Slavery.

[Lord Lucan]

Meh.

I have choice in my life, and to me that choice equates to quite a bit of freedom. A stable home environment where I can live and work in the place of my choosing, where I can bring up my kids where I choose, educate them in a school of my choice and also continue my education as an adult. I also work in a job I enjoy doing, after working quite a few other jobs that I have enjoyed doing. I've worked some shitty jobs too.

I can choose to live my life like a pikey, but then I would have to give up certain comforts that I enjoy now.

My guess is that many of those complaining about this kind of slavery are just simply not happy with their lot. Perhaps they've fucked up any chance they've had at a job they would enjoy doing, perhaps as a result of not doing well enough during their education and possibly even, not being able to work in a system where they're not in charge. Maybe, they've even spent their adult lives getting ridiculously into debt and as a result of the following despair, the only feasible way out for them is to deny the systems that enabled them to get to that stage. The 'legal name' billboards seem to go hand in hand with these kind of people.

I'm free enough to enjoy doing what I want to do on a regular basis. I'm happy with that. Am I free of taxes? No. Am I free of governance? No. Does that make me a slave. Absolutely no.

Yes, the banking system is fucked up. Surely most people would support regulations and restrictions that could help prevent the collapse of such markets, but the OP is an avid fan of Trump who has made it no secret that would like to remove such restrictions and regulations.

Governments, politicians and the law are open to abuse and corruption, but take those systems out of play and you're still left with people who want to take power, con people and manipulate, or all of the above.

As for using 'pikeys' as the gold standard for living. Where does it start and where does it end?

If everyone just went about their business by whatever means, how does that work?

Where do people live? Who builds their dwellings? Where does one's boundaries end? Is everything resolved with a bare knuckle fist fight? What about supply and demand? If you have a product that others want, how do you go about selling it, or manufacturing it for that matter? How about intellectual property of one's designs and inventions?

Again, it just seems like the arguments are made by those who have reached rock bottom in terms of failure and the inability to achieve success.

Listening to some of these twats of YouTube and the like, and I can't help thinking that they are just completely disappointed with where they are. Reduced to begging for donations for their rants in order to pay the bills. Scared of the real world where they think people with a different skin colour, sex or religion may have a better life than themselves.

What is freedom?

Is it to do what you want, when you want, to whomever you want and sod the consequences?

Or is it more about money, and/or the lack of?

Ah, a contented "cow" there's nice.

[WaspInWales]

Ah, a contented "cow" there's nice.

As your responses go, that's about as useful as anything else you've ever posted.

A few questions for you, if you don't mind...

First off, I'm eager to know when your red pill moment came. Was it the realisation that you're unable or unwilling to repay your debts? As a result, you think that you shouldn't have to repay them as the system is corrupt? Perhaps the repeated disappointments with the 'weaker sex' has set you on a course to seek out answers via YouTube? Maybe it's due to your crappy job, or inability to get one, which has stemmed from your level of education? An education that has resulted in your constant denial of logic, science and rational thinking. At what point did you realise the world was flat?

More importantly, as you'll no doubt bullshit or simply refuse to answer the above, what is the alternative to the current systems? Seriously, I'd really like to know how you think the world should run in terms of Government, finance, law, society, gender, equality?

Pray fucking tell.

[BBD]

Never mind all that, how do you get a decent wifi connection for the internet in a caravan??

[Sandydragon]

Meh.

I have choice in my life, and to me that choice equates to quite a bit of freedom. A stable home environment where I can live and work in the place of my choosing, where I can bring up my kids where I choose, educate them in a school of my choice and also continue my education as an adult. I also work in a job I enjoy doing, after working quite a few other jobs that I have enjoyed doing. I've worked some shitty jobs too.

I can choose to live my life like a pikey, but then I would have to give up certain comforts that I enjoy now.

My guess is that many of those complaining about this kind of slavery are just simply not happy with their lot. Perhaps they've fucked up any chance they've had at a job they would enjoy doing, perhaps as a result of not doing well enough during their education and possibly even, not being able to work in a system where they're not in charge. Maybe, they've even spent their adult lives getting ridiculously into debt and as a result of the following despair, the only feasible way out for them is to deny the systems that enabled them to get to that stage. The 'legal name' billboards seem to go hand in hand with these kind of people.

