Essay:Conformity is hard to avoid

From Nathania, Nathan Larson's bliki
Jump to: navigation, search

It's like if you try to adopt some standard that most of society wants to reject, like using a Dvorak keyboard or OS/2. Those systems are probably superior to the alternatives, but it's hard because no one else wants to use them. If you go to someone else's house, they'll probably have Windows with a QWERTY keyboard. (I've gotten used to a Dvorak keyboard before and found that when you switch back to QWERTY, it takes quite awhile to get used to it again and get back up to speed.)

I also tried using metric and talking to people using metric units. Most Americans don't like that system, although its use in the illegal drug industry (including manufacturing) and in the gun industry gave it somewhat of a coolness factor.

But, when you dig deeper, you find that metric isn't even all that superior of a standard. It's based on the number 10, which is convenient given that our number system is base 10, but really what we should've done was switch our number system to base 12 and come up with a new metric system based on that. Octal or hexadecimal might have been decent options too.

Anyway, likewise, anarcho-capitalism seems cool but it can devolve into another form of authoritarianism. If you don't own property, then you have to rent from someone and pay rent (aka taxes) to them and obey their rules (aka regulations). It's the same shit as what we have now, but you have a marketplace of competing providers. That's similar to how if you don't like America's laws, you can move to, say, the Philippines or Russia or Argentina or Australia. In the end, though, the laws and culture aren't THAT much different from place to place.

Yeah, some places, like Poland or Colombia, are (or were) pussy paradises. Same rules apply everywhere, though. Gotta provide the alpha fux or beta bux.

If you serve in the armed forces and get a nice military pension, you can probably go to a place like the Philippines and get some stray little girls to come live with you. Of course, the U.S., if they ever find out, will cut off your entire pension. I went to a presentation on human trafficking once where an FBI agent was telling us about that. It's intended for that very purpose -- to make it harder for Americans to engage in any kind of sex tourism. There are loopholes for a time, and then they crack down.

We don't know that under anarcho-capitalism, it will be easy to have sex with kids, without society interfering. How would that right be protected? We know this much -- a system based purely on people respecting others' rights, because of their high ethical standards, won't work. You'll have to pay for protection from aggression, which means that it won't be THAT much different than how it is now, where someone like Michael Jackson can mess with kids as long as he can afford the lawyer bills.

"Dads should respect the decision of their girls." How's that gonna work? Who's going to pay to support those girls? If it's daddy, then daddy gets to make the rules.

On the other hand, what's to prevent daddy, even today, from saying, "If you'll support this girl, then you get to keep her"? Even now, you can adopt baby girls and have sex with them. You just may need to find some woman to marry you on paper, and pose as your wife. That probably doable, if you have money. Under anarcho-capitalism too, everything comes down to money.

Also -- there basically is no libertarian or anarcho-capitalist movement that supports sex with kids. When you look at the major players in anarcho-capitalism, most of them don't really like the idea even of child porn. They don't really view it as "okay". They just don't want to have a law against it. But they'll also say that under anarcho-capitalism, there may be "standards" enforced against it. E.g., you might get kicked out of your apartment if you're found with it, or something like that.

In the end, you only have as much freedom as you can either pay for, or get people around you to tolerate. If you're rich, you can pay for pussy, including young pussy, and afford to live where it's accessible without relying on the state.

Why don't you get a little girl of your own and then decide whether you feel like you'd be okay letting her have sex with other men? Rather than just talk about it, maybe do it, and see whether your paternal instincts kick in and you want to protect her? But I guess in that case, you wouldn't be able to report back to us about it, because that would be a confession of illegal "child neglect". And if you reported back anonymously, people might call bullshit due to the lack of proof.

We need to try a social experiment where the kind of society you envision actually exists, and see how it works in practice. Otherwise, we're just speculating. But for it to exist, we need to have a culture (not just laws) that will support it. Maybe some nudist colonies already have a culture that leans that way.

What's fascism? One definition I've seen is:
Fascism is a here-and-now, immanent political philosophy. It roughly says, "The state is (or will be) an integral part of society. It has the right to use force and set the rules by which people play. It has the responsibility to adjudicate disputes wisely, enforce the law, protect the people from aggression, and refrain from unnecessary interference in people's lives." (That's my interpretation of fascism, anyway.) But the emphasis is on practical institutional design.

