Cultural practices and liberties that should never be controlled or restricted by any authority

[ADFSDF1996]

As you all know I frequently criticize proto totalitarianism. The moment any type of authoritarian figure tries to restrict certain aspects of a person’s liberties, is the moment you know said authority is tyrannical and cannot be trusted. Just cause you find something “offensive” or you think something is against your personal values is no excuse for you to infringe upon other people rights and liberties. Here are things that should never be restricted or controlled by any authority.

1.) Freedom of entertainment and arts: People highly value entertainment, it’s what where we all go to when we have free time. Whether it be listening to music, drawing, painting, crafting, watching motion pictures(movies, tv shows), watching plays, playing video games etc. We all have different tastes in what we like and don’t like. Trying to censor Entertainment and art you personally don’t like is infringing on a person’s right to freedom of expression. We always hear politicians trying to ban “violent video games” because they assume it’s associated with crime but such an argument had many holes in it. Also in recent years we’ve also noticed video hosting sites removing “offensive” songs, which is digital censorship. Political censorship of entertainment and arts is a proto totalitarian tactic aimed at indoctrination.

what video games I choose to play is only of my concern. You don’t like what video games I play then too bad

2.) Freedom to wear what you want: We all have different tastes in clothing, some prefer casual, others prefer more fancy clothing and so on. Trying to restrict what a person can wear is infringing on a person’s right to freedom of expression. What a person chooses to wear does not affect you in any way. If I want to wear a pair of black tapered twill pants more power to me, if I want to wear a nice sports coa, more power to me and so on. Restricting a person’s wardrobe to fit your “ideals” is totalitarian in nature and infringes on a person’s freedom of expression.

Yes I dress to impress and I have every right and liberty to do so.

3.) Freedom of diet: What a person chooses to eat is none of your business. If I choose to eat New York steaks, I don’t need any vegan or vegetarian zealots trying to eliminate meat from my diet. You want people to stop eating meat then the burden falls upon you anti carnivore folks to find a way to make lab grown meat that is safe to eat and is an exact copy of the meat you find at the supermarket. The impossible whopper is a start but you’ll have to do better than that.

I eat and drink what I want whenever I’m hungry

4.) Freedom of fitness and athletics: In recent years there has been a growing trend of fit shaming as a result of the so called “body acceptance” movement. A person has every right to take care of their body and that includes physical fitness. It’s nobodies business to regulate a the way a person chooses to exercise. You have issues with people wanting to improve their physical attributes then don’t work out, be a couch potato all you want but remember that you hold no authority over a person who chooses to exercise. Likewise a person had the right to participate in any kind of sport he or she wants, it’s nobodies business what kind of sport a person chooses to compete in. If a person wants to compete in the absolute division of Brazilian jiu-jitsu then there should be no barriers preventing them from doing so.

I work out how I want, whenever I want to work out and nobody can dictate it.

5.) Freedom from medical malpractice: Medical malpractice is a very broad concept that affects many people in many ways. From incompetent, partisan and crooked psychiatrists misdiagnosing you, to medical procedures like 5150 holds wrongly used against a person. The list of medical malpractice goes on and on. Unfortunately most people put too much faith in a system and assume that just because a group of people call themselves “professionals” that they are always right. But in reality that’s not the case.

6.) Freedom of marriage: A person should have the right to marry whoever they want to marry as long as both individuals are consenting adults and are not related. The people shall have the right to have kind of marriage, marry whenever and whenever they want. We currently have extremists who seem to have forgotten that freedom of marriage goes both ways, just cause you have the right to marry the same sex does not give you the right try and regulate straight marriage. A person should never be forced to marry someone they don’t want to marry and shouldn’t be prohibitive from marrying two people from marrying each other.

flag of heterosexuality

7.) Sexual freedom: As long as the sexual activity is between consenting non related adults and no maiming is happening in the process, it’s nobody’s business who a person chooses to engage in sexual activities with or what weird kinks the person is into. A person also has the right to refuse to take part in any sexual activity with anyone. If a person is straight, you can’t force that person to engage in sexual activity with the same sex. Currently straight men are being attacked by the proto totalitarian group think of the radicals within the social liberal movement. Sexual freedom goes both ways and so there must be mutual respect between straight people and lgbt people.