I'm free enough to enjoy doing what I want to do on a regular basis. I'm happy with that. Am I free of taxes? No. Am I free of governance? No. Does that make me a slave. Absolutely no.

Yes, the banking system is fucked up. Surely most people would support regulations and restrictions that could help prevent the collapse of such markets, but the OP is an avid fan of Trump who has made it no secret that would like to remove such restrictions and regulations.

Governments, politicians and the law are open to abuse and corruption, but take those systems out of play and you're still left with people who want to take power, con people and manipulate, or all of the above.

As for using 'pikeys' as the gold standard for living. Where does it start and where does it end?

If everyone just went about their business by whatever means, how does that work?

Where do people live? Who builds their dwellings? Where does one's boundaries end? Is everything resolved with a bare knuckle fist fight? What about supply and demand? If you have a product that others want, how do you go about selling it, or manufacturing it for that matter? How about intellectual property of one's designs and inventions?

Again, it just seems like the arguments are made by those who have reached rock bottom in terms of failure and the inability to achieve success.

Listening to some of these twats of YouTube and the like, and I can't help thinking that they are just completely disappointed with where they are. Reduced to begging for donations for their rants in order to pay the bills. Scared of the real world where they think people with a different skin colour, sex or religion may have a better life than themselves.

What is freedom?

Is it to do what you want, when you want, to whomever you want and sod the consequences?

Or is it more about money, and/or the lack of?

Id largely agree with this. And add that the payment of taxes brings services to us, health care, policing, fire protection and so on. If we didn't pay in, how would those services be provided?

Perhaps in a small commune it really would be necessary. But even small commune type societies have rules and regulations. Is abiding by rules through choice freedom or not? Is true freedom to live like a drifter, scrounging or hunting food and sleeping wherever the mood takes me? Perhaps, but I can know a fair few years off my life expectancy by doing so and if we all did it, human society and progress would come to a crashing halt.

Otherwise, WIW, I think you hit the nail on the head in the first paragraph.

[Sandydragon]

Never mind all that, how do you get a decent wifi connection for the internet in a caravan??

Mini satellite. But you need to pay a subscription for that which kind of buggers this particular business model.

[BBD]

the model falls flat on its arse as soon as the cross over point between those who are "free" and those who aren't is reached
If more people are "free" then our society degenerates, we end up back around a campfire outside the ruins of our former homes, unwilling to put the effort into developing and eventually unable to. Its all very easy until you simply accept it totally and then follow its perverse logic to a conclusion

[morepork]

I really like science and culture. I'm not sure caravans are the way to correctly harness feral young minds of the savage future.

[BBD]

We won't have a choice, you either get with the freedom or you are destined to be a cow.
To recognise the severity of the con without acting means that you are either a eunuch or impotent.
Remind me to ask Lucan which he chose before deciding

[Sandydragon]

We won't have a choice, you either get with the freedom or you are destined to be a cow.
To recognise the severity of the con without acting means that you are either a eunuch or impotent.
Remind me to ask Lucan which he chose before deciding

Hag on, so we are forced to be free by some kind of tyrannical process? Doesn't that undermine the whole concept?

[morepork]

I'm not feeling the whole cow thing.

[BBD]

Not so much coerced by force but by strength of argument and situation.
Logically its a choice that becomes harder and harder to resist, the more people opting into a life in a caravan of freedom, the more determined one would have to be to cling onto cow status.