National socialism is fascist, but it also has a strong spiritual component. It takes those ideas and adds racial elements and sees a role in improving the physical and spiritual well-being of the population. Strictly speaking, fascism is not really concerned with matters beyond the practical. National socialism tries to preserve and elevate the population and has an ethnic component that fascism need not necessarily have. National socialism is, I think, more visionary, which can be a good or a bad thing. Libertarians tend not to be a fan of "visionary" states and so this would make a nazi government even worse than a mere fascist government.

Think of it this way. Fascism is an approach for judges, legislators, and executives (public or private). National socialism extends its areas of concern to those of the priest and philosopher. And I'm not thinking only of the Christian priest, but those who perform priestly duties.
I'm not sure what you're thinking of when you think of "fascism" but all systems, except maybe communism, seem to ultimately be pretty much the same in the end. And even communism only really survives because of the black market. People take advantage of gaps and loopholes in the system to get by. In the end, there's no avoiding some sort of hierarchy and the need to conform to society's norms if you don't have the money to be more independent. It's like <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096895/quotes">that line</a> from Batman, "The rich. You know why they're so odd? Because they can afford to be."

Run for office on an anarcho-capitalist platform and field tough questions from the voters, the press, debate moderators, etc. Spend enough time doing that work and eventually you'll find, the differences between the systems may not be as much as you think. What happened to company rule; how did it work, and why isn't it in use so much anymore? It's sort of anarcho-capitalistic. It's neocameralist, anyway, depending on the details of how it was set up.

One thing we know, is that there's no system that can change human nature. Under communism, or capitalism, or any other system, 15-year-old girls don't particularly like licking the asses of paunchy 60-year-old men, for instance. But, if you're rich, you can probably pay some girl to do it. Money can make a lot of stuff happen. Heck, it can even buy love, sort of, because love is just mutual attraction combined with a lack of other options. Unless you're totally repulsive, as long as you have money, there can be love. Some get love without money, but usually, as a man, you need at least some, unless society is in a degenerate state like it is now, where it's so dysfunctional that it isn't even producing a lot of white kids anymore. It can't go on like this, though.

We live now in a mixed economy, a somewhat capitalist state. You can get underage pussy, if you apply yourself to doing what's needed to get it. Any of us could. Heck, Pred <a href="https://www.nathania.org/wiki/Miscellany:The_Lolita_Method/Part_1/Chapter_3/Section_6">wrote</a> that you can get underage pussy today, if you're willing to lower your standards enough and go for ugly girls. You don't need to wait till there's an anarcho-capitalist society.

You might say, "I don't want to do it till I live in a society where I can be sure I won't get busted for it." Well, that's fine. But guess what. It's already legal in today's society to put, say, a pedobear decal in your car window. Am I going to do it? I have one, and I could put it in my window, just to show pedo pride. But is it worth the risk of getting my car vandalized or even that people will make negative comments? I dunno. But my point is that legality isn't everything; there's also social pressure.

It's true that whatever the law is, there will be some conformists who say, "If it's legal, then I'm fine with it." Moms in particular tend to be that way, I think. But there end up being other standards enforced too. For example, church isn't legally compulsory, but how many kids find themselves being coerced into going to church? Even under anarcho-capitalism, maybe they'd find it in their interests to do what their parents want.

After all, they're the only people who have that biological connection to you and will love you that same way, perhaps. Others' love can be more conditional. The way I've heard it described is that adoptive parents will give you any help that's reasonable, while biological parents will go beyond what's reasonable.

I went to an anarcho-capitalist festival once where a woman said that she told her kids that if they wanted to go hang out in a socialist family instead, they could do that. Probably not going to happen. You're pretty much stuck with your parents. Hardly any kid would want to leave their biological family, unless conditions are truly horrible, and maybe not even then. So the tendency toward a parent-child hierarchy is fairly immutable.

The best we can do sometimes is try to engineer the world, and even human nature, to suit our interests. We can clone children to be our sex slaves, and maybe that would be cheaper than paying a whore (or, as the more high-class whores are called, "wife"). But I guess if you don't like slavery, then that's not a good option. Guess what, though. If you take a girl's virginity, then she's not going to be suitable for another man, so basically she has little choice but to stay with you, which makes her sort of like a slave. So there's really no getting away from that male-female hierarchy.

And the hierarchy is good, anyway. In any relationship, there has to be a dominant partner. Equality usually means conflict. If you go through in your mind the relationships you have, doesn't it seem like in every one, there's someone who's more dominant than the other? Isn't there one who takes the lead more than the other, while the other looks for guidance? The more you're actually trying to accomplish and/or do stuff together, the more it tends to be that way.

