nominal3.bsky.social
Musician, Artist, Anarchist
173 posts
16 followers
3 following
Discussion Master
comment in response to
post
More ACTION and less REACTION.
Talking alone does nothing, action speaks.
comment in response to
post
The same one who easily stumbled up in your momma.
comment in response to
post
Right. The distinction is crucial information. You’re a liar by omission.
comment in response to
post
Plumbers aren’t coercive, and the foundation is made of shit. GIGO
comment in response to
post
So, you chose to worship a coercive state instead. How empowered you must feel.
comment in response to
post
More Toyota’s, Honda’s, and of course, Tesla’s, are built here than GMs
comment in response to
post
Same people proposing absolutely no solutions
comment in response to
post
It depends of the scope of the collective and what rules and limitations it agrees to abide by.
What are the incentives to partake in this?
comment in response to
post
Moral government is a myth; its very existence violates the non-aggression principle.
comment in response to
post
Or, simply abolish the union, and reform your own.
Apply the $billions in campaign savings to your beloved agents.
comment in response to
post
Some people view the research, the development and the open sourcing of the resulting patents as a good thing.
comment in response to
post
Why is this good news?
comment in response to
post
There are infinite parallel and intersecting societies coexisting just fine; Lloyd's of London has been around for centuries. It's never in the news because there's no conflicts to sensationalize. Do some homework, if you're interested in more than defending your chains.
comment in response to
post
No. That's your master's indoctrination talking. Like how Frederick Douglass wrote about some slaves didn't realize they were slaves, and those who did would fight with other slaves from rival plantations over who had the better master.
If you want to fight over masters, go for it, I won't stop you
comment in response to
post
No. Anarchy means (an- 'without' archia- 'rulers'). Rules and order are fine, so long as they're voluntary. I don't set the rules for you, or even recognize the right to do so. If you insist on your subjugation, fine, just leave anyone out who doesn't want in. Anarchism isn't an ideology.
comment in response to
post
More hubris. New like minded unions will form that will be much more efficient than this shit show. This hostility every four years, wasting $billion on campaigns, lost resources, lost time, lost friends, lost freedom. It's a total waste taken away from your healthcare, etc... the tunnel's yours.
comment in response to
post
Hubris. I want everyone's freedom as much as my own. Neither party wants this, they agree on far more than not, especially when it comes to their power.
Abolish the so-called “union” and reclaim everyone’s freedom. Any argument against this is an argument for your own subjugation, & everyone else’s.
comment in response to
post
Ruling-class bread and circuses...
We can hate the same thing, and yet have entirely different solutions. You have yours, and I have mine.
comment in response to
post
I don't care...
You're against who's on the thrown, while I'm against the thrown itself.
comment in response to
post
A pointless either-or-fallacy... is that all you have?
comment in response to
post
Blame democracy
(*an)
comment in response to
post
War mongering MIC stooges like you don't want peace. Be real for a change.
comment in response to
post
Protect YOUR peace, and screw everyone else's... right?
comment in response to
post
Source?
comment in response to
post
If only we could do the same to the entire government.
comment in response to
post
He was a beacon of light? Why? Because of his race?
That dude killed civilians routinely. That’s the true content of his character.
comment in response to
post
Simple shorthand
comment in response to
post
Red herring appeal to authority: laws don’t dictate morality.
comment in response to
post
And, markets are subject to markets of their own.
(*see Lloyd’s of London)
comment in response to
post
No amount of opinions or meandering drivel grants the right of one individual or collective the right to rule over another.
comment in response to
post
Your misinterpretation and equivocation of anarchy still doesn’t grant you the right to rule others.
Voluntarily rules are of great value to those who agree to follow them. Involuntary rules are simply illegitimate.
comment in response to
post
There are countless coexisting societies functioning simultaneously, and none of them have the right to force their rules and opinions onto others. This is a defining quality of freedom.
comment in response to
post
Free enterprise allows traders to voluntarily choose their own rules.
Your opinions of what rules everyone should follow, don’t grant you the right to coerce others to abide them.
comment in response to
post
You can’t argue. The more you try, the deeper the hole you dig for yourself.
Let’s see… are you a state worker, getting paid to stay home today and be pissed off about the possibility of losing your super cushy secure job, stealing from the public and the poor to line your own pockets?
comment in response to
post
Now appeals to authority… your default arguments attempting to justify your positions have so far been all fallacious.
Your degree didn’t include the basics of how to present an argument?
Pivoting away toward obscurity isn’t helping any points you may or may not have.
comment in response to
post
Do you have anything other than false dichotomies, red herrings, and hubris?
I don’t care about being blocked by people with virtually nothing to support their claims other than anecdotal evidence, fallacies, and hate.
comment in response to
post
Ah yes, violence.
Way to go, dude...
comment in response to
post
I’m aware of the red herrings, yes.
Corrupt politicians enriching themselves with these “helping the poor” smoke screens are indefensible. Why try?
comment in response to
post
Corrupt politicians coercively enriching themselves with these “helping the poor” smoke screens are indefensible.
"Fascist" name calling ad hominem is lazy and weak.
comment in response to
post
I’m aware of the red herrings, yes.
Corrupt politicians enriching themselves with these “helping the poor” smoke screens are indefensible. Why try?
comment in response to
post
Anecdotes are fine and good for hits.
What proof do you have DOGE is targeting poor people?
comment in response to
post
How does Read-only access to files cleared by the Treasury, equate to a wrecking ball tearing down institutions and dismantling accountability?
comment in response to
post
I can damn well guarantee maga tribesmen killed more REAL Nazis in WW2 than anyone else you know or have been fooled to hate.
comment in response to
post
You have the right to consume all the narcissistic racial art your dopamine receptors can handle, and then some.
Enjoy…
comment in response to
post
Ok, and what would be the ‘correct response’ to narcissistic racial art?
comment in response to
post
Here’s your dopamine hit, junky.
comment in response to
post
Hubris
comment in response to
post
You’re hating people, not the government.
comment in response to
post
Simply demonstrate coexistence by rejecting narcissism
comment in response to
post
I don’t support cartels.
Keep fishing for more hate triggered dopamine hits.