I am a straight man and I have a kink for women’s navels and there’s nothing wrong with that

8.) Freedom of movement: People should not be restricted from traveling to different cities, states or even countries unless it’s to protect a person from a danger(war, disease or chaos of any kind). Many totalitarian regimes prevent people from leaving their countries in an effort to keep the citizens indoctrinated or revealing the truth.

9.)Freedom of thought and speech: Thought crime is one of the worst kinds of totalitarian censorship because people can be arrested for even the most trivial suspicion. It prohibits many kinds of freedoms such as free speech and expression, which eventually leads to group think. Now of course it’s not acceptable to yell “fire!” in a movie theater but simply expressing unpopular views shouldn’t be a crime because “die gedanken sind frei”(thoughts are free) for now at least.

10.) Freedom of personal defense: A person shall always be allowed to defend themselves and their loved ones from any unprovoked physical aggression from violent criminals(burglars, home invaders, muggers etc) And as such, a citizen should be allowed to legally purchase self defense equipment and practice martial arts.

A person has the right to protect themselves and their family from any danger.

11.) Protection from cruel punishments: There’s a reason why we have the 8th amendment here in the US, it’s too keep authoritarian figures from enforcing cruel punishments on people suspected of breaking the law. Totalitarian regimes don’t have such a law, which is why many prisoners in those countries are subject to torture. Torture is an unacceptable practice that has no place in the civilized world. It can also be argued that the death penalty is a violation of the 8th amendment, which is there are many efforts being made to abolish the death penalty in every state here in the US.

We are civilized not barbaric

12.) Freedom from fear and persecution: Citizens should never fear abuse from any authority and people should not be afraid to openly express their political views. It’s one thing to criticize controversial speech but resorting to harassment, intimidation or any attempt to censor a person is proto totalitarian and immoral. If you disagree with someone, then debate the person, don’t try to intimidate them into silence. Furthermore citizens should never have to sleep with one eye open each night, which is why there must always be reasonably large and competent police forces to keep cities as safe as possible.

13.) Freedom of religion: What a person chooses to believe in is nobody’s business, it doesn’t concern anyone except the person who practices said religion. So long as person isn’t using their religion to infringe on others rights, no authority has any right to intrude on said religion.

Who or what I choose to worship is no one of your concern

14.) Freedom of individuality: A person should never be forced to conform to any groupthink or trend. As long as a person intruding on someone else’s rights and liberties, each person should never be prevented from being themselves.

The group think

16.) Protection of cultural and historic significance: For some unknown reason, radical left wing groups have a problem with history. There’s always cases of said group going around vandalizing and damaging historic monuments and trying to destroy tradition. This is proto totalitarian and echoes the mao regime which destroyed so many items of Chinese cultural and historic significance. Trying to erase history is a regressive action that can lead people to repeat errors of the past as a result of those lessons being purged. Which is why cultural and historic aspects must be preserved.

“Herr Heiler” and Adolf Hitler side by side

17.) Protection from right and liberty infringement: And last but not least, no authority shall ever intrude on a person’s rights or liberties. When a authority tries to modify a right or liberty to decrease it’s power, that is infringement of a person’s rights and liberties. The only modifications should additions that offer more protection the citizens.

Secret police are a no no in a free society

Conclusion: I write this because as an American I still have the right to free speech via the first amendment. We currently have many proto totalitarian group think movements who try to infringe on people’s liberties and rights. As we are currently dealing with what seems to be a Biblical tribulation phase, we can only hope and pray that things don’t escalate to the point of anarchy and subsequent totalitarianism.

good advice

[Lliam]

I agree with all of your points.
One major thing that bothers me these days is the way private companies like Google and Facebook censor information. They are like mainstream media in promoting the official narrative and preventing people from hearing/reading alternate points of view. Those companies get around the bill of rights by claiming that they can set their own rules and standards. In reality, they are doing the bidding of governments. And without overtly restricting constitutional guarantees, itself, the U. S. government uses private corporations to do it.

Something you didn't mention is the basic liberty of being able to go about your personal business. Today, monitoring of our every word, movement and activity is standard. We don't even have privacy in our own homes. It's a totalitarian's wet dream. Nazi Germany or Communist East Germany would have loved to have such Orwellian control.

[MackToday]

Librarian arguments , I'm in agreement with most of them, not the right to wear anything you want though, there is such a thing as public decorum and breaching the peace. We all have a responsibility to keep the fragile civilization that enables our survival in tact. It's bad enough so many people look so slouchy and unkempt but we have freaks running around in women's clothing as well. I don't agree that you can marry anyone you want either, marriage is clearly between a man and a woman anything else is utter nihilism and chaos and should never be tolerated or we will not have a civilization anymore.