We can build sexbots, but then you divert attention away from real women with whom you could reproduce, and eventually natural selection will weed out those tendencies toward fucking sexbots.

Fascism and/or white nationalism being where most of the focus is these days, it's hard not to at least address it in some way. Ancap can have an authoritarian "flavor" and maybe it's even inevitable. But authoritarianism is compatible with having sex with kids; it just depends on the kind of authoritarianism.

Kids, being in a weak position, tend not to be in the drivers' seat in any kind of relationship. People say that their charm puts them in a position to get what they want, and maybe that's true sometimes. But unless we live in a society where kids can actually be rich, they're still having to use that charm rather than other resources to get what they want, which makes them more like workers than capitalists. Money is actually scarcer than charming kids, in the same way that capital is scarcer than labor. Employers end up being the ones calling the shots.

Customers theoretically call the shots too, but they also look to businesses for leadership. One might look at businesses as trying to charm customers the same way women try to charm men or kids try to charm adults.

Now, someone like Ivanka Trump, on the other hand, is in a uniquely advantageous position. Probably her dad wants to fuck her more than he wants to fuck other women. So one might say she has some influence over him, but she still probably needs him more than he needs her, because he had the power to make more daughters if he wanted to, while she has only one father. It's supply and demand.

Want to get want you want in life (including love)? Better corner the market in something. Better get something that others want. That can include making yourself something that others want, unless you just happen to have inborn charm that others don't have.

We talk about childlove. But children don't want to love every adult, only those adults who have something to offer them, typically something they can't get elsewhere. Are you truly happy with a state of affairs where children decide they don't love you? Nah, you want to kill yourself.

Love will overcome certain obstacles, but where the preconditions for love don't exist, even when the obstacles are taken away, love won't exist. The obstacles are only relevant in the more marginal cases. When we talk about changing the law and culture, we're talking about getting rid of those obstacles. Culture is the difference between pushing people apart and pushing them together, and law creates a fence for people to climb or jump over and maybe get impaled on the spikes at the top if they aren't careful. But love is the motive force to attract people together in the first place.

I suggest, don't theorize too much; also get some practical experience with real people, away from your keyboard, and inform your theory with data points from your own personal experience. Get at least two data points on each matter before starting to draw more general conclusions. Take anecdotes you hear from others with a grain of salt, because culture influences what details people mention or leave out, or how they frame the story to make it more acceptable to others.


Re: Conformity is hard to avoid Posted by LoliChan on 2017-December-4 23:14:36, Monday In reply to Conformity is hard to avoid posted by Lysander on 2017-December-4 16:39:42, Monday Ok, you made a huge post, but I will just get on the point in the few things you seemed to suggest there.

Unpopular ideas does not necessarily mean they are either good or bad, they are just ideas that are not put to use often because they were either proved to not work as well as recent ones or people simply do not have standards necessary to pull it off, like anarcho-capitalism would probably be, given the level of dependence individuals seem to have on their government.

>National socialism is fascist, but it also has a strong spiritual component. It takes those ideas and adds racial elements and sees a role in improving the physical and spiritual well-being of the population. Strictly speaking, fascism is not really concerned with matters beyond the practical. National socialism tries to preserve and elevate the population and has an ethnic component that fascism need not necessarily have. National socialism is, I think, more visionary, which can be a good or a bad thing. Libertarians tend not to be a fan of "visionary" states and so this would make a nazi government even worse than a mere fascist government.

Yes, but there is also the element that fascist governments in general are very utilitarian and that has already shown that it doesn't really work much when it comes to individual freedom, not to mention the horrible violations of human rights, though I could perhaps give you the benefit of doubt because Nazis did give the chance for the Jews to leave before a certain time; however, I find that distasteful regardless and in no way should be justified as a valid movement to be enforced on a society, but in an anarcho-capitalism, those that do believe such and band together and have their own society, then I would not see it as an issue.

Though in here, it would come into concern the idea of self-defence, which I find to be very important no matter in what political system you live in. These ideas need to be taught better and I see that the idea of depending solely on others also have to change in order to ever proceed to such environment. At the very least, I think a Libertarian society (Minarchy) would be more of an appropriate step, considering the minds of the masses.

Renting is essentially agreeing with the terms the providers gives you, so I don't see where you are trying to go with this other than suggesting people that rent out their own property shouldn't be placing their own rules.