Consider the nature of this binary relationship
Free people and Cows

At best this is only minimally a symbiotic relationship, most of the benefits of the relationship siding heavily towards the free people, the cows either produce or fund the production of all goods, services and functions in our western society, the free people, owing to their greater wisdom realise they don't need to produce much, if anything.
Living on their wits they cleverly recognise that being free is much easier if you can piggy back on the back of efforts and resources of the cows. Eg using their cash based system rather than solely a barter system for things wanted, or perhaps exploiting opportunities to acquire desirable goods made by cows, or utilising land, resources and facilities without paying for them.
For demonstration purposes, consider the population to be made up of 100 people. Now divide them as postulated, Free People and Cows. At present there are 2 Free People (LL & the genius who created the video) and 98 cows. No big deal, the cows, whilst irritated by the freeloading free people would be able to cope with the relationship due to excess production, i.e. they can afford the loss.
Turn it the other way around 98 free people living on their wits and the production of 2 cows and you can see how unsustainable that would be.

Before we ever get to that position, consider the point on the 100 scale where the balance tips and the slide starts into an unsustainable system, is it half way? 51/49? 70%? The specifics of the answer are largely unimportant

The interesting philosophical question is at what point would you resist the temptation to join the slide and at what point would you say, f**k it, I wanna be free and live in a caravan like those free people?

[BBD]

I'm not feeling the whole cow thing.

is it cos its all a load of bull?

[Sandydragon]

Not so much coerced by force but by strength of argument and situation.
Logically its a choice that becomes harder and harder to resist, the more people opting into a life in a caravan of freedom, the more determined one would have to be to cling onto cow status.

Consider the nature of this binary relationship
Free people and Cows

At best this is only minimally a symbiotic relationship, most of the benefits of the relationship siding heavily towards the free people, the cows either produce or fund the production of all goods, services and functions in our western society, the free people, owing to their greater wisdom realise they don't need to produce much, if anything.
Living on their wits they cleverly recognise that being free is much easier if you can piggy back on the back of efforts and resources of the cows. Eg using their cash based system rather than solely a barter system for things wanted, or perhaps exploiting opportunities to acquire desirable goods made by cows, or utilising land, resources and facilities without paying for them.
For demonstration purposes, consider the population to be made up of 100 people. Now divide them as postulated, Free People and Cows. At present there are 2 Free People (LL & the genius who created the video) and 98 cows. No big deal, the cows, whilst irritated by the freeloading free people would be able to cope with the relationship due to excess production, i.e. they can afford the loss.
Turn it the other way around 98 free people living on their wits and the production of 2 cows and you can see how unsustainable that would be.

Before we ever get to that position, consider the point on the 100 scale where the balance tips and the slide starts into an unsustainable system, is it half way? 51/49? 70%? The specifics of the answer are largely unimportant

The interesting philosophical question is at what point would you resist the temptation to join the slide and at what point would you say, f**k it, I wanna be free and live in a caravan like those free people?

Bored at work by any chance?

Your argument is however undermined by the requirement to live by their own wits for the Free Folk. Can they genuinely do that or do they need to come running back when they get a back twinge? Do they remain truly free or secretly long for a Mance Rayder to lead them over the wall back to cow status? Or sheep status if we don't like cows that much.

[J Dory]

[Digby]

Not so much coerced by force but by strength of argument and situation.
Logically its a choice that becomes harder and harder to resist, the more people opting into a life in a caravan of freedom, the more determined one would have to be to cling onto cow status.

Consider the nature of this binary relationship
Free people and Cows

At best this is only minimally a symbiotic relationship, most of the benefits of the relationship siding heavily towards the free people, the cows either produce or fund the production of all goods, services and functions in our western society, the free people, owing to their greater wisdom realise they don't need to produce much, if anything.
Living on their wits they cleverly recognise that being free is much easier if you can piggy back on the back of efforts and resources of the cows. Eg using their cash based system rather than solely a barter system for things wanted, or perhaps exploiting opportunities to acquire desirable goods made by cows, or utilising land, resources and facilities without paying for them.
For demonstration purposes, consider the population to be made up of 100 people. Now divide them as postulated, Free People and Cows. At present there are 2 Free People (LL & the genius who created the video) and 98 cows. No big deal, the cows, whilst irritated by the freeloading free people would be able to cope with the relationship due to excess production, i.e. they can afford the loss.
Turn it the other way around 98 free people living on their wits and the production of 2 cows and you can see how unsustainable that would be.