[AlexanderBrunnrgaard]

A good mytake and insight into the classical American-libertarian fundamentals. As a Conservative Swede my political adherence falls into the authoritarian right. But I agree with most points here, I mostly have some inferences to make on a number of them:

6, This also includes freedom for the clergy to refuse to wed a gay or the like couple, even though some liberal churches have emerged as of late, the Christian faith is clearly against homosexuality as sin per the Bible and does make up 2 billion of the world's population, and those who embrace liberal views on marriage are a considerable minority. We've had a few cases here in Sweden where a priest was compelled, either directly by the state or in court I do not recall, to wed a gay couple and certain political moves to force the priesthood by law to perform ceremonies for all sexualities. This of course is a clear violation of freedom of religion.

8, I agree, but I do not believe however, that you have the inherent right to travel anywhere you want. The world consists of nations and nations have sovereignty and a right to domain over their territories. So, barring your people from leaving the country infringes on the individual freedom, but barring entrance into a certain country for whatever reason does not.

11, It might sometimes be a challenge to define cruelty. The enforcing side can limit the definition too much to suit their needs, the general public can be far too liberal on what constitutes cruelty to suit their needs. But as long as an apt

16, Again, an important matter of definition to me as to what those rights and liberties are. I value law and order, and have too often seen, "liberties and rights" invoked in absurdum to wriggle out of judicial matters. Some countries such as the UK, have far too generous laws on rights from the law as I see it, which slows the entire network, hinders due process, renders law enforcement too often incapacitated to action and allows for loopholes in justice.

[opnbuk59]

I agree that any person on this Earth has a right to love their life as they choose as long as they are sane mentally competent, but with that freedom conco responsibility, you can't just go do as you please, dresse as you pleaseYou must have respect for others you can't go walking around wearing indecent clothing in public walk around brandishing weapons openly in public laws are put there so we can have order decency in public and not wake around cursing and offending anyone not all laws are perfect and as mature adults we should know howhow carry ourselves behave towards each other, I hear people talk if our rights are being taken away what rights is that you can travel anywhere freely in this countryYou can voice your opinion freely you may not realize it but you have it so dada good here and don't even know it but you take your freedom for granted in this country spoiled why do you think people around the world is dying to get here the best country on Earth your living in and instead of appreciating where you are what you have and enjoying it it's not good enough for you so you look for flaws instead of making your system better you divide and during yourself with like minded people trying to undermine sabotage your item way io life, in all of history never has there beena not robust giving caring open society people like Americans but your so self destructive spoiled makes no sense you are the last bacon io hope for rest of the world once the light of freedom is out then you will truly know what it is to be oppressed, hopefully with the billions tens of billions of habitable planets being discovered they day they may come when you can have one all to your self and do as you please, it' will surely truly bebe yo world,

[ADFSDF1996]

1.) Telling people what to wear is pretty much totalitarianism, of course you can’t go around walking naked but telling people to conform to a certain fashion ruins true diversity.

2.) open carry laws exist, so that’s a null point

3.)”offensive” language still counts as free speech. Calling something “offensive” just cause you disagree with it doesn’t mean it’s actually offensive.

4.) Censorship already exists, you’ve got people losing their jobs just because they make a controversial political opinion, where’s the free speech?

[DanoMR98]

I'm going to show my hand a little bit here, I'm a democratic socialist. I think we actually have a lot to agree on. I'm going to respond to each number by number:

1. I agree with this, I think you have to give credit to the left and liberals though, because the main enemies of censorship were for the longest time nationalists and the "Moral Majority" of the 80's-aughts.
2. 100% in agreement. Dress as subversively as you'd like, I know I do.
3. I'm a vegetarian, and I do not seek to foist my own way of life onto others. I think that regulations to make sure our citizens aren't always eating garbage is good. For the govt to tell manufacturers that food needs to be less junky is a good thing, and often protects our least fortunate who might be in food deserts or find unhealthy food most accessible. I don't want to ban soda, but I think mandating that it be made healthier at a structural level can solve problems that are at their nature structural.
4. I don't see this one as controversial.
5. See, here you are sort of coming into my camp. I totally agree with this one. This isn't a very libertarian idea (although from your profile pic I might guess you're a left-liberal of some kind).
6 & 7. I agree with on a baseline, but I think that you're focusing on some very marginal people. There are many straight people who want to control queer people's lives, and very, very, very few cases the other way around.
8. Hmmm, this one's complex. I don't know if I agree with total freedom of movement, but I believe that labor should be as free as capital to move.
9. I agree entirely.

