Maggie's Farm

This single principle defeats any argument the statist raises. The statist imposes force. The statist has no right to impose force, not least because force is intolerance.

All ethics hew to this abstract in one way or another. Either life is individual and responsible, or life is force(d) and dependent and irresponsible.

Naturally, the greatest impediment to deploying and redeploying this essential principle as a robust, ongoing foundation isn't the minority, psychotic, "progressive" left.

It's the statist rightist and his bizarre dependence on stacks and heaps of force, just force he approves of, virtually all of which originated on the left.

Beware of the well, I think we should, or the well, what we need is rightist. He's a progressive and as a progressive, is completely intolerant of your pointing that statist progressivism out.

^ People, here the site robot appears to bait by reframing a principle it apparently cannot grasp. Of all the possible replies, note specifically what the Z-bot(s) selects and ask yourself why this.

What the Z-bot(s) may not grasp - for robots needn't necessarily have either abstract reason or a requirement for abstract or honorable truth programmed into them - is the principle embedded in the Enlightenment.

The fundamental principle of a man or a people presumed to posses an upward trajectory on any and all levels is the virtue of honesty, tolerance, and accountability. When these qualities are presumed to be present - which happen to far more fully describe tolerance than modern culture's empty co-opting of the phrase - then all a people need is the enshrined historical phrase, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Which reads simply, you may not kill, you may not steal, and you may not defraud, interfere, assault, or damage. From there we need only a just structural justice system to meet out the will of the jury of like-minded peers, it and they both operating as honorable men and women within this understood, agreed, contractual structural principle.

Of course you normal people already understand. Robots cannot. Robots can, however, run baiting routines in which they are presumed unconscious how they assert a tacit lie by projecting the unpopular term "anarchism". At the same time they probably comprehend neither their own lack of reason pursuant same, but such limits in their programming.

To be fair, one could make a powerful case for ancap anarchistic sensibilities - and one could bring its long and distinguished history as proof of the principle of ancap presumptions and expectations about the quality of the individual man's character - but robots programmed by rank partisanship to see man as a meager, dim, grimy appliance to be subject to tyranny can't really listen, as we all know and have seen literally countless times.

The lie inherent in the robotic, socially-Marxist, rote processor is that not only are there no such abstracts, but when they naturally occur, they must be denied and lied over. It's almost as if the proof for such higher principles as those lies in how automatically reviled they are by those who can't aspire to them. And the last thing they'd do is allow normal human persons to aspire to them in place of them. See history's long list of tyrants.

This robots call tolerance.

^ Here, people, we clearly see the robot's programmed limits: Never content to stand pat on previous output - strawmanning, framing, whatever - it always has that well-oiled routine ready to run again when any subsequent opportunity presents itself. This is why you don't argue with it. It cannot know.

The robot insists on reusing its own narrow definition to devolve the short narrative on real human nature (that it must find incomprehensible) into something it never was or could be. Note the robotic catch phrases, none of which have anything to do with whether real human meat people can be expected to operate on some better, autonomous, civil plane when they choose to.

Note too the 'bot's blindly trudging right past such a sensibility into the only one it was ever programmed to recite, by-rote and unthinkingly: You cannot possibly have order, comes the machine reply, without someone not the Ordered to impose it. Conversely, the programmed response believes the Orderer must, by logic, then not be human. After all, in the completely human construct, humans are ordered if order is to exist. Such a paradox this is, especially for the 'bot given to no known beliefs in transcendence of higher levels of thought and reason.

But where, a normal individual human meat person actor then naturally asks in his unique abstract accountable way, does this order come from, Mister Robot? Aha. From nowhere, the robot queries itself finding only endless looping illogic in vacuum.

It's a spectacular admission, that, as is the conundrum that stems from it, but as warned, this is robot language we're dealing with and as such it cannot be held to our higher standard, a standard that exists, as I strongly alluded above, as its own abstract, principle, or ideal. I.e., as a self-evident, human abstract, an abstract borne of will and intent and striving and contract and not silicon and wiring.

It's what the rest of us know, for example, as a family. Or a church. A community. Or even a nation expressly established and designed to mimic them. Mind blown!

But the robot knows only the dingy greyness of it's programmer's limitations. There there can never be contract, principle, or justice to a robot (even when linked directly to historical examples of it!). The robot lives in some Philip Dickian nightmare, never knowing it does and resisting all options to escape the matrix.