Before we ever get to that position, consider the point on the 100 scale where the balance tips and the slide starts into an unsustainable system, is it half way? 51/49? 70%? The specifics of the answer are largely unimportant

The interesting philosophical question is at what point would you resist the temptation to join the slide and at what point would you say, f**k it, I wanna be free and live in a caravan like those free people?

Bored at work by any chance?

Your argument is however undermined by the requirement to live by their own wits for the Free Folk. Can they genuinely do that or do they need to come running back when they get a back twinge? Do they remain truly free or secretly long for a Mance Rayder to lead them over the wall back to cow status? Or sheep status if we don't like cows that much.

They're also not free when they can't simply pitch up and live where they want went they want. And we don't simply allow people to wander the lands taking what food they will, or water they will, and so on and so on

[BBD]

work???? what do you take me for? some kind of slave cow?

I can see how the attraction of a slave lifestyle would be appealing enough to slow the transition but thats all, further factors would be peer pressure, familial ties, a sense of ambition and of course the latest I-phone release. Once the tipping point is reached then the slip towards world wide freedom is inevitable

now if you'll excuse me, I need to crack on and look at exchange and mart for a nice little 4 berth that can be towed by a Volvo

[OptimisticJock]

All this talk of cows and caravans.....

tumblr_meddouhgyB1rsuxuyo3_250.gif

[kk67]

I'm guessing that people who have suffered genuine slavery would give their right arm for the opportunity to be paid for their work and to moan about not being free...

On the other hand, if you've been whipped into doing 18 hrs of unpaid manual labour for your entire life, you'd be a mug not to want to sit under a tree with a few beers.

[Vengeful Glutton]

All this talk of freedom is making me hungry.

[Vengeful Glutton]

http://editions-hache.com/essais/pdf/kaczynski2.pdf

[morepork]

http://editions-hache.com/essais/pdf/kaczynski2.pdf

It is ironic that the scathing judgements made in this pithy little opinion piece are dressed crudely in the style of what one unacquainted with objective writing assumes the objective style should look like. There is no bibliography to reference stated claims, but any suggestion of such can be swept aside by subjectively compartmentalising formally trained students of specialised scientific methodology with a flick of the keyboard:

Screen Shot 2017-06-28 at 2.53.20 PM.png

The article is remarkable not for it's authority on the pseudo psychological classification of individuals of a certain political persuasion, but more for it serving as an historical example of the rise of the unsubstantiated opinion piece at the expense of scientific literacy. A literary talk back radio axolotl doggedly clawing its way back from terminal phylogenetic divergence to establish a stubbornly persistent living fossil upon which social media tube worms can feed, far from the living sun.

[kk67]

I believe there is a scientific/philosophical conundrum along the lines of: 'You only find what you're looking for'.
Karl Popper..?.

[Vengeful Glutton]

Meh.

I have choice in my life, and to me that choice equates to quite a bit of freedom. A stable home environment where I can live and work in the place of my choosing, where I can bring up my kids where I choose, educate them in a school of my choice and also continue my education as an adult. I also work in a job I enjoy doing, after working quite a few other jobs that I have enjoyed doing. I've worked some shitty jobs too.

I can choose to live my life like a pikey, but then I would have to give up certain comforts that I enjoy now.

My guess is that many of those complaining about this kind of slavery are just simply not happy with their lot. Perhaps they've fucked up any chance they've had at a job they would enjoy doing, perhaps as a result of not doing well enough during their education and possibly even, not being able to work in a system where they're not in charge. Maybe, they've even spent their adult lives getting ridiculously into debt and as a result of the following despair, the only feasible way out for them is to deny the systems that enabled them to get to that stage. The 'legal name' billboards seem to go hand in hand with these kind of people.

I'm free enough to enjoy doing what I want to do on a regular basis. I'm happy with that. Am I free of taxes? No. Am I free of governance? No. Does that make me a slave. Absolutely no.

Yes, the banking system is fucked up. Surely most people would support regulations and restrictions that could help prevent the collapse of such markets, but the OP is an avid fan of Trump who has made it no secret that would like to remove such restrictions and regulations.