[DanoMR98]

10. I agree in abstract, but usually when there are controversial cases that come up there is a lot of nuance and I think it's wise to investigate that nuance. I do not necessarily support "stand your ground".
11, 12, 13, 14. I agree, no further comment.
15. (there was no 15)
16. I don't believe in erasing history and keeping it a secret, but there are appropriate settings for the usual suspects of this issue. Confederate statues belong in a museum, not on public property. Germany did not erase all evidence of Hitler. In fact, Germans learn quite a bit about that time and how not to repeat it.
17. I don't necessarily agree with this. Our definition of freedom changes a lot over time. At the founding of our country, freedom was about the freedom to own slaves. Now it's about the freedom to not be enslaved. Our laws and standards should reflect the society we grow into and not necessarily the one it grew from.

[DanoMR98]

Oops, I think I accidentally had a typo here. In point one I meant that the main proponents of censorship were the nationalists and the Moral Majority; and the enemies of censorship were leftists -- like Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn.

[DeeDeeDeVour]

The authorities who hope to control or restrict ALL of those practices are living in a dangerous dreamworld also known as communism.

[RickPen]

Some caveats I can think of;

Malpractice is a very real thing, and having been the recipient of it, and the lifelong damage it causes, doctors *should* be held to the highest ethics possible, due to the nature of their work. For-profit medicine seems to be an issue, where bureaucracy means more than the life.

Regarding religious freedom - this is mostly true in America, except that a couple infringe on a male's right to bodily autonomy. How do we reconcile male genital cutting, as it's been done for many years, and is still popular in the USA?

Protection from rights infringement is a good idea, but in this country it also extends to corporations, which have vast amounts of power (due to capital).

[Deathraider]

I think people should have these freedoms. One of the things I have been looking into is obscenity laws. I think they shouldn’t be a thing.

For one, the definition using the Miller test is so vague as it relies on asking what a hypothetical “average person” would find to appeal to “prurient interest”. Furthermore, the third prong is troublesome as it says the work has to lack “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value”. How would one determine what lacks literary or artistic value? Obscenity should be allowed. That includes animal and child pornography (no matter how much it disgust people) as so long as in its production, no actual child or animals were used.

I subscribe to John Stuart Mill idea of free speech, and one of the arguments, which you should’ve put up there, was the idea that in a society that promotes rational thinking, any speech should be allowed as so long as it doesn’t cause direct harm.

[SuccessfulHornDog]

I agree with much of what you say in principle but people need to remember that total freedom = anarchy and that is not what most freedom lovers are really looking for

True freedom is always a balancing act between the individual and the group.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

Look how proto-totalitarian the crow and magpies are being; blatantly forcing their view of what is and isn't acceptable to eat on the sparrowhawk. Seriously, if they think eating jackdaws is so wrong, then they just shouldn't eat them.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/sJBIMwHDjXE

[ADFSDF1996]

[Smegskull]

1) Entertainment consumes resource without productive output. It purely serves us as individuals not humanity as a species and we are mortal and the species isn't so entertainment should not only be restricted but outright eliminated to prevent it distracting us.

[Smegskull]

2) what you want is irrelevant to the species. What enables you to best be a productive member of society is all that matters.

[Smegskull]

3 ) see above. Also consider that if you're diet does not maintain your most productive self there is a chance that not only are you suboptimaly productive but you also become a burden on others, reducing their productivity.

[Smegskull]

4) same as 3

[Smegskull]

5) is a consequence of freedom within the medical profession. Statement paradox (essentially "freedom from other's freedom")

[Smegskull]

6) ignoring the word marriage as it is religion specific. Any partnership chosen may result in suboptimal genetic compatibility and thus less potentially productive children.

[Smegskull]

7) movement once placed in the best location to be productive must be limited to only locations of equal productivity.

[Smegskull]

7-8 swapped 8) for reproductive sex see 6. For non reproductive sex see 1.

[Smegskull]

9) there is no practical way to prevent distracting taught. Speech that isn't useful in furthering the species wastes time and creates distracting thoughts in others reducing their productivity.

[Smegskull]

10) similar to 5 this freedom exists as a necessary countermeasure to other unwarranted freedoms.

