scratch-mark

Forced Sharing is Commie Collectivist Bullshit; Voluntary Sharing is Normal Animal Behavior

Yesterday I popped up this article by Very Bloggy Beth on my Facebook and it seemed to get some interest: Why I Don’t Make My Son Share.

There is a sharing policy at my son’s preschool. It’s a parent-run co-op, so we have to have policies like this so that we will all handle situations relatively the same way. The policy is that a child can keep a toy as long as they want to. If another child wants the toy, they have to wait until the first child is done with it. We’ll even “save” toys for the child if they have to go to the bathroom, go to the snack table, etc. so that it won’t get taken before they’re done. This applies to anything in the yard or school that can be played with, including swings and monkey bars.

At first, it didn’t really occur to me to wonder why this was the policy. I just went with it, because that’s the rule, and it didn’t seem like a big deal to me. The kids all know the rule, so outside of maybe their first two weeks at the school, they don’t throw a giant fit when you tell them, “You can have it when Sally Jo is done.” But lately I’ve been noticing a totally different attitude toward sharing in other places we go, and I’m starting to really know exactly why this is the school’s policy.

You all remember the bullshit:

“It’s Sally Jo’s ‘turn,’ now.”

“You ‘have’ to share.”

“Don’t be ‘stingy.'”

…Et cetera. Continuing:

I don’t agree with the approach of the mothers in either of these situations. I think it does a child a great disservice to teach him that he can have something that someone else has, simply because he wants it. And I can understand the desire to give your children everything they want; we all have it. But it’s a good lesson for you both to learn that this isn’t always possible, and you shouldn’t step all over other people to get these things.

Furthermore, this is not how things work in the real world. In your child’s adult life, he’s going to think he’s owed everything he sees. This is already happening in the next generation. I read a fascinating article about how today’s teens and 20-somethings are expecting raises and promotions at their jobs for reasons like, “I show up every day.”

If you doubt my reasoning, think about your own day-to-day adult life. You wouldn’t cut in front of someone in the grocery checkout line just because you didn’t feel like waiting. And most grown adults wouldn’t take something from someone, like a phone or a pair of sunglasses, just because they wanted to use it. […]

It’s hard, as with so many things about parenthood, but let’s teach our kids how to cope with disappointment, because it happens. And we won’t always be there to fix it for them. Let’s teach them how they can get things they want through diligence, patience, and hard work.

Well, I got a typical commie collectivist in Facebook comments, Jonah Zelinka:

Whenever a kid doesnt want to share, I calmly explain to my daughter than the other kid is a new-aged cheapskate neo-con addicted to objects instead of the need for friendship and things that actually matter.

My daughter shrugs and goes on sharing her stuff.

If you have to teach your kid sharing is wrong, then do we really want this kind of sick society where we cling to pieces of plastic and oil products that we have to war over just to have?

I bet no one is playing with that sorry-ass kid and it is not his fault, it’s his mother’s.

Plus, it wasn’t his car, it was the playground’s. Teaching kids sharing is more important than driving around some plastic piece of shit with your feet, that is not a skill; sharing is.

Did you see what he did, there, in typical commie fucktard lying fashion?

“If you have to teach your kid sharing is wrong…”

…Alright, let me unpack this for any who still don’t get it. Forced sharing is commie, collectivist bullshit and the root of virtually all social problems the world over. The state forces you to share—not your home, car, clothes, TVs, iPads and beds—but it steals 25-50% of your time via your income/productiveness, and shares it with the cannibals.

See, “sharing” is the primary in this kinda sycodouche, rather than it being the natural outgrowth of good will as social animals.

“What have you done for me lately?”

Sharing is sublime, creative, division-of-labor animal behavior and you see it everywhere animals live in social groups. It’s completely natural and is the principle way that any individual learns to become integrated with a group he or she wishes to belong to.