Governments, politicians and the law are open to abuse and corruption, but take those systems out of play and you're still left with people who want to take power, con people and manipulate, or all of the above.

As for using 'pikeys' as the gold standard for living. Where does it start and where does it end?

If everyone just went about their business by whatever means, how does that work?

Where do people live? Who builds their dwellings? Where does one's boundaries end? Is everything resolved with a bare knuckle fist fight? What about supply and demand? If you have a product that others want, how do you go about selling it, or manufacturing it for that matter? How about intellectual property of one's designs and inventions?

Again, it just seems like the arguments are made by those who have reached rock bottom in terms of failure and the inability to achieve success.

Listening to some of these twats of YouTube and the like, and I can't help thinking that they are just completely disappointed with where they are. Reduced to begging for donations for their rants in order to pay the bills. Scared of the real world where they think people with a different skin colour, sex or religion may have a better life than themselves.

What is freedom?

Is it to do what you want, when you want, to whomever you want and sod the consequences?

Or is it more about money, and/or the lack of?

I wouldn't like to live like a pikey. I'm too accustomed to cosseted, pasteurised luxurious lifestyle. I can acquire consumer goods that no Pikey can ever enjoy. He'll rarely, if ever, experience the "joys" of posting on t'interweb, whilst supping on a hot mug of cocoa (c/w marshmallow). Mind you, I love the out doors, enough to have completed several survival training courses, but would I give up my material wealth for the pastoral lifestyle? Absolutely not, and for obvious reasons.

A pikey, masai warrior, itinerant etc. might see things differently of course. They might conclude that I'm a caged animal. They may be right. Calhoun did some intriguing experiments on the behaviour of caged rats, and whilst I'd be skeptical about how accurately those models fit with civilised humans, some of the results were startling. Worth reading.

We in the west represent a small percentage of the world's population (most of the world's population live in abject poverty), and regardless of criticisms of the financial system that underpin our civilisation, we have for the first time in history acquired an comfortable and luxurious lifestyle AND what appears to be an invigorating sense of individuality. Yet strangely, for all the good things we can enjoy, we seem to be deeply unhappy. I can't remember the exact stat, but apparently nearly half of Californian women are on anti-depressants. That's probably an outlier - septics are fuppin nuts - but how many people - men and women, young and old - in other western countries do you think are desperately unhappy?

Another bizarre phenomenon is the festival of liberal balloons who never appear to be satisfied - despite having all the freedoms their hearts desire. When they're not challenging the "patriarchy", they're challenging the use of pronouns, creating safe spaces, or identifying as apache attack helicopters. A symptom of a bored, decadent expanded leisure class that has met all its challenges, and now has to make more up, however trivial? Or is it simply a media driven narrative that bears absolutely no resemblance to real life?

Whatever about the definition of freedom, truth or whatever, we do not live in a democracy. It's certainly nothing like the democracy the Greeks created. You can vote, for sure, but is your vote worth anything?

I doubt it. Ultimately, politicians are in the pockets of plutocrats.

I think it was Huxley who made the observation that the concentration camps of the future would be blissful.

[morepork]

I believe there is a scientific/philosophical conundrum along the lines of: 'You only find what you're looking for'.
Karl Popper..?.

Alexander Flemming and his bad housekeeping.

[Vengeful Glutton]

http://editions-hache.com/essais/pdf/kaczynski2.pdf

It is ironic that the scathing judgements made in this pithy little opinion piece are dressed crudely in the style of what one unacquainted with objective writing assumes the objective style should look like. There is no bibliography to reference stated claims, but any suggestion of such can be swept aside by subjectively compartmentalising formally trained students of specialised scientific methodology with a flick of the keyboard:

Screen Shot 2017-06-28 at 2.53.20 PM.png


The article is remarkable not for it's authority on the pseudo psychological classification of individuals of a certain political persuasion, but more for it serving as an historical example of the rise of the unsubstantiated opinion piece at the expense of scientific literacy. A literary talk back radio axolotl doggedly clawing its way back from terminal phylogenetic divergence to establish a stubbornly persistent living fossil upon which social media tube worms can feed, far from the living sun.

What claims is the author making?