Utopia does not = Raping, pillaging. Per defintion.

In a Govt/Law Free Society, it potentially would.

Now we're just arguing semantics.

[DET. IRONSIDE]

If no violence is used I have no issue with communes, anarcho-primitavists, etc. and it's not at all about being left alone though I'm pretty much a hermit myself. It's about peaceful interactions.

What about protest sites where people set up camp at a site where, lets say theres a nuclear naval base. And they carry out non-violent direct actions.

You okay with that kinda stuff? Or if they do similar actions against banks or energy companies?

Would you be okay with that?