Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[DJ]

Between your belief that everyone can find employment and your naive belief that people are masters of their own destiny, I'm convinced you're one of those lazy layabouts that are leeching off the hard work of honest people. But I'll cut you some slack if you're in school, if you will please tell me your fool-proof plan for having a dependable income throughout your life.

[Gantolandon]

But cooperation can only be successful if it is conducted on equal grounds.

There is no such thing as "cooperation on the equal grounds" in the society. The guy who has more money and power will always have an advantage over the one who has less.

Currently we're all tied up in a mess of monopolies and deals with people who know that they have nothing to lose because the state will take care of them if they so much as glance at it. Or worse, we're forced to cooperate and care for people who live only to take advantage of us. Since we're forced to cooperate with them, that can't be proper cooperation. It's instead an oppression, we're being oppressed by lazy and reckless people.

Just a question... have you ever thought about building a city for yourself and other ubermenschen dragged down by unwashed masses? Would that be an underwater city?

[Zrk2]

Virex has found the ultimate solution to all of mankind's problems: deny they exist.

It's the Libertarian way.

Minimalist government ideologies are simultaneously unnecessarily cruel, insanely paranoid, and hopelessly naive. A society that works together is more effective than one that does not, and in fact our entire species's civilization is built upon the collective work of other humans. That anybody truly earns everything on their own is an illusion which appears when people look at only the small scale. Ironically, the minimalist system is grossly inefficient and itself a representation of unwillingness to do what is necessary for success, exactly what its supporters claim to hate.

The fundamental flaw in this argument is that it does not respect peoples rights. Assure that everyone has their rights completely uninhibited and then let society proceed from there. If people have rights, then the place in which society arrives is justified because it was achieved morally.

[Glowcat]

I would like to reiterate that cooperation is very important for society. But cooperation can only be successful if it is conducted on equal grounds. Currently we're all tied up in a mess of monopolies and deals with people who know that they have nothing to lose because the state will take care of them if they so much as glance at it. Or worse, we're forced to cooperate and care for people who live only to take advantage of us. Since we're forced to cooperate with them, that can't be proper cooperation. It's instead an oppression, we're being oppressed by lazy and reckless people. That's not only hurting us, but not being able to stand on equal footing with everyone means that people are actually less inclined to work together.

Don't worry, the poor aren't out to get you. If you haven't noticed they don't have any real power and as a general rule they tend to be poorly educated so they're easily swayed by the people who spend lots of money to influence them. Hint: the ones manipulating elections are the ones who have the money for all those political ads. Shocking, I know.

The people who are taking advantage of us are the ones who expect society to protect their position and wealth while they give practically nothing back in return. That's the problem with selective participation: it always seems like when it's somebody's turn to pay up, they won't. Little do they realize that paying higher taxes is nothing compared to the alternatives.

[Gantolandon]

The fundamental flaw in this argument is that it does not respect peoples rights. Assure that everyone has their rights completely uninhibited and then let society proceed from there.

You can't assure that everyone has their right uninhibited. Granting someone a right to live inhibits someone's else right to kill him. Or the inevitable situation when something possessed by one man can save the life of another. You have to prioritize between rights and the society is built upon this. It's not built on rights, but on suppression of them.

[Zrk2]

First of all; STRAW MAN

But you do not have the right to kill someone. The most basic right is the right to property. The most basic property is ones own body and mind, meaning to kill them is a violation of the most basic right in existence.

[Glowcat]

The fundamental flaw in this argument is that it does not respect peoples rights. Assure that everyone has their rights completely uninhibited and then let society proceed from there. If people have rights, then the place in which society arrives is justified because it was achieved morally.

Your particular ideas of morality mean very little when survival is on the line and people are expected to unquestioningly compete in a rigged game. Incompetent governance (or non-governance as the case may be) that results in a societal collapse and widespread suffering isn't something I'd put any particular stock in. Adhering to principles for their own sake and without regards to reality is negligent morality.

Using your success to support the society which supports you isn't even a loss of rights, it's called an exchange. Anybody who doesn't like the costs of their society can move and find a new one. They can even go live in the woods and become a hermit with their now effectively worthless wealth.

[DJ]

If you don't have the right to infringe on other people's rights than your rights are being inhibited, innit?

[Tellemurius]

see you should have said down to freeloaders than all victims.

[Gantolandon]

But you do not have the right to kill someone.

Why not? If he is threatening my property, for example? Isn't that because someone's right to live is considered more important than right to property?

The most basic right is the right to property. The most basic property is ones own body and mind, meaning to kill them is a violation of the most basic right in existence.

what

You don't own your body and mind. You ARE your body and mind.

[Virex]

Whoa 9 new posts. Give me some time to respond, will you?