> Also -- there basically is no libertarian or anarcho-capitalist movement that supports sex with kids.

There is no political movement at all that supports intimacy with children, that doesn't stop you from affiliating with a political movement or life style regardless, does it?

>I went to an anarcho-capitalist festival once where a woman said that she told her kids that if they wanted to go hang out in a socialist family instead, they could do that.

Yes, I doubt that too, but I would process that as if the children develop socialists ideals later in the future, they can profess it as well under even an anarcho-capitalist society. Like, in my view, people could make out of their property communes or whatever other model they wish to make amongst their peers. The main idea is not to force those ideals to others that do not share them. In your case, you could also have your own patriarchy on your property, with willing individuals that believes said standards are fundamental for a strong family, etc, because if you try to force that, you will get more feminists.

>We don't know that under anarcho-capitalism, it will be easy to have sex with kids, without society interfering.

It will definitely be less complicated without a government constantly vilifying it and grouping all of these cases into the same category for political reasons, not to mention those times where they also link us with Pizzagate and even terrorism in order to also justify to invade everyone's security protocols and privacy.

>One thing we know, is that there's no system that can change human nature.

You don't need to change human nature for anarcho-capitalism, most humans are selfish by nature, or instincts, if you want to put it that way.

>The best we can do sometimes is try to engineer the world, and even human nature, to suit our interests. We can clone children to be our sex slaves, and maybe that would be cheaper than paying a whore (or, as the more high-class whores are called, "wife"). But I guess if you don't like slavery, then that's not a good option. Guess what, though. If you take a girl's virginity, then she's not going to be suitable for another man, so basically she has little choice but to stay with you, which makes her sort of like a slave. So there's really no getting away from that male-female hierarchy.

Placing so much value over sexual identity is something I continuously wonder why people make it so as if it mattered that much. If it was something that came biologically, I would understand, but this is no biological factor coming into play when you devalue someone just for being a virgin or not, but a social conditioned one.

>We live now in a mixed economy, somewhat capitalist state. You can get underage pussy, if you apply yourself to doing what's needed to get it. Any of us could. Heck, Pred wrote that you can get underage pussy today, if you're willing to lower your standards enough and go for ugly girls. You don't need to wait till there's an anarcho-capitalist society.

Yes, you can, of course. However, it will still lead to potentially breaking the law and exposing said child involved into risks. You can choose to ignore that, but it won't make you less irresponsible for doing such an action.

>Kids, being in a weak position, tend not to be in the drivers' seat in any kind of relationship.

That brings up my other comment above... Even more the reason to not take advantage of their current weak position in order to gain what you want, even if they enjoy and have an overall satisfactory experience, which is good in a sense, but you are still neglecting how society can be enhanced to be a better one for them. I find it hypocritical for Child Lovers to say such thing.

>Fascism and/or white nationalism being where most of the focus is these days, it's hard not to at least address it in some way. Ancap can have an authoritarian "flavor" and maybe it's even inevitable. But authoritarianism is compatible with having sex with kids; it just depends on the kind of authoritarianism.

No issue should be left un-addressed regardless. It is imperative for these discussions, but we also have to be more considerate of the position in where children are currently at. If you choose to take as an opportunity to do what you want to them, it does not really make you a good person. AnCap might have an authoritarian flavor amongst most of the proponents of it, that's actually true. Perhaps I am particular in my own conception of anarcho-capitalism.

However, that doesn't change what the political movement actually stands for on it's own, except for the way it might be applied, which is maybe one thing you are trying to point out by allowing social experiments to take place. My issue with you is that you want to make social experiments of things that have already been both scientifically and historically proven to have worked.

>Love will overcome certain obstacles, but where the preconditions for love don't exist, even when the obstacles are taken away, love won't exist.

Yet you literally advocate for rape. Of course it won't exist if you force yourself unto people.

>I suggest, don't theorize too much; also get some practical experience with real people, away from your keyboard, and inform your theory with data points from your own personal experience. Get at least two data points on each matter before starting to draw more general conclusions. Take anecdotes you hear from others with a grain of salt, because culture influences what details people mention or leave out, or how they frame the story to make it more acceptable to others.

I suggest you also do the same, here, and everywhere but I will also add that you need to take cultural and social manifestations without generalizing them. Generalization will get you nowhere and might more often get yours points to be misinterpreted or not make sense when making wild assumptions that simply are not true, and are pointed out by both extensive research as well as documentation of history (from all angles).