But it is not a primary, and that’s the critical distinction. It’s simply a form of trade: value for value. Forcing kids to share, for the purpose of teaching them to share is merely socialist, commie indoctrination—that their life’s justification is the granting of the arbitrary claims of others. It’s credo? They want it; or, “From each, according to their abilities; to each, according to their ‘needs.'” They’re born with a life mortgage. Original Sin, I guess.

There’re many levels to this mind disease, too. For example: teach them to not be discriminating: it’s better to share your stuff with the kid you hate, rather than the one you love.

The kids will learn to share on their own. They’re social animals, so they must. Not letting it proceed totally naturally—where a kid doesn’t naturally learn for himself that over-sharing and under-sharing have associated social costs—is just typical total commie-sociailist bullshit, fit for for socialist-commie fucktards.

Tell me in comments what are your favorite ways to share. My top 2:

  1. Cooking, thereby creating engaging situations for a few people, be they friends or family.
  2. Writing this blog, 10 years, nearing 4,000 posts and counting (and 85,000 comments).

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More

95 Comments

  1. Dan on June 5, 2014 at 17:30

    Crazy timing once again.
    I was reading this the other day as I am at the age where I am thinking about kids, but am sure as hell I wont make them subjects of the state.

    Read this a week or two ago.

    I have witnessed my niece stand her ground in a playgroup with other kids and have never been prouder.

    Another thing I have observed is that forcing a kid to share is often the best way for all parties to not think their time with a toy is fair.

    Very naturally so.

    • Richard Nikoley on June 5, 2014 at 17:46

      Dan

      I wish to be clearly understood over my schtick vitriol.

      Do you get that I think sharing is grand (that’s why we stupidly try to force it on kinds who are like puppies, and they NEVER share)?

      All social animals learn to share, because they are social animals and sharing is integral. It should take place organically.

      Or, let them feel the social consequences of being too stingy.



    • Dan on June 5, 2014 at 18:05

      Yep I get its about forced sharing.

      I observe this with my 2 (polar opposite) nieces, the closest n=1’s I have.

      1 niece doesn’t do forced sharing very well, and also physically likes to defend her toys, but knows that if she does share she gets to play with others and she makes the decision and controls the outcome – she is 4.

      The other niece has unfortunately learned that forced sharing leads to happy parents/teachers so she does it because she wants the praise but I notice that she is always computing the “fairness” of the sharing eg the other kid got the toy longer, or had it yesterday etc. Keeping track.



    • Matt on June 6, 2014 at 13:51

      Everyone can benefit from coaching.. Parents can provide good coaching by giving the child hints and clues about what works and what doesn’t. And also by letting the child stub their toes.



  2. Gary on June 5, 2014 at 10:11

    thanks for sharing the blog Richard.

    if a baby is *totally* self-centered and selfish at what point do kids naturally start to share with total strangers, possibly with a community remote from their own?

    • Richard Nikoley on June 5, 2014 at 10:14

      Gary:

      When they find that sharing with others delivers social interaction they find valuable, which acts as a reinforcement. At which point, they will go too far, experience disappointment, and self learning takes place.

      doG fucking forbid that anyone gets to learn life on their own, anymore.



  3. Rita Weasel on June 5, 2014 at 10:11

    I would love to share in some sort of creative fashion, but I work in a cubicle. The cubicle environment fosters the opposite of creativity and sharing. It’s so funny to me how all of these “skills” we teach kids in grade school have nothing to do with what their lives are going to be like when they’re 30. I guess the best sharing I can do from 9-5 is to comment on your blog, Richard.

    • Richard Nikoley on June 5, 2014 at 10:59

      Easy, Rita.

      You let ’em take a taste of your double-shot latte. Duh. 🙂



    • Rita Weasel on June 5, 2014 at 11:34

      Ha! It’s funny you should mention that, because every time I’m stirring the potato starch into the kefir yogurt for my daily breakfast, people walk by and say “what the hell is that?”. They *should* take a taste of what I’ve got – I can share my Richard/Tater Breakfast Delight!