Virex has found the ultimate solution to all of mankind's problems: deny they exist.

It's the Libertarian way.

Minimalist government ideologies are simultaneously unnecessarily cruel, insanely paranoid, and hopelessly naive. A society that works together is more effective than one that does not, and in fact our entire species's civilization is built upon the collective work of other humans. That anybody truly earns everything on their own is an illusion which appears when people look at only the small scale. Ironically, the minimalist system is grossly inefficient and itself a representation of unwillingness to do what is necessary for success, exactly what its supporters claim to hate.

The fundamental flaw in this argument is that it does not respect peoples rights. Assure that everyone has their rights completely uninhibited and then let society proceed from there. If people have rights, then the place in which society arrives is justified because it was achieved morally.

I'm currently occupied with getting my bachelor's degree Chemical Engineering at the Eindhoven University of Technology, with a minor in Embedded Systems (which I realize now, may have been a poor choice). After getting my bachelor's degree I'm looking forward to obtaining a masters degree in the field of Materials Engineering or Organic Chemistry. After that I'm planning to ideally obtain a PhD title and get a job at the R&D division of a company related to my field.
To augment my position when I graduate I'm currently also organizing a symposium for our study association coming February and I'm learning several programming languages.
Furthermore I am employed at a local department store. Since I'm still living with my parents, my disposable income is currently directed towards getting my drivers license and any surplus is stored in case I need it. I try to avoid buying clothes and other "necessities" unless absolutely necessary.
I'm currently also looking for work more related to my field, again to improve my chances. To this end I've found several companies that are interested in employing students in my field, but since I only recently realized I was a lazy f**king leech, nothing definitive has come from that yet. Secondary to that is me opting for employment at one of the laboratories of our university.


My first fall-back plans include joining or starting a spin-off company during or shortly after obtaining my Master's degree. To this end I'll start keeping tabs on the development of the job market in my field starting from when I start my Master's study. If the developments are unfavorable I will start looking towards the options of exploiting several idea's I currently have that could be put to good use in the chemical industry.
My secondary fall-back plan would of course be to solidify my position at the local department store and keep looking forward to more work in fields related to my study. If I find that I can get a job in a field that is related enough so that I can get a degree in a reasonable amount of time, such as nanotechnology or biochemistry (depending on the direction I chose for my master's study), I will not hesitate to employ my saved funds to prolong my study and get said degree.
My third fall-back option would be to get a research position at a university, with a preference for Eindhoven, but I'm willing to be highly flexible in this regard.
My fourth fall-back option would be to follow in my dad's trail and become occupied in the field of patents (chemistry and material related in my case).
Fifth fall-back option would be to instead start an advisory company on the usage of polymers and composites for construction applications.
Sixth fall-back option would finaly be the long-expected flipping burgers, though I'll be shooting for the aforementioned options whenever the opportunity arises.
If all else fails, I'll try running errants for companies and locals or other short-term jobs. If at all possible, in such a case I'll try to limit my expenses by selling my car and doing everything by bike. Extra savings can be made by using an extra sweater in the winter and by connecting to the internet via the phone line (if keeping up to date with my e-mail is necessary, else it'll be no internet and computer for me)


In order to avoid most of the situations that lead to troubles, and because I'm apparently undesirable to women, I'll try my best to avoid forming a permanent relation with someone. Furthermore I'll keep putting aside a sizable portion of my income to fill any gaps that may arise (aiming for at least 25% to 50% of my disposable income if possible, in addition to building up a pension and keeping up insurances). I do not value space or luxury beyond a comfortable chair and bed, a small computer, a budget internet connection, a phone line, a small kitchen and a budget car, so a single-room apartment should suffice. I'll try to buy one if possible, though renting may be more favorable if there is no work, since that simplifies the process of moving to another city.

[Tellemurius]

But you do not have the right to kill someone.

Why not? If he is threatening my property, for example? Isn't that because someone's right to live is considered more important than right to property?

The most basic right is the right to property. The most basic property is ones own body and mind, meaning to kill them is a violation of the most basic right in existence.

what

You don't own your body and mind. You ARE your body and mind.

you are either in the southern states or in Colorado. shit we should do this the old day, Eye for a eye and teeth for teeth, BLOOD FOR BLOOD, LIFE FOR LIFE.

[Virex]

What's wrong with that?

[Tellemurius]

nothing its just the southwestern states realized that people should be able to protect themselves on their property without repurcussions. Good old Colorado's Make my Day law.

[DJ]

One of your parents loses job, they can no longer afford to send you to school. You get a job at a store to finance your own education. The store is robbed, and you get shot. You can't afford a doctor and there's no free ER because that'd be an unjust burden on taxpayers who never go to ER, so you bleed out and die. Game over, try again (Y/N)?