Видео

I think that's a cool idea but I think that would count as decentralised or egalitarian rather than anarchistic. Please excuse the pedantry - but I nerd out in my field of expertise :P

Even of ''medical advancement'' mentioned. Why should house, I or any not profit of our own efforts? What do I owe you or any? I'm a Mechanical & electrical fabrication Engineer till my failed health. I manufactured surgical Equipment at firm mainly specialising in tubular works. I was under paid for my efforts saving life's that I was never thanked for. When my health failed in the lockdown I spent in 1/2 a year coughing my own blood up in my sink which no one but my own mother showed me any care as could not get a doctor to see me & so had to deal with my health on my own as my lung capacity in a short time from long covid became 1/8th of a healthy capacity around 500ml VT. Even now by my own efforts & strict regiment my capacity is now 300ml or 2/3rd's that which is healthy. No one helped me & I lived off my savings as everyone helped themselves. Every breath I take is still a wheezed pain. I feel no obligation to a society, government or people that follow liberalism as all they say is nice but their actions never reflect their words of no worth. I have far less sins then most & am a far more reasonable man then most. I will help another once if they ask but after the choice to help them again is entirely my own if the favour is not repaid in some form though it does not need to be equivalent in value but at least shows they are not abusing my generosity. Liberals expect those capable to give & give with a smile but like anyone that can produce why should they do so happily for those that repay nothing in kind? I even don't bother to work anymore beside my failed health as frankly why should I as it will bring me nor my family anything of benefit! I wanted to make great works but the few good works I made other did not appreciate or took at my expense. You think Libertarians are self absorbed? No we have grown indifferent & impatient of others as well as the farcical problem often of their own fault by dependence or lunacy. Frankly I want nothing to do with others & for them to leave me alone to my privacy as they can't help themselves much less another but they won't even grant me that much. yet they wonder why I dislike them as they pester me for more in my suffering health! I have to contribute they say? I don't have to do anything for death is an option though liberals even ban choosing to die. such a fair people as even death cannot be on your own terms not that I have got that point but it is an option. Real pain is fatiguing & exhausting. I don't care for myself at this point & yet I'm expected to care for others? If I choose to do anything it is my choice & no others. Liberals make demands of others while offering nothing? That is truly childish as if babe demanding of it's mother! What a lowly being!

I lean more toward a pro-social approach where cooperation and fairness help everyone succeed. But I always appreciate hearing different views, so thanks for contributing.

​@@gonzophilosophy 'Voluntariness' I can approve 'Lack of expectation of reward' with in pro-social society I can't approve. Favour should repaid & debts settled. Even if not in full as a gentlemen's agreement a decent exchange should be permitted. I help people for the 1st time but the 2nd time if in my ability I see if they even bother to try & repay my generosity. Most do not! The expectation of getting something for nothing is what I don't like about liberals. Why should I benefit others when all they do is get in my way & when they don't show no appreciation in the slightest but perhaps some worthless empty words. An old Turkish girl Aylin I knew tried to repay my kindness in turn rather then taking it for granted. I changed motor oil & she gave me a tea cloth for my hair as she didn't want me to get oil on it & because she thought my back must be cold on the ground she gave me an old Turkish rug I call my prayer matt though I just use it under motors. She could cook & was pleasant. My issue with most is want something for nothing! Liberal & punter goes often hand in hand in my mind! Why should I or any show such giving to a stranger before friend or family? Perhaps liberals should try to endear themselves more to others rather then talking of good deeds that some imaginary non entity will carry out. Still I am just as much a stoic of sort =s before a classical libertarian as an Englishmen. The idea that a bit of kindness & giving can make paradise is always a concept of Christians then later liberals that I found so childish in it's naivety! A child can be excused for you can't expect it to know but a full grown adult. You have to laugh at most of them in their incapability with out any of innocent joy a child brings. Mind most children grow up watching a block these days almost catatonic. You can't teach many of them anything of consequence! I see how liberals raise their children & that is not something I would ever wish nor desire to emulate! Some say I am cold but I do get results! Every person that knows me says they would pick me in a life or death situation even in my failed health. You know hypotheticals like zombie apocalypse, a fight & such. At lest I am considered reliable which goes much further then sharing. People should be more self-reliant for then people have someone to emulate. I did the same as boy emulating my Great grand father & grand father of the Great then silent generation respectably. They were not liberals but imperialists in a time when you didn't get a choice. They like me understood democracy is only as beneficial the peoples education in it which look at America for instance? A land were the average IQ is below some African nations ranked 38th yet they pay double in education per head then any other nation. “America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.”-Oscar Wilde “Democracy is only as good as the education that surrounds it.”-Plato. It is not a land I'd desire to live in & my land has been emulating it for some 1/2 century know yet wonder why everything has fallen to Sh!t.

