iambiguous and Pedro I Rengel don't contend

[Lorikeet]

What about tangible services, like a self-employed plumber or janitor?

No.
If them then why not whores?
They provide a service as well.

So, you have to produce a free-standing object of some kind?
Leaving out programmers.

And it seemed from the case of Bezos, also not transporters.

Scientists?

Inventors?
They might develop a prototype, but unless they can manage to manufacture the product themselves, they would not be citizens, or?

inventors scientists can participate in production.

[Gloominary]

It's for sale.

[Lorikeet]

I think you have a taste for it. Being serviced.

[Gloominary]

It's for sale.

I won't buy it, I don't want to make you a citizen of my empire.

[Lorikeet]

But you're already my bitch.

[Gloominary]

I think you have a taste for it. Being serviced.

I think you're a catcher pretending to be a pitcher.

[Lorikeet]

Did you smell that up my ass, or did you smell it from yours?

[Gloominary]

I think you have a taste for it. Being serviced.

Bruh, you just got served.

[Lorikeet]

Ouch...did you pitch?
You seem to know a lot about ball players.

[iambiguous]

The important thing is that, much more than intellect, truth takes balls.

No, what takes balls is accepting that the truth in regard to things like the covid pandemic does not necessarily revolve only around what you insist is the truth.

And, what really takes balls, is running your own value judgments past the arguments that I make.

Come on, what have you got to lose here but damn near everything.

[Gloominary]

...still, Lori's timocracy is interesting.
On the one hand, it's elitist, only the owners of tangible production who've served time in the armed forces can become citizens and participate in politics, on the other hand, it's populist, there's a cap on wealth, altho he didn't get a chance to specify what it was, 1 billion, 100 million, 10 million.
Surplus wealth would be redistributed both to owners, and workers.
While I'm presuming most of the economy would be held in private hands, essential services like infrastructure, fire and police departments, hospitals and schools would be public, but they'd only be available to people who really needed them, not people who abuse them by abusing themselves and others (alcoholics, drug addicts, gamblers, the idle, the morbidly obese, nymphos and so on).
Such people would have their access to public services fully or party restricted.
Lori doesn't appear to be a fascist, he would permit people to abuse themselves and consensually each other.
He'd indirectly cull the degenerates, as he calls them, by withholding public services, unless they committed felonies or had a long list of petty crimes, then I'm presuming he'd directly cull them.
This would also give them more incentive to change their ways.
His timocracy is socioculturally mostly libertarian, and fiscally mixed, part capitalist, part merit-socialist, if you will, at least as far as I can ascertain, trying to fill in the gaps here.
Actually it's not a bad system, at least in theory, very interesting.

[Gloominary]

It's sort of a merited social democracy as opposed to an unmerited social democracy.
And nationalist, as opposed to globalist.
Do unmerited social democracies ultimately lead to oligarchy and autocracy?
Because the people have to keep strong, if they want to remain free and self-governing?

[WendyDarling]

Other than on another planet starting from scratch, where would you be able to try it? And where would that leave the use of technology? I also don’t see the motivation for invention if the inventor hasn’t the means to manufacture the end product. And would businesses with multiple owners receive citizenship for each owner? Nepotism as insurance for ones children would be huge.

[Berkley Babes]

I am for no countries. Sorry Olympics. Borders are imaginary lines on a map, but that's not the only reason countries are silly. Of course, the invention of a language that didn't totally destroy cultural stories and myths would be nice. Just the decentralized pockets of powers that need to loosen up. aka (Enemies over there, require secrets here)

I don't know, what type government could oversee a three generation language transition. I want that one.

Tower of babel, anyone?

[Gloominary]

Other than on another planet starting from scratch, where would you be able to try it?

New frontiers may have to open up.
The unfurling of the Mediterranean sea to rising maritime powers lead to Athenian timocracy, its derivatives and the Roman republic, which later became democracies, which later became dictatorships before collapsing.
The unfurling of the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific oceans to rising maritime powers lead to North American and Western European timocratic republics, which later became democratic republics, which may become dictatorships before collapsing.
Where will the next frontiers open up, in outerspace, cyberspace, underwater?
No one knows.
A century or two from now, a millennium or two?