[Smegskull]

11) a consequence of freedoms that allow punishable action.

[Smegskull]

12) fear is a thought so is paradoxical to 9's proposed freedom of thought. Persecution can be a form of speech also paradoxical to 9.

[Smegskull]

13) see 9.

[Smegskull]

14) The human species cannot afford any individuals acting in any interest other than that of the species it's. The species best and therefore only use for such individuals is food stock.

[Smegskull]

16) history distracts from the future.

[Smegskull]

17) rights are an illusion due to rebellion against the species. We are servants to the species, see 14.

[ADFSDF1996]

Go move to North Korea then.

[Smegskull]

North Korea is exploited to benefit one person not the species... What a terrible parallel.

[ADFSDF1996]

@Smegskull

1.) No it doesn’t, a person choosing to play and instrument doesn’t consume any resources at all.

2.) Collectivism doesn’t work, just ask the Soviet how that turned out for them. Collectivism is prone to revolt

3.) Keeping your people malnourished decreases moral. Depriving people of their necessary nutrients decreases production, just ask the North Koreans

4.) A person needs to be strong to be productive, only a idiotic government would prevent people from exercising

5.) There is no freedom within medical profession but rather corrupt professionals violating rules

6.) Eugenics don’t work, it’s pseudoscience

7.) Productivity means many things, narrowing it down to one thing is an oversimplification

8.) Every person has sexual feelings, yet most people aren’t distracted by said feelings.

9.) So you want a nation of sheep and ignoramuses who can’t think for themselves

10.) Breaking the law isn’t a freedom

11.) Read number 10

12.) Persecution is an infringement of a person’s rights.

13.) What a person chooses to worship within their home has no effect on the outside world.

14.) read number 2

16.) History people like you from taking power

17.) Pseudoscience, even the wildest of animals respect boundaries.

You need to get a proper education, your beliefs are totalitarian in nature. You only say that because you assume that in such a dystopian scenario you’d be the one in charge. I can guarantee you that if you weren’t the one in charge in such a scenario you wouldn’t be singing that same tune.

[Smegskull]

1) time is a resource.
2) servitude is not collectivism
3) precisely the correct amount of nourished is not malnourished
4) depends on what task the worker is assigned
5) it's a private sector, of course there is freedom
6) yes they do look at any work animal or any GMO research
7) depends on the timescale, many other definitions become moot on a species evolution scale
8) your consciousness may not be distracted but you biology is
9) I don't want anything this is a philosophical thought experiment though for sake of argument I would phrase it drones and workers
10) the law is the list of restrictions on freedom
11) same
12) rights are an infringement on nature's process
13) see 1
16) I don't want power. My hypothetical involves handing power to a machine learning AI (which is basically what evolution is)
17) the most successful known species are bacteria, viruses and insects which don't

Again not my beliefs just a thought experiment to show your beliefs are routed in feeling not cold, efficient, fact.

[ADFSDF1996]

1.) How a person chooses to spend their free is irrelevant to production
2.) Servitude equals slavery, and the masters benefit more than the servants.
3.) Each person requires different amounts.
4.) Each person has different physical abilities
5.) They still must abide by the law
6.) Mass Eugenics lead to extinction. Cloned crops are susceptible to being wiped out by a plague.
7.) Productivity Varies from person to person, not all people have the same job.
8.) Your sexuality is controlled from your consciousness
9.) That’s a sugarcoated way of saying indoctrinated sheep.
10.) The law is to keep order and prevent anarchy.
12.) Nature itself isn’t sentient like a God
13.) That’s were free time comes in
16.) AI control is prone to tyranny and corruption
17.) Such life forms operate on lower intelligence and awareness who can’t think for themselves

If it’s a thought experiment then you should have said so in your original comment. But it’s an interesting thought experiment that resembles 1984 by George Orwell.

[Smegskull]

1) free time implies freedom. There is working time or sleeping time (anything else is a waste of time).
2) true and intended, the master is the species not an individual.
3) yes, medically calculated ideal quantities are assigned to each drone.
4) yes, all abilities are measured when selecting a task to assign each drone.
5) if law exists they are not free.
6) cloning is not the same as intelligent selective breeding.
7) looking too small scale. Think million years.
8) it isn't. if it was, is that an argument for gay cure therapy?
9) so? The sheep do not matter, the wool does.
10) servitude does it better.
12) it doesn't need to be.
13) see 1.
16) based on what? (Sci-Fi is not history)
17) correct hence why thinking for oneself is an indulgence the species shall expunge.