@@arnijulian6241 I won't try to challenge your values here - it's clear you've got a good sense of what you believe to be right or wrong. Fundamentally I'd rather give and have others receive. To be measured by my generosity and compassion. This measure stands above justice, above fairness. This is not an objectively "better" take. I am regularly disappointed. But I'd rather be frustrated and disappointed by the world not matching my idealism than be unsurprised by realism.

​@@gonzophilosophy I'm not unsurprised. I merely can't stand hypocrisy as many say one thing but do another. They tell everyone else to be generous while they are tight fisted. I will humour the idea you apply to what you say but how many liberals do you know that aren't just liberals to punt? Some times one must be cruel to be kind. Making other dependent upon you through kindness only makes them incapable when you are not around to pick up their slack. Another ideal I can't stand of Americans is helping those that never asked for it. Being an Englishmen I only help those that ask & whom want to help themselves. I have no patience for another that wastes my time as I value it unlike most! I'm not ''disappointed with world''. I'm tired of the false comforts people claim to get everything they want without feeling like piece of sh!t which they are as they produce nothing. Politicians are among the people I can't stand for they possess the tendency to sell people on nothing but empty promises which liberals buy hook line & sinker. I have no ideals & merely don't want to pay ludicrous chunk of & tax or time to a government system that of people that I have no faith in as they fail repeatedly to achieve the most basic of claims while promising the world. Liberals claim to be voluntary but you can't opt out of taxation can you? Tyranny with steps! Like the NCR are getting F by those back west & the bull to the east think of all that tax you pay for practically nothing!

It's a horror genre convention that we are punished for crossing a threshold that we didn't know existed. Cruelty beyond belief for an accident or mistake. Otherwise, it's just karmic justice.

Andrew Ryan is most definitely an objectivist, so perhaps my error was in characterising Rapture as libertarian. Still, I'm not convinced that libertarianism and objectivism would be different in this particular context. If you had an speculations about those, I'd be really curious about them :)

But never with the hard R

Are you referring to collectivism in the sense of Scandanavian socialist policy or collectivism in the sense of Chinese, Japanese and Korean social policy? I ask because all of those are still functioning - some in better ways than others, but highly functional nonetheless.

@@gonzophilosophy those are partly capitalistic that's why it still works to some degree. Communist states all failed. And please look more closely at Japan's society. Their suicide rates, their extremely old demographic. Their "work ethic". Sweden meanwhile is a complete dumpster fire of a welfare state. Their migration is completely off the charts for example. Same for my country Germany. All of Europe is basically fcked because of these socialist politics.

Why would everyone agree that absolute personal autonomy is the ideal way to live? This seems like an incoherent concept, as there's no such thing as a human who exists outside of society. Not without completely removing ourselves from it.

This comment made my day :) Thank you!

I think you'll find there is no such thing as a free market - all that own the means of production will be using violence or coercive control of some variety. That's where the libertarianism falls down. It's like communism - neat in theory, but the moment it butts up against reality its proven to be untenable.

@@gonzophilosophy Now I’ll go the social contract is an arbitrary line of what a government can & cannot do to its citizens , resulting in constant rights violations in the name of the “greater good” good in theory & half baked & sometimes down right evil in practice. How would they use coercion without any pushback both financially & or militarily? Are we saying a sizable amount of violence or do you mean “oh someone punched someone else see therefore violence accrued” can I get an example of a private entity committing violence without any repercussion that couldn’t also happen in our society.

@@Sweet_bacon892 I can't tell what you are arguing but thank you for engaging authentically.