And where would that leave the use of technology? I also don’t see the motivation for invention if the inventor hasn’t the means to manufacture the end product. And would businesses with multiple owners receive citizenship for each owner? Nepotism as insurance for ones children would be huge.

Innovation might be more evenly distributed and smaller scale than it is today.

[Berkley Babes]

Whether I successfully hijacked a thread about posters who get sidetracked may become a bone of contention after a few more pages are added.

[Gloominary]

A cap on wealth may eliminate parasites on top, those who merely fiscally speculate, who don't actually produce anything.
Restricting social welfare to those who need it, withholding it from those who abuse or don't appreciate it, may eliminate parasites on the bottom.
Restricting suffrage to the producers, may keep democracy productive.

[Berkley Babes]

A cap on wealth may eliminate parasites on top, those who merely fiscally speculate, who don't actually produce anything.
Restricting social welfare to those who need it, withholding it from those who abuse or don't appreciate it, may eliminate parasites on the bottom.
Restricting suffrage to the producers, may keep democracy productive.

Yeah, don't stop moving, that'll be death. Worse than that, you'll be called a loser.

Have you ever watched actual parasite fish follow a shark and wonder if they could ever be a different species if they tried? If not, are they at least thankful for those scraps?

[iambiguous]

Do Languages Exist?

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha

I know, I know: That's like asking if, on the philosophy board here, assholes exist. And yet, clearly, here you are.

[Pedro I Rengel]

Hahahahahahahahahahaha.

[iambiguous]

Hahahahahahahahahahaha.

All I can say is it's one thing to be the butt of all the jokes here, and another thing altogether to take pride in it.

[iambiguous]

From the Corner:

I just came here to drop my rap and answer some questions.

Pezer has been left for dead by the world on numerous occasions, so Pezer doesn't care about your grievances by the world.

Pezer, additionally, worships you on many levels and for many reasons, only a small one being that your ass looks great in tights.

From Pezer's Wars

Pezerocles » Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:25 pm

My mission here is done.

I'm off again. Greets to all the old cats.

And that mission would be what exactly?

You know, given a particular context.

[iambiguous]

First let's get one thing on record: when an abortion is performed, knives and chemicals are inserted into a woman's body to kill the most precious thing there exists.

I am going to straightforwardly block everybody who doesn't agree on that very basic fact. They are either cowards, morons, or psychopaths. There are no psychopaths on this website, so the previous two will apply.

Let us restate for the record: when an abortion is performed, knives and chemicals are inserted into a woman's body to kill the most precious thing there exists.

Or, from the other end of the political spectrum, the equally authoritarian assumption that when a woman is faced with an unwanted pregnancy -- due to rape or incest or a faulty contraceptive or changes in her circumstance -- to force her to give birth is to rob her of her own precious right to control her body.

Then they are "going to straightforwardly block everybody who doesn't agree on that very basic fact. They are either cowards, morons, or psychopaths."

Period. End of story. The objective truth. Both of them.

Of course many on either end of the objectivist, ideological political spectrum will insist their own frame of mind has nothing whatever to do with the manner in which I came to embody my views on abortion here...

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my "tour of duty" in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman's right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary's choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett's Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding "rival goods".
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.

On the contrary, they are entirely in sync with the only possible ego here attached to the only possible superego they could embody. Their very soul may be on the line here.

And then this thing:

Having said all this, if it is determined that it is dishonorable and further illegal, because the penury a mother endures simply with a preagnancy, let alone the hormonal and post preagnancy implications of caring for a child, is very real, whatever restriction or punishment that exists cannot be punitive for the mother. Cannot. It is one of those things, where even though it is a crime, its commition cannot sanely be punished. It simply cannot. Unless, i do believe, the paternal family sues. In that case, some form of reprisal must be allowed. Must be. A person, by condition of being a man, cannot be asked to take the murder of their child and be quiet. This must be obvious.

Sure, I may be misunderstanding his point here, but he seems to be arguing that after "knives and chemicals are inserted into a woman's body to kill the most precious thing there exists" she should not be punished?

Unless the paternal family sues?