ConTheStonerLin

Capitalism hurts the poor. This is commonly understood and expressed, mainly by communists, socialists, and other anti-capitalists. Now I would agree with this. But I would also go further. Capitalism is toxic and it destroys everything that it touches. The poor of-course, but also the rich, the capitalists the entrepreneurs and the proprietors. To me communism is not anti-rich it is anti-capitalism. The economic philosophy centered around individual accumulation and distribution of wealth (capitalism), is countered by the economic philosophy centered around the collective accumulation and distribution of wealth (communism). And it should be obvious that an economy for a society (which is a collective) based on individual accumulation and distribution of wealth is deeply flawed, unstable, and a very bad idea. But for who? The working class? The proletariat? The laborers? The proprietors? The entrepreneurs? Well yes, to all. Now maybe your a capitalist or neoliberal, and you don’t t...

                                                    Is it moral to eat meat? Is “factory farming" moral? Are those the same questions? Yes, no, and no. In which order am I answering these questions? In which order do you think I am? Many people would disagree with my answers regardless of the order. When it comes to eating meat, factory farming is always mentioned, as if the same thing. The means of production though are different than the product. “factory farming” is the modern means of production for meat, the product. Lets rethink my first questions. Is it moral to wear Adidas? Is child slavery moral? And, are those the same questions? Veganism is a diet, and lifestyle philosophy. Originally it was about not exploiting animals. ...

Violence never solves anything. That old cliche. Of-course it’s not entirely accurate. History alone should prove that. The revolutionary war, the war of 1812, and the civil war, just to name a few. So why is this said and what does it really mean? Violence never solves anything. I like to say it a different more accurate way; If there is a non-violent solution, that’s always your best one. At-least always better than the violent one. Now how is that different? Because I’m not saying there always is or will be, sometimes the violent solution may be your best bet, but it will never EVER be if there is a non-violent option. In other words if violence is not used as an ABSOLUTE last resort, it is bad. Hatred on the other hand is always bad, although natural and inevitable. Though it is always, and inherently bad, because it actually never solves anything, EVER. Hatred hurts everybody, the hateful, the hated, and even the non-hated/hateful indifferent folk. This emotion can however be...

                                                      When I say Corporatism, what do you think of? You probably think “crony capitalism”. That’s the way it’s used. Used by people who didn't take the time to look up the term, and learn what it actually means. Now I wanna be clear I’m not calling you out just for not looking up the term. I’m calling the people out who throw it around all the time, whilst having no idea what it actually refers to. Corporatism is an organization method that involves experts making decisions in their related fields. The idea is that society will function harmoniously if each group of experts works toward the best, within their field. Much like a Human body (or corpus) which is the root of the te...

                                                    I am a hedonist. But not just a hedonist, I am a presuppositional hedonist. Meaning that I start with the assumption that you, yes you, are a hedonist as well, whether you realize it or not. Hedonism is seeking pleasure as the highest good. If you think you don’t do that, then allow me to convince you. Pleasure is, simply put “feeling good”. The things you like make you feel good (or bring you pleasure). Now think about all the things you like, then tell me whats better. No I do not mean “rank your likes” I mean what is better (or a higher good to you) than EVERYTHING you like? I am essentially talking about “psychological egoism”. It posits that everything we do is driven by self in...

                                                   Mutualism, communism with free markets and fair trade. Because of this it supports alternative currencies, like labor notes, or mutual credit. And is where I believe reasonable “Anarcho-communists” and “Anarcho-capitalists" alike can come together. Pierre Joseph Proudhon, was the first person on record to identify as an “Anarchist” and coiner of the term “Mutualism”. Now “Ancaps” are likely to reject the idea of “public ownership” and “Ancoms” will have their own problems with “alternative currencies”. But if there is any ideology that could be a common ground between Ancaps and Ancoms alike, It’s Mutualism, It’s free market communism. Now I've long thought that the free market is an eco...

                                                    A couple days ago I had a brief exchange on twitter. Somebody asked me how many “Ethno-states” I think there are in the world. I responded saying “I don’t think there are any Ethno-states currently, and that there should not be. Now he responded with a list of countries topped off with a few ad-hominems. But this is not a response to him. That exchange just got me thinking about “Ethno-states” what they are, what they are not, and why there are none left in the world, and why that's good. So I would define an “Ethno-state” as a civil political tool, that involves strictly regulating Ethnicity. Ethnicity is “cultural, heritage”. It is different than race (which is simply heritage). ...