    • Mary morrgwyn on June 6, 2014 at 17:47

      Richard I have a seven year old daughter who just had a birthday. She got a fancy dress, light-up wand a tiara. When she heard her friend was coming over to play she decided to tuck her precious gifts away so she didn’t have to share, but, a half hour into play they were all out.



    • Richard Nikoley on June 6, 2014 at 19:29

      Nice, Mary.

      Wow, and you din’t even have to call in a Democrat president of any generation to lecture on the virtue of sacrifice.

      Your seven year old sorted it herself, realizing she had something to trade with for social interaction.



  4. Itchy Wmd on June 5, 2014 at 10:12

    I agree 100%.

    My favorite way to share is also to cook for others. I often hold large barbeques for my co-workers, where I foot the bill for the food and also do all the cooking. Often turns into a gathering that lasts into the wee hours.

    Second way I like to share is to share my labor. I will often help friends and neighbors build a deck, fix a fence, install new shingles, etc. I usually shovel the snow for my neighbors on both sides of me if I get out there before they do.

  5. Steve on June 5, 2014 at 10:26

    “The state forces you to share—not your home, car, clothes, TVs, iPads and beds—but it steals 25-50% of your time via your income/productiveness, and shares it with the cannibals.”

    Did you ever ask to speak with “the state”? Did you ever ask “who is ‘you’?” that’s being required to pay? Did you ever ask what is meant by “pay”, or how you could ever own anything to pay with?

    If not, could it be your assumptions caused what you don’t seem to like, or are you certain someone else is at fault?

    • Richard Nikoley on June 5, 2014 at 11:03

      Steve:

      Just go fuck yourself, fucktard.

      And learn to understand what words mean, fucktard.



    • Bret on June 5, 2014 at 23:51

      Holy shit, Steve. That is about the most nonsensical reply I have ever read. Well done.

      Do yourself a favor and stop trying to be Socrates, or that god damn architect from the Matrix Reloaded. You are really, really, really bad at it, in that you think asking totally irrelevant, abstract, and meaningless questions makes you look witty and smart.

      Now, try to answer like a big boy: Do you deny that government confiscates roughly 25-50% of most citizens’ income? Don’t forget about the payroll tax, state income tax, sales tax, gasoline tax, real estate tax, death/estate tax, and the endless other taxes. If it is your contention that this statement is in fact not true, then we have nothing further to talk about, other than how to get you scheduled for a visit to the psychiatrist for a retardation test.

      Seriously dude, I have seen second-year freshmen in high school synthesize more intelligent remarks than the verbal diarrhea that just came dribbling out of your keyboard. Holy fucking shit.



    • Steve on June 6, 2014 at 09:13

      Could it be the so called government only “confiscates” when someone claims or assumes ownership?

      You mad? If you’re not enjoying the moment, could it be you’re doing something wrong?



    • Richard Nikoley on June 6, 2014 at 10:10

      “Could it be the so called government only “confiscates” when someone claims or assumes ownership?”

      No. Ever heard of a national, State, county park, just for example?

      The State is a dominion. Look it up. They claim ownership of literally everything, and increasingly, of your mind, a domaine previously reserved for religion.

      There’s barely any distinction to make anymore. The State is a religion.



    • Tom Naughton on June 6, 2014 at 12:26

      Steve, don’t file your tax returns for a few years. I promise the state will identify itself to you — without bothering to wonder about the true meaning of the word “you” or asking what your definition of “is” is.

      If you don’t believe in ownership, would you mind posting your home address? I’ll come by and help myself to your car and whatever else you don’t actually own.



    • Richard Nikoley on June 6, 2014 at 12:37

      Tom

      You beat me to it.

      I was going to go all So-Crinton-es on Steve.

      🙂



    • Bret on June 6, 2014 at 20:26

      Silly Tom, don’t you understand that when I own something, it is legitimate, but that when rich people own something, it is pure evil?



    • John on June 7, 2014 at 17:41

      Thanks for sharing Mencken with us, Richard!



    • Steve on June 8, 2014 at 10:54

      What do you mean by your address and your car?