Wouldn't have gotten a genuine response.

[ADFSDF1996]

1.) Without free time, the citizens will become jittery, unproductive and defiant.
2.) Such a scenario can’t work, wrong species.
3,4.) Talk about wasting time by calculating the needs of each citizen
5.) Anarchy isn’t freedom, it’s disorder
6.) Cloning is the future of selective breeding. And even without cloning selective breeding is prone to failure since the offspring can get the recessive genes
7.) Irrelevant to how a person spends their free time or jobs that require constant movement
8.) Faulty comparison and irrelevant. People engage in sexual activity because their minds send a signal to their genitals. People also can control their sexual behavior and only have sex when it’s appropriate
9.) The human sheep matter, except they stop becoming sheep and become revolutionaries when they realize they are being treated as livestock rather than human beings
10.) Servitude is tyranny
12.) Then why treat it like it is?
13.) Even the most oppressive regimes give it’s citizens free time.
16.) How about AI that already exists which wants to put humans in zoos?
17.) You can’t expunge human nature.

Well, the cat’s out of the bag now.

[Smegskull]

1) You'd be surprised what can be behaviourally conditioned into a population. Especially when the alternative is extinction
2) see 1
3/4) not if you're gene is mapped and your lifestyle and diet have been controlled from birth
5) anarchy is a choice, choice is a consequence of freedom
6) not with controlled chromosome selection
7) the task and time are relevant, it is the person that is irrelevant
8) ah, you mean libido not sexuality. No it isn't. It's an impulse/reflex/desire. You can no more control it than you can hunger or tiredness. You can choose when you act on it but not when you feel it
9) see 1
10) and yet our houses are full of items that exist to serve us
12) like an algorithm?
13) and that is justification for free time because?
16) there is no AI that exists, there are cheats that work in vacuums but not in general (similar to quantum mechanics not working with relativity)
17) no but you can remanufacture it

You are welcome to stop and go back to the droll political bipartisan bickering

[ADFSDF1996]

1,2) You can’t indoctrinate everyone, there will be those who see through the BS
3.) You can’t keep track of everyone who is born, especially those born off grid.
5.) Anarchy is the result of societal collapse
6.) Disease will wipe out the population.
7.) Without the person there is no task
8.) Feeling the urge but controlling it is all that matters
9.) Same
10.) Public ownership of means of production doesn’t work
12.) Nature isn’t an algorithm
13.) Because free time is necessary to keep the human from becoming weary.
16.) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UIWWLg4wLEY
17.) That can lead to a whole bunch of other problems including rebellion.

[Smegskull]

1,2) for those who don't/can't contribute there is recycling.
3) you can if you are controlling who has kids and when they have them.
5) societal collapse is only possible with the freedom to choose it.
6) that's a possibility regardless.
7) with A person, not THE person.
8) controlling it is mental energy wasted, not feeling it in the first place is more efficient long term.
10) what has that got to do with anything?
12) yes it is. The entire universe is a damn algorithm.
13) free time is new, industrial revolution new.
16) "looks up database" oops cheating, not an AI.
17) rebellion requires freedom to organise.

[ADFSDF1996]

1.) It doesn’t matter how many you weed out, there will always be red pills/black sheep
3.) Impossible to do.
5.) You don’t choose societal collapse it just happens as a result of failures in the system
6.) Diversity offers resistance
7.) Same thing “A” vs “the” are abstract concepts
8.) Controlling it doesn’t waste “mental energy” it’s instinct and auto pilot
10.) You are implying public ownership of means of production
12.) The idea we are all part of a matrix style virtual reality is an unproven conspiracy theory
13.) Free time has always been a thing
16.) It’s an early prototype of an AI
17.) Even in countries where there isn’t freedom to organize, rebellions still happen.

[Smegskull]

1) ok... And?
3) no it isn't. There are loads of methods to prevent animals breeding.
5) how? Your argument can't be "it just happens"
6) who said the gene pool wouldn't be kept diverse?
7) "A" person is replaceable. "The" person is not.
8) so hot women don't turn heads? The instinct is the urge to mate, not doing so is a conscious effort.
10) if you say so? I don't see how if the public are in service to the species they can own anything.
12) no... that's not how... it's the... The universe is physics, physics is maths. (Atomic states as information is way to complex to explain here)
13) so if it's never not been a thing how do you know it's necessary?
16) very, very, very early and not of a general intelligence
17) I don't think a 1 man rebellion is a threat to such a system.

