X-Message-Number: 28160
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 11:56:06 +0200
From: "Eivind Berge" <>
Subject: Unavoidably Political?

>Message #28151
>From: "Anthony ." <>
>Subject: unavoidably political

>> I was born a libertarian,
>
>Amazing. Do you think there is a libertarian gene?

Who knows? My guess is there's a heavy genetic component. I certainly
wasn't brought up to be a libertarian. Libertarianism is just the
ethics I've very early come to believe in based on how I see the
world, despite 99% of everyone I've met telling me differently.

>What "misandrist" feminists have you read? Can you name names? Try not
>to worry little man, white patriachy is still in control.

Clearly you're a thoroughly politically-corrected person. Yes, I can
name names, like Andrea Dworkin, Catharine MacKinnon, Valerie Solanas
with her S.C.U.M. Manifesto, Betty Friedan, Germaine Greer. The
so-called patriarchy isn't worth much when everyone in power is in
thrall to radical feminist ideology. The police are now little more
than a special interest group for the feminists; the justice system
has been corrupted to where any man can be convicted for "rape" or any
manner of "abuse" simply on the uncorroborated testimony of any woman
or child, all of it based on appallingly misandristic definitions of
what these supposed crimes consist of. And of course the workplace,
academia and the rest of society is now a hostile environment towards
men thanks to the "sexual harassment" industry, affirmative action,
and the constant demonization of males in the media. This is not
patriarchy in any meaningful sense even if mostly men technically
rule.

However, fortunately there is a growing antifeminist movement, and I
believe we will turn the tide before long. Check out my favorite men's
rights activist, Angry Harry:

www.angryharry.com

Be sure to read his articles at the bottom of the page.

>> I still believe taxes are
>> morally wrong, period.
> I take it you mean all taxes? Presumably, then, you are some sort of
>anarchist who does not think we should have nation states, law courts,
>hospitals, and all the other things taxes pay.

Ideally, yes. But I can live with minimal nation states funded by
taxes, as long as nobody has to pay more than anybody else. The only
fair tax is a flat tax.

>Cryonics is unavoidably political.

I thought cryonics was a medical procedure. It doesn't have to be any
more political than any other major life-saving procedure we take for
granted even with socialized medicine. It wouldn't be a matter of
class warfare to make cryonics standard procedure, at least not in
rich countries. The kind of crude political discussion we are having
now has hardly anything to do with cryonics, in my view. Cryonics is
just not provided to everybody because only a handful people believe
there's any point to it.

It's not like nobody thought about taxing the rich before you. Every
billionaire (and just about everyone else) I know of already pays
taxes through his nose, and whatever fortune he has amassed is despite
that fact, which makes it all the more impressive. If you were serious
about just taking 1.5% or so from the 200 richest people in the world,
that wouldn't be all that bad, and would indeed imply you wanted
drastically lower taxes than are currently imposed. However, nearly
every word you say simply reeks of hatred towards anyone who owns
anything more than anybody else -- and even when they voluntarily give
away astronomical sums to charity you decry them because they were
able to earn it in the first place. Even worse, you consider just
about anything anybody wants to spend his money on the utmost "rapine"
depravity. It seems you would only be happy if all humans were
exterminated, just like any other religious environmentalist. I can't
believe you're into cryonics.

>Why are the poor starving? Has nothing been taken from them?

If they were born poor, then of course nothing has been taken away
from them, because there was nothing to take in the first place. I
don't believe you are automatically entitled to wealth that somebody
else has created. The poor are poor because they haven't figured out a
way to make money, not because somebody else is rich.

>Does sitting on your ass strengthen your backbone?

Well, I was exaggerating that slightly. I am only on welfare in the
summer, and still a student the rest of the year (which of course is
just another kind of welfare, education being completely free here). I
might actually get a real job someday.

Eivind Berge

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=28160