      Are you saying you would rather believe you own 2 or more cars, instead of someone else using 1 of the cars? Ownership seems like a great concept… would you mind explaining it’s benefits in more detail… please?



  6. Ripken Holt on June 5, 2014 at 10:40

    Wow, that’s interesting. I’d never made the connection between making your kids share and Communism. Will have to “share” this with friends!

    • Richard Nikoley on June 5, 2014 at 11:05

      Ripken, it’s force vs. voluntary, the essential difference between communism and freedom. Unless too fucktard to understand.



  7. Jon McRae on June 5, 2014 at 11:34

    I love to cook/BBQ as it brings people together for conversation and the second is to brew beer which also brings people together.

    • Richard Nikoley on June 5, 2014 at 12:54

      Jon,

      My baby bro, now a long haul truck driver crisscrossing the country–40k miles in the last 3 weeks–is a long time brewmaster with his own self-designed stainless rig.

      He can brew any knock-off ale and you can’t tell the difference. He always kegs it, and he also has a ice-box rig with a tap on the front, for the 5-gal soda kegs he uses.

      Every year, he does a 10-gal batch for the annual Hat Creek flying trip. When I go up to fly in the late afternoon, Mike is always there with the keg strapped in my dad’s pickup bed, with lots of the red plastic pint cups to share with everyone flying and watching.



    • Jon McRae on June 5, 2014 at 14:19

      Would love to see a pic of the brew set-up, I have not started to keg yet but having my own 5 gallon batch over a long camping trip sounds nice.



    • Richard Nikoley on June 5, 2014 at 14:30

      I sent Mike the link to the comment and if he has a link to a pic of his rig I’ll post it, lessen he does.

      He bottled when he first got started and it was hit and miss. Some flat, some explosive, some just right. Doing the keg with a big bottle of pressurized CO2 allows you to precisely control the carbonation for every draft.



    • Matt on June 6, 2014 at 13:41

      I’m sure I’ll get an FU for nitpicking.. 40k miles in 3 weeks (=21 days = 504 hours) = 79 mph, non-stop. That’s pretty fast.



    • Richard Nikoley on June 6, 2014 at 14:17

      Matt, there’s a comment update somewhere. He’s doing a 2-man team, so the truck is essentially 24/7.



    • Richard Nikoley on June 6, 2014 at 14:21

      And it may be 30k miles, somewhere in between, ….he told me 30k some days ago, but it’s a lot and they run like crazy.

      One day in south Texas, 2-3 days later in Washington State. Crazy shit.



  8. Joe A on June 5, 2014 at 13:05

    I don’t teach/force my kids to share. No one has a right to their stuff, period. This lesson begins with my stuff…my kids have no “right” to my money, possessions, time, etc. They need to understand, clearly, their place in the family structure. That may sound callous, but in practice it doesn’t have to be…up to the point when they lose that perspective and need to be reminded.

    That said, I also think it is important to teach them how I discern the needs/wants of others and decide to distribute my time, money, pessessions to others. I show them when I think “sharing” may be appropriate and how I come to that conclusion. Sometimes they get it, sometimes not.

    It is rewarding as a parent to see my children think about each other, look out for each other and try to take care of each other, without parental compulsion. It is similarly rewarding to see them stand up for themselves and not allow their syblings to violate what is theirs, even when they must defend what is theirs by force.

    • Richard Nikoley on June 5, 2014 at 13:08

      Joe, so are you saying that you teach them to be discriminating in how, when, to what extent, under what circumstances and in potential exchange for what they trade values under their purview?

      You’re one sick mutherfucker. 🙂



    • gabkad on June 6, 2014 at 09:09

      I guess another expression for all this is ‘respect for boundaries’. No body enjoys having their boundary violated. If that means being forced to share their toys or their money, it’s a boundary violation and goes against the natural state of a person’s sense of themselves.

      The violation of privacy by the state is along the same lines. They violate you by taking your money and they violate you by having the means to snoop into your conversations, emails and comments on this blog.

      I’ll share anything IF I WANT TO. As soon as I’m pressed by someone or anything, I get my back up.