[ADFSDF1996]

1.) Pointing out discrepancies
3.) The Human species is too evolved to be controlled as a whole
5.) It’s not “just because”, the reasons can vary from pandemics, incompetent governing etc.
6.) In order to breed people to match certain ideals, you’ll have to try to eliminate diversity. Just ask the Nazis.
7.) Human expendability leads to a nation of weakness, just ask the North Koreans
10.) owning means of production doesn’t mean owning personal property. Nonetheless public ownership of means of production leads to corruption
12.) An algorithm implies we are all part of a matrix and have no free will
13.) It’s advancing far faster than we’d like to think
17.) All it takes is one person to inspire others to join a cause.

[Smegskull]

1) it's not a discrepancy. I didn't say the species would ever be finished weeding out the problems. "Killing the runt of the litter" is a constant upkeep but it adds value by removing resource drainage.
3) that's ego talking.
5) that's outside of a societal system anyway. Government is incompetent because of human factors.
6) this isn't matching AN ideal this is matching each person to THEIR ideal based on gene compatibility
7) arbitrary expendability in service of a person with an ego is not similar to general expendability in service of the species (the reason sick and old people look ugly and smell is so they are left to die because evolution has devised mechanisms of expendability... Evolution doesn't give a shit about our morality)
10) corruption requires a leader to become corrupted.
12) no it doesn't... What does... Ok let's simplify your DNA is a code, does that make you a computer?
16) no. I wish it was advancing as fast as some imply but it just isn't close. There are plenty of simulated intelligence programs but artificial intelligence has barely moved in decades.
17) from where? how? They'd have to communicate, gather, something

Note: this is a philosophical conversation not a political one references to Nazis, Korea, etc don't mean anything.

[ADFSDF1996]

1.) It’s a futile effort, eventually the tables will get turned.
2.) Not ego, simple facts.
5.). No government equal chaos/anarchy
6.) Then the selective breeding would be pointless, what you are talking about is human enhancement not eugenics
7.) Old people (80 and above) dying of natural causes is nature’s way of keeping Earth from being overpopulated. What your hypothetical is advocating is the ability to “play God” which would disrupt the natural order.
10.) Your hypothetical can’t exist without an authoritarian leader or regime
12.) I can argue that the universe was designed by a God and said God put the laws of physics to keep things in order but in no way does that correlate to people having to follow a set of rules that an individual person proposed. So even if you want to call the universe an algorithm, humans still have free will. And no humans aren’t machines, they are biological entities.
16.) Artificial intelligence equals simulated intelligence
17.) How do you know they are not communicating?

The Nazis and North Koreans are relevant since the world you are talking about is pretty much a dystopian world run by an artificially intelligent totalitarian regime.

[Smegskull]

1) you think eventually the runt wins? If that was true every species would have tended to extinction not improvement.
2) what? Evolved is a comparitor like intelligent or pretty. It can't be a fact in a vacuum that doesn't make sense.
5) I didn't say no government. I said governments flaws are the humans in them. Just as a child is the last person you'd trust to run a house a human is the last person to be trusted in running a society.
6) it's breeding that is selectively allowed. you brought up eugenics.
7) all medical treatment is playing god and disrupting the natural order. In a few generations it is unlikely women will even be able to give birth without medical assistance thanks to us making relationships political/economical over instinctual/natural.
10) see 5
12) biological entities are machines. Evolution proposed the set of rules, most species follow them pretty well. It is us that arrogantly ignore them and act as if we no better.
16) no. Not at all. I know a few people with doctorates who would be very angry at such an implication.
17) no free time, no interaction, forced language barriers. There's plenty of ways.

An artificially intelligent totalitarian regime is what evolution is.

[ADFSDF1996]

1.) What is considered a runt varies by perspective. Even in a physical fight, there are numerous occasions where the smaller of the two combatants wins. Is the triumphant smaller individual still a “runt”? Big cats are known for taking down animals bigger than themselves, are big cats still considered “runts” compared to their larger prey?
2.) Compare the mind of a human to that of any other species on the planet.
3.) And you’d trust an AI which is prone to being hacked or becoming tyrannical on it’s own?
4.) Eugenics and selective breeding are the same thing
5.) Medical equipment is the equivalent of a gecko regrowing it’s tail, so no it’s not disrupting the natural order of things. Survival instinct is present in every animal, humans included
6.) read number 3
7.) Machines aren’t sentient
8.) Intelligent lifeforms operate on a different level, it doesn’t always mean they are breaking any rules.
9.) I can gather an equal number of doctorates who would disagree with your doctorates
10.) There’s always a way, history has proven it.