@@gonzophilosophy In a free society the odds of 1 company taking control, using violence with no opposition is low. Competition incentives one to not act in such a way. Not to mention libertarianism itself isn’t an economic system so you can have communes, mutual aid, a welfare republic all we ask is consent is given. That society isn’t built on violations of human rights but free association. If somehow libertarians made the exact society we have today but people consent before being citizens & can leave to start their own society that serves them better so be it. Non-aggression principle. Yes the philosophy itself doesn’t have morals per se,doesn’t mean we’re all evil machines who don’t already have our own morals to live by which I’d say is the same as liberalism.

With no offense implied or intended, I cannot understand your meaning. You speak in buzzwords and vagaries, and while I would like to sincerely engage with your views, I simply can't interpret what you intend to say. While it may be tempting to see this as a failure to understand on my part, it may be worth putting your text into ChatGPT with a prompt like "reword and reorder this text to create a coherent argument, citing specific examples" and reposting.

I am curious as to how removing women's agency and self-efficacy, or giving them a prescribed gender role, would make the game not "terrible, dumb and boring"

@@gonzophilosophy It wouldn't. You're thinking in a linear chain of cause. Whereas influence in reality is a subjective maze of causes. It's the spirit of influences and priority. Feminists lock their game focus on their motivational poster criteria, and neglect the artful expression of interesting characters. Sure, she's a decent role model for a PSA. Like many athletes. And like many athletes, endlessly tedious to engage through extended course. Feminism usually fails to see its own sensibilities as they are. Religiously constrained. It's like Christian Rock for angry harpies.

@@pathogeneration5138 Could you provide me a specific example of this in game? I'm unclear about what you are referring to in game. I say this as I want to engage with your specific problems with the game in good faith, rather than viewing your argument as an unhinged generalised sexist rant.

@@gonzophilosophy In good faith, while implying it's a "sexist rant". When the only "gender-related" thing referred to, at any point, is "feminism". As if it's the one-true-religion of womankind. That most women don't even identify with. Would you say someone who isn't a Christian, doesn't believe in God? Would you say someone who isn't an MRA, is "against men"?. Ism, is in the detail, not in the banners and loose definitions.

@@gonzophilosophy And a specific example of what? Her entire characterization? That characterisation isn't merely her expression, but the whole chemistry of her interaction. It's all just the right amount of adorable, stoic tragedy. Her before and after duckling saga. Everyone just ostracized and maligned Aloy, in the most mundane bully terms. And having manifested as the full glory Aloy, everyone just defers to and awkwardly yearns after her in mundane hushed tones. The number of guys, that mumble and gripe, in seriously uncommon male demeanor is comical. It's a tawdry soap-opera spectacle. But with the exasperating pretense of thespian melodrama. And it converts everyone into a waffly plank, whose sole purpose is to reflect back at Aloy, how amazing she is. And the comedy is, you can tell how unlikeable the writers probably are, by the virtues the try to extol through her pseudo-perfect persona, showered with simpering deference. It's not only insipid; it rings humanly false. Thank whichever deity you prefer at that. The world of human chemistry projected from the minds of ideal fantasists in Horizon, would be an absolute chore, as reality. The feeble thinness of persona could be gotten away with, if the game didn't take itself so seriously, and hose you with so much incessant tin-eared dialogue. The number of times I've just sat in stewing awe, at the scale of inane, highfalutin jabberwocky tosh- imploring them to just ST-everloving-FU. There's a bounty of thin archetypes among characters, but few of them talk so endlessly and pointlessly. Samus Aran is one of the single greatest character creations. You get to read her largely through doing, and sensing. You don't walk into some enticing new cavern, to her incontinent internal monologue, substitute for your eyes and brain. Lara Croft (classic, actual Lara), isn't a great character because she's presented as 'sexy'. It's because she actually has colour, shade and edge. She's an eccentric, using her wealthy mansion, for action and acrobatic exercises. To the probable chargrin of her butler. She's got an excess of sass, but there's a conflicted layer of conscience. She airs thoughts every so often, but doesn't give a running commentary. Even with the wooden-ish early acting, janky polygons, and simplistic attire, she's an eminently more engaging character. And I wouldn't consider it obscure magic. There's a lavish heap of groundwork in Horizon and Aloy. The design, detail and fidelity in the hair and clothing is astounding. So astounding it can masked the traits of substance. Aloy, as presented is the sort of person I'd trust to do my taxes, or to strut a catwalk, or guard a post. But to listen to her, and everyone pandering to her, for ongoing hours, is tortuous. You could vastly improve the game, just by modding out, 90 percent of the dialogue, 100 of the voiceover prompts, and put a thought in her her that shifts her expression to something other than that constipated, blank plank glare.