    • Woodchuck Pirate on June 6, 2014 at 09:23

      gabkad,

      In practicing anarcho-capitalism I share voluntary relationships. Statism is not now, has never, and will never be a voluntary relationship. Freedom can not coexist with statism. Neither should it. When you’ve got your back up, you’re resistance is multiplied exponentially in correlation with the leverage committed by statism. Every bit of money you withdraw from statism ripples back in devastating force. The beast is so large that it isn’t perceived so by individual case. The ripple is equivalent in magnitude by the exponential function of deficit spending fiat slavery that the beast collars onto individuals. Strain on the leash, the beast will fall. The easiest to topple will be the NSA. The beast is displaying classic over-compensation behavior, desperation.

      “Behind that locked door, the sleeping dog you beat, I hope I see the day she satisfies her teeth.” – Greg Keelor Blue Rodeo (Fools Like You)

      Woodchuck Pirate
      aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA
      http://www.woodchuckpirate.com



    • Itchy Wmd on June 6, 2014 at 10:47

      A couple years ago I made a list of things I could do to resist the state. Its not at all what most would expect, in fact the list looks more like a guide to simplicity than a call to arms.

      The system is weak indeed when paying down debt, growing your own food, and buying secondhand clothing are revolutionary acts.



    • Woodchuck Pirate on June 6, 2014 at 11:20

      Itchy Wmd,

      Actually implementing simple living strategies is exactly what I would expect to find on your list as they were my first resistance. They are the most important (essential) priorities for resistance. The statist existence finds the ever-increasing consumptive economy as the only acceptable scenario. Individuals benchmarking their individual activities to sustainability are the greatest threat to statism and civilization (which is never sustainable).

      “Use it up, wear it out, or go without” in practice will destroy the state. It’s also perfectly legal.

      Woodchuck Pirate
      aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA
      http://www.woodchuckpirate.com



    • victor on June 6, 2014 at 14:47

      I can imagine our founding fathers screwing around with exactly what you state Woodchuckpirate. I doubt they wanted much to do with city/state and did as much as they could to safeguard against it. I can also imagine them rolling in their collective graves as we devolve.



  9. Jared on June 5, 2014 at 17:00

    I really don’t see this as a big deal either way. Both of the slippery slopes from commie to anti social sound ridiculous to me.

    And I think I’ve brought this up before but equivocating taxes with theft is like equivocating paying a building lease on a building for your business with theft. That building owner probably doesn’t even spend all the money you give him on making YOUR building better for you… Taxes are the cost of doing business in this economy. If you can find a better deal elsewhere you should take it…

    • Richard Nikoley on June 5, 2014 at 17:18

      Jared

      I have zero interest in dealing with a dishonest fucktard who will right in plain sight be such a fucking lying scumbag, that he will NOT address the distinction of force vs voluntary.

      You are dismissed, sir.



    • Jared on June 5, 2014 at 22:29

      I really didn’t think you would reacte like such a simple minded petulant child or I would have never posted.

      I still can’t help but ask though if it’s not a choice, why can you choose another economy to be a part of? Do you not value the economy you participate in? Do you really think it should be free?



    • Bret on June 6, 2014 at 06:17

      “Do you really think it should be free?”

      Question makes no sense, Jared. It is a fallacy to believe that big taxes are necessary for a big economy. Taxes pay for politicians, not economic growth or livelihood.

      Economies work just fine without government intervention in every corner, nook, and cranny. Competition among industry is what best serves consumers by keeping quality high and price low. And that competition has an inverse relationship with almost every government activity, be it spending, regulation, etc.

      It fits people’s intuition to believe that wise government rightly regulates greedy capitalists, but in practice the result is almost the exact opposite. Regulation allows the politically well connected to bully the politically unconnected.