A dystopian run by an authoritarian AI is no different than a dictatorship run by a human. In some cases it’s worse because an AI doesn’t have a conscience. The whole idea of an authoritarian AI running the world is null considering that it would be disrupting the natural order. The creation shall never rule the creator.

[Smegskull]

1) true but that is not the trend line and over long periods of time the demographic trends are what matter. The statistics not the individual data points.
2) human minds are nothing special we overestimate ourselves all the time.
3) "prone to being hacked" how can you know something you have never seen is prone to anything?

[Smegskull]

4) semantics
5) we use medical treatment to enable those who would have died of hereditary conditions reach breeding age and pass problems on.
6) same
7) neither are you cells.
8) again ego. And remains to be seen.
9) in the field? Scientists like that who jump to arbitrary conclusions aren't good scientists.
10) history had more limits and less capacity.

When we go against instinct are we not the creation going against the creator?

[ADFSDF1996]

1.) Statistics are merely frosting on the cake.
2.) Can a bear use a computer?
3.) it’s well known that digital technology is prone to hackers
4.) Semantics are debatable
5.) health issues will always be a problem, regardless of genes
6.) read 3 again
7.) Components are not complex lifeforms
8.) Remains to be seen? It’s already self evident.
9.) And you are assuming your doctorates aren’t jumping to arbitrary conclusions?
10.)”Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” That’s why we constantly have new totalitarian regimes rising to power.

Surviving and adapting isn’t going against the natural order of things. Every life form does it.

[strateguy632]

i agree with your list of VERY important freedoms.

[Daniel_Dano]

You know it's starting to happen, they might soon put microchips in everyones body to track them , and monitor their behaviour, the government will force the people to do it but most won't accept and we might see a lot of revolutions.

[grega239]

It's funny how this is happening in the west.

It's also funny how that it's being pushed by people how claim to be pro freedom.

[Massageman]

15 out of 16 work for me. (#15 got lost?)

[Joel876]

Wow... This is gold. I'd vote for you

[9nsane]

I find you super annoying, sorry.

[ADFSDF1996]

@9nsane

You haven’t even been on this site long enough and you are already acting like a smart ass? How can you even find me annoying just based on one post.

[9nsane]

It's just because libertarians tend to be exactly like you are. It's something about the arrogance, the ideological certainty, the lack of intellectual humility that is grating.

[ADFSDF1996]

@9nsane Where did I say I was a libertarian?

[9nsane]

Your entire post is about "freedom" interspersed with bashing the left.

[ADFSDF1996]

@9nsane Libertarians will always be more worthy of respect than you SJW punks.

[ADFSDF1996]

@9nsane What’s wrong with freedom?

[9nsane]

Am not an SJW. Nothing is wrong with freedom except a lot of people don't bother to think about what it means. Take the freedom to smoke tobacco, which a lot of libertarians (often connected to tobacco industry lobbyists) often champion. Basically, their argument is that anyone should be able to lead an unhealthy lifestyle if they want to. This conveniently ignores other citizen's freedom to breathe air that doesn't cause cancer, arguably a more fundamental human need.

Then there is your whole uncompromising free speech stance, which has been an utter disaster online, and led to neo-Nazis gaining unprecedented traction, because guess what: humans respond much more reliably to emotional rhetoric than to reasoned argument.

But who cares about messy, complex reality when you can have your pure ideology of freedom?

[ADFSDF1996]

@9nsane What gives you the right to tell people what they can or can’t do within the comfort of their own homes. It’s not like you can smoke anywhere you want, even in public places there are designated areas for smokers.

It’s common sense, freedom is not the same as anarchy.

[9nsane]

Well, for one thing the fact that many homes are situated in appartment buildings where the smoke reliably finds its way into other people's homes, which is, again, carcinogenic.

[ADFSDF1996]

@9nsane That’s not the way most homes are in the US and even in the apartments it’s prohibited to smoke inside. You have to go outside to smoke.

[9nsane]

Fair enough. Not trying to be a Nazi about it, it's just an example of how superficial the idea of "freedom" can be when applied to the real world.