Hypothetical: if there was a system of entrapment where people could only be freed by the use of violence, would it then be acceptable?
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
-
-
-
Are you vegan?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
If you have never read Moldbug, you might enjoy checking it out. https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2007/12/why-i-am-not-libertarian/ … He explicitly theorizes about minimizing violence.
-
“To a formalist, violence always has two prerequisites: tension and ambiguity. Tension exists when more than one party desires some limited good. This is basically always. So the only way to eliminate violence is to eliminate ambiguity”
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
"When my people come to colonize this planet, your name will be on the protected rolls, and you will come to no harm."
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
In my opinion, the mathematics of being a billionaire (in a currency like USD or EUR, not so much if it's Reichsmark) make that kind of fortune inherently violent. You are likely to disagree. Now we both seek minimizing violence. I highly doubt equal results.
-
I also believe there are functionally only two kinds of violence: directly lethal and violence of potentially lethal consequence. The first kind can be avoided, the second can only be limited. It includes "harmless words", since the mind can be broken just like the body.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.