      Lastly, if you think these high taxation rates are ‘paying for’ our economy, then shouldn’t we have an easily balanced budget? I would think so. Instead, we have several hundred billion dollars of annual budget deficit, a total standing national debt of $17 trillion and climbing, and an impending true financial crisis with the baby boomer retirement into Medicare and Social Security–and almost none of our current politicians are even trying to address the problem. They’re just pretending there is no problem, and half of them are saying we need more taxes. Give me a break.

      Read you some articles at Reason.com or the Cato Institute. You’ll see what I mean.



    • Jared on June 6, 2014 at 09:13

      What doesn’t make sense about it?

      I don’t want to talk politics. That’s not what this is about. Of course we can talk about how things can be better. I agree with you completely but to sit around using our monkey words for ‘theft’ and ‘taxes’ and conflating them into the same thing seems incredibly naive. Taxes pay for whatever they pay for. It’s irrelevant if you’re looking at the system holistically (as I believe you should). It’s more fallacious to think pieces can just be taken out and then the same value for everyone will remain. When has that ever been true? You can’t just deconstruct some complex system, take parts out, put other parts in, change the basic nature of human beings, and then expect it to work well. Any complex system is messier than we’d like it to be because our brains cannot grasp the whole thing at once and we don’t individually have the power to change it. But is there value in it for you? That’s the reality.

      More than that though, this is the reality of being a human being. It’s what happens when groups of humans get together. If Richard wants to sit around like a victim, convincing himself that someone is taking something from him of value, by all means. Just don’t expect others to understand something that only works in your mind. He seems to live a rich life and have everything he wants what exactly has been taken from him? Where’s the theft? It seems the cost of doing business has not been prohibitive…

      I like to think of the whole thing as an optimization problem. If you have a local algorithm you can only get so far. That’s what anarchism is right? It is:
      1. probably can never be optimal considering how human beings are made.
      2. it is not stable–otherwise we would see it happen and it would maintain itself among large groups of people.
      3. In this case the optimization seems to be for the complete wrong thing: some abstract philosophical value and not for anything tangible. I really don’t want to buy into any philosophical system that seems to engender such narcissism and boorishness at the cost of being probably cruelly sub-optimal to most people.



    • Richard Nikoley on June 6, 2014 at 10:01

      “but to sit around using our monkey words for ‘theft’ and ‘taxes’ and conflating them into the same thing seems incredibly naive.”

      You ought to look up the “taxation is theft” thread on Usenet, circa ’95ish’.

      I was “Nicholas Rich.”

      You are the naive one, so naive I have zero need or desire to bother with it.



    • Woodchuck Pirate on June 6, 2014 at 10:18

      When an altruist uses the word “naive” it is most often employed as a demand for pragmatism (aversion to principle) because valid philosophy (capable of being practiced to the nth degree) is their greatest fear.

      Altruism practiced to the nth degree results in death. Therefore self-professed altruists must survive by aversion to principle, however temporary as empires fall, and uninvited bullet holes appear as if by magic in the backs of heads. Running out of other people’s money is a concept unstopped by demands (of others) for selflessness.

      Reason is perceived as evil to altruists, as it is component of truth; naivete is their preferred method of posture, to call truth naive.

      Woodchuck Pirate
      aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA
      http://www.woodchuckpirate.com



    • Richard Nikoley on June 6, 2014 at 10:39

      Truth and honesty do have their impracticalities, don’t they, Woodchuck.

      Lying and dishonesty, on the other hand, are totally practical, as there’s no short supply of those actually willing to pay for their consequences.



    • Richard Nikoley on June 6, 2014 at 10:41

      ….and the eternal social antagonism, of course, is who goes into the cannibal pot, and who gets to feast.



    • Woodchuck Pirate on June 6, 2014 at 11:24

      Richard,

      Dio understood it:

      http://youtu.be/ecVMPMA2w1M

      Woodchuck Pirate
      aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA
      http://www.woodchuckpirate.com



    • Woodchuck Pirate on June 6, 2014 at 11:29

      Yes,

      Consciousness always begets recognition of interconnectedness, a conscious person can not initiate force against an individual as they would realize it an attack upon self. Enter the state to bribe the cowardice to negotiate their consciousness lower, to do the dirty work for them, out of sight, literally out of “mind”.