I think we are fundamentally agreeing - socialism is a mode of political philosophy which interacts with other modes like democracy or fascism.

​ @gonzophilosophy I think that the disagreement is not that big, but still I would rather you view socialism as democratic control of economy. Or perhaps collective control if you want to force all the communist states. However to me this is linguistiung disagreement and not political disagreement . What I mean is that I want to use maybe less popular definitions to show more useful political phenomena. Words are political weapons and especially socialism, democracy, freedom, left/right etc are used by the ones in charge of society to manipulate our language. If you look in to practical politics, in to history and evolution of those ideas. You will find that regardless of any terms, the basic forces in society are pushing either for more equality or for hiererarchy. Sometimes the hierarchy is completely new and contradictory to the one we have now, so it fight side by side with egaliterianism. However that is just how politics work. Also nazis/fascist in general lied about socialism and did not implement anything like it. Authoterian state control of private properties is far from socialism. And all the communist states implemented state capitalism, literary recreating the same dynamic as capitalism just by using the state. Not because they were lying per say, but because their strategy and their history and practical politics simple ended up like that. Mixing such contradictory concepts simply because of a use of rethoric and estathic is making us blind and dumb. Exactly like the ruling classes want.

@@lexter8379 Which specific philosophy states this? I'm perfectly willing to alter my views if I have something incorrect but I'd like to see what the discourse says beyond "I prefer it". It also seems you're targeting the wrong person with your critique. You may be better of trying to persuade moderates that they have the wrong idea, rather than a left wing philosopher that his ideas aren't perfectly precise in a 5 minute youtube video.

@@gonzophilosophy I jumped a gun a little, to be fair my second comment was more like a suggestion - then a critique. I know this is less common view (though in my opinion more accurate) and I am unsure what philosophy has this view. Its more of an anarchist material analysis. Also "I prefer it..." because its more accurate description of political distinctions. We are talking about categories and so showing that my is useful is enough for a suggestion IMO.

@@lexter8379 I'm willing to be wrong but I like to be thorough in my understanding (if not my delivery). I don't disagree with anything you've said - but it's hard for me to engage fully without knowing which philosophers to read or papers to explore. How did you come to develop this analysis? Don't take the question to be a trap or some other kind of disingenuous engagement. If you watched some RUclips videos or did an undergraduate course in Marxism, that's fine. I'm just curious about how you got there.

Do you mean when we individually make choices for ourselves without considering the facts or the greater good?

I agree with your criticisms - provided that the socialistic state is undemocratic. A democratic socialist state resolves all of your objections.

Since when are libertarians against rules, they’re against aggression as long as the rules are given with consent & rights not violated it’s fine. If we all lived in a small town & I go hey going cocaine is bad let’s all sign an agreement to fine or banish people doing cocaine & everyone signs it no rights are violated.

What makes you say that Columbia is just as vile as Rapture? I'm curious :)

@@gonzophilosophy in my opinion, Columba is actually far worse. Sure, you can blame the time period the game is set in but still. The contrast between BioShock 1 and infinite is extremely fascinating because in the first game we’re entering a city already crumbling around us, we never got to see how it started out or what it looked like before the madness set it, Columbia on the other hand is a lot like rapture in someways, in that its got both poor and rich classes, no real enforced ethics for all peoples, cut throat practices and an “all for one” mentality. The only real difference between to two city’s (other than the location) is that rapture makes public displays of religion illegal and does it’s best to avoid it, where in Columba it’s a fundamental and enforced principle followed by all. Ryan and Comstock couldn’t be any further alike, and that shows in how each man runs their city city. In rapture, everyone is equal (in principle) and how successful you are is completely determined on your own ability and intelligence. Columbia on the other hand makes it very clear that if you ain’t a pure white Christian then you ain’t got any more rights then what they allow you to have. The museum, the auction, the arcade, the slums, the factory, the prison, the tapes… all these locations and things have multiple examples of a race and religious superiority complex fundamentally ingrained into the hearts and minds of Columba’s residents. Comstocks voxaphone recording in the fink prison basically has him stating that it’s the white mans job to lead and teach the “lesser races”, let me reiterate that this guy is THE PROPHET AND LEADER of Columbia. He uses religion to make his followers believe in him absolutely and in the early 1900s a man building a floating city in the sky is gunna be worshipped as a prophet. Ryan on the other hand only ever wanted a place where regular people could be free, from government or religious control, a place where anyone regardless of ethnicity or backround could make it to the top if they were willing to do what was nessecary. Ryan wanted no contact with the outside world and was perfectly content being an isolated city at the bottem of the sea, unfortunately for him he underestimated human greed and what would happen when anything goes in a city with no real ethical business laws. Comstocks plan was always to use his “daughter” and the technology he possessed to initiate a holy war on the rest of the world in a “cleansing fire”. Comstock wanted his religion and his race to be in complete and total control and I genuinely believe he would have tried to take over the world if he had the chance. Ryan was forced to take control when things started going wrong and the city started to suffer, Comstock always wanted control and used the false prophet as a justification for his actions. Both city’s we’re doomed from the start, but only one was made with at least semi decent intentions. So yes, when I hear people say they didn’t like bioshock infinite and they don’t even bring any of this up, it bothers me a little. The game was great and it irks me when no one talks about this stuff of even makes it seem like a negative against the game. Anyway that’s my two cents at least.

@@CrackmiserWell reasoned and articulated. I don't have any strong agreements or disagreements here, except that I think that Columbia is a reproduction of society at that time - that's exactly how things were in the early 20th century minus the flying city and magic vigor tonics. Would you say Rapture represents a better world than ours, if Columbia is our world?

@@gonzophilosophy hmmm, let me put it to you like this. on paper most ideas that we come up with make a lot of sense, communism is the perfect example of this as again on paper It sounds like a great idea, Just like how rapture sounds like a great idea too. The problem however, is when you add in the human element, just like how that’s always been the problem. We fuck things up, we have always fucked things up, and we are going to continue to be our own worst enemy for the rest of time. Rapture sounds like a miracle city that would allow the human race to reach its full potential in terms of creativity, imagination and industrial capacity. The problem is, a man like Frank Fontaine who isn’t even a far fetched character in terms of his believability, is more than capable of ruining the entire plan. I also failed to mention the worst part about rapture, and in my opinion Ryan ‘s biggest mistake. The whole “parasite” thing. That might just be Ryan‘s single greatest mistake, As we all know, people fall on hard times, even in the city like rapture, especially in a city like rapture, and it was inevitable that some people where going to become poor, it was always going to happen. Him telling the people of his city to refer to people who ask for aid as “parasites” aka “not human” creates a world without sympathy or empathy. Frank Fontaine said it best, “You don’t gotta create a city at the bottom of the sea for people to worship you, ya just gotta make them think they’re worth a damn”. I think both rapture and Columbia are fantastic city’s in terms of their intentions and their designs, yet as stated previously, both were doomed to fail, the first becuase of rampant self interest and personal greed, and the latter becuase of racial and religious zelitry.

@@CrackmiserI agree with everything you've said. No notes. :D Though I want to leave you with a little thought experiment. Imagine communism, but with a democracy, not a dictatorship. What happens next?

This is an interesting comment - could you explain why the older form of the idea is (1) still relevant and (2) more relevant than contemporary usages? I'm genuinely interested.

I didn't know about this but that's a really fascinating observation! I agree with your analysis too - Kreia doesn't change or grow throughout - she's enacting her plan. Her centrism is a lie. She's not deluded about it, but she's not interested in having others know it. Some centrists don't fully understand the term though. It's not necessarily closet fascism (it can be) but many are merely conservative who favour the status quo and don't understand the suffering of others.

I think this is a profound and insightful observation which leads me to this question: is abandonment of libertarianism inevitable when a person's loss of power and wealth is coming?

@@gonzophilosophy That temptation will be there for any individual going through that, but the system shouldn't be set up for any particular person's interests.

@@Vic2point0 Ah but isn't libertarianism set up for particular people's interests to begin with? Specifically the already-wealthy and already-powerful? Andrew Ryan needed a system to actualise his desires, which wasn't possible in a society with mandatory public goods and regulation (which both serve to further equality and stability). Libertarianism favours the privileged.

@@gonzophilosophy Not at all. Being free is what allows you to become wealthy (if you're not afraid to work hard). But there are other ways of obtaining/protecting your wealth, such as the authoritarian practices Ryan turned to when he abandoned libertarianism.

@@Vic2point0 I would say that most sources of wealth are sourced from inheritance or originally from violence (e.g. colonialism). There are stand out exceptions who create new technologies, but the vast majority of wealth comes not from freedom but exploitation.

I'm not a professor of anything (I have a doctorate, not a professorship). That said, there's no way for you to verify this without extensive research. Personally I'd rather if you'd judge the quality of the ideas rather than qualifications though, as you can be a professor and still have bad ideas, and you can have no education and be sublime.

The challenge for the jedi is that they wish to make a positive impact on the world and on people but their asceticism is in direct contradiction to that. We can choose to connect or we can detach and become enlightened (in their view), but not both. Engagement requires emotions.

This is a nuanced and charitable take on sith philosophy - one that is fairly compelling. However did you notice that it is still fundamentally selfish and self-serving? It may lead a person to their own desires but provides no path to a better world or to connection to others. I like your interpretation to be sure, but without that foundation in 'how to make a better world', I think it will still not work out (though it will work for longer and less harmfully).

@@gonzophilosophy Very true, the code by itself is selfish and self-serving, tied to how they used power and their view of the Force as a tool to make their will in the more brutish way. In the same way, the Jedi code doesn't speak of make the world a better place or connections to others. If you look at it, both Sith and Jedi could justify even genocide, one by following passion, and the other done it using a course of action while dettaching themself emotionally from the action. No, if you want a more holistic old Jedi code described in Legend during the time of the Old Sith Wars Emotion, yet peace. Ignorance, yet knowledge. Passion, yet serenity. Chaos, yet harmony. Death, yet the Force.

This is absolutely true. It's less likely with jedi given their culture but it's still a possible way to view it.

This is an awesome take and I would want to watch your version of this in more detail if you made one :D

Thanks for doing your chores!

I would love an example of a single libertarian society that operated well for any period of time. I'm quite happy to adjust my view if there is a notable example of it working, as to my mind libertarianism is a philosophy designed by tyrants to convince moderates to allow tyranny.

@gonzophilosophy While hundreds of socialist governments have collapsed and not a single one succeeded, libertarianism has not been given one chance. Argentina seems the first one to try and no doubt there will be issues, recovering from decades of destruction from socialism. If experience cannot help, then logic can. There is a contradiction in your fear. Tyrants are by definition not libertarian since they don't respect the sovereignty and freedom of others. Libertarianism does not give room to tyrants: it simply does not allow the state to become as large to be able to oppress freedom. Corporate tyranny is not given free reign either, since employees can organize and the small government or organisations that exist protect the free market and the consumer against threats like cartels and pollution. Bitcoin is proof these systems can exist. No one controls or owns it. People are slowly waking up and are fed up with government tyrants as well as corporate giants that enjoy unfair benefits thanks to the government: lower taxes than small companies, regulation in their favor, lobbyism as well as better ways to protect their wealth from inflation and low interest rates caused by the centralized gov controlled bank.

@@gonzophilosophy America during the 19th and 20th century was libertarian. If you're looking for current governments, Fiji, Cook Islands, Argentina(recently), and most polynesian countries are currently libertarian. This is because the country is too small that a big government is unnecessary. This is also the reason most of these countries are rich and are resorts for the rich.

@@FlorisDVijfde I'm sorry I must have missed it - what was the example of libertarian government?

@@carlsonraywithers3368 I actually really love this idea that the best example of the libertarian government is the US in the 19th and 20th centuries, because this means that libertarianism caused the greatest Depression the world has ever seen.

This was something I'd never considered and it raises interesting questions. However, my knowledge of botany is limited. I wonder how long the nutrients would last in the soil? How many bodies are needed to fertilise the soil over time? Your scenario is plausible but also contingent on the soil exhausting the nutrients fast. She might have sustainable fertilising practices.