      Woodchuck Pirate
      aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA
      http://www.woodchuckpirate.com



    • victor on June 6, 2014 at 15:16

      Naive is good. I hear a lot of Jared in many college campuses and the reason is certainly naivete. A baby does nothing but demand from parent and the word NO is a very harsh word for someone who feels entitled.



    • Jared on June 6, 2014 at 18:52

      “You ought to look up the “taxation is theft” thread on Usenet, circa ’95ish’.

      I was “Nicholas Rich.””

      So you’re saying you’ve been an ideologue for almost 2 decades now? Is holding an idea for a long time supposed to make it any less naive?

      “You are the naive one, ”

      Good one.

      “so naive I have zero need or desire to bother with it.”

      I understand. I’ve got your number. Your ego couldn’t possibly take the blow that would land if you realized you had wasted the last 20 years playing the part of a victim in your own narcissistic reality. Why even consider that idea? No good could come of it for you… Makes perfect sense. (No sarcasm intended.)



    • Jared on June 6, 2014 at 19:08

      “Naive is good. I hear a lot of Jared in many college campuses and the reason is certainly naivete. A baby does nothing but demand from parent and the word NO is a very harsh word for someone who feels entitled.”

      I can see that you value naivety.

      Isn’t the government more the parent in this scenario, telling you NO, you don’t get to dream up your own little world and then live in it? Welcome to reality Richard’s Sycophants.



    • Woodchuck Pirate on June 6, 2014 at 19:12

      Jared,

      Nobody is ever entitled to socialism. Not even you.

      Woodchuck Pirate

      Misanthropy Pure – by Shai Hulud

      Understood,
      This will read as a plea to vindicate intolerance as surely as it is written.

      Understand,
      Contempt born of clear perception is a birthright to those who channel it toward progression.

      Preserve life without loathing.
      Awaken hope within hatred.
      Wrest insight from outrage.

      This is a birthright and obligation.

      Spiteful and ill-tempered, I know the character well…
      A maelstrom of weakness, and instability seething with viciousness.
      I choose not to accept this;
      Not into my life.
      There is no hope of reform.
      When pride is allied with hostility, all reason is denied.
      I return the denial.

      A glaring misconception of self-importance, I know the character well…
      Heedless fool, so arrogant with no understanding of consequence.
      I see this negligence.
      I choose not to accept it;
      Not into my life.
      Absence of introspection neglects the outer world.
      Let not the excess of lusts and comfort mislead you.
      This world is not yours.

      Feel the quarrel in just his presence, you know the character all too well…
      A destructive man at war with his cowardice.
      I detest belligerence, and choose not to accept it;
      Not into my life.
      Keep separate these hatreds.
      Undefined animosity is a device of the spineless, the means of a fool.
      Focused misanthropy is opposition for these dark hearts-
      Downpours of disapproval no words could begin to express.

      To distort the truth to serve itself,
      To oppose understanding,
      I believe in man.
      Man will maintain its hostility.
      Have this faith.

      Conflict in the chest.
      To be concerned for the needs of such heartless men.

      Woodchuck Pirate
      aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA
      http://www.woodchuckpirate.com



    • Richard Nikoley on June 6, 2014 at 19:19

      Jared

      I was just helping you out.

      I’ve properly understood what plain words and concepts mean for 25 years, and you are a fucktard.

      Incidentally, the tax attorneys eventually agreed with me. In fact, they agreed for the start that it was a corrective taking, but not theft because such is a legal definition. I eventually convinced them by showing anthropological evidence that the concept of theft predates legal definitions.

      You are a bloody fucking fucktard.

      Go the fuck away, moron. You are a poster boy for Dunning-Kruger–to stupid to understand that you’re stupid.

      Now fuck off.



    • Jared on June 6, 2014 at 19:28

      “Consciousness always begets recognition of interconnectedness, a conscious person can not initiate force against an individual as they would realize it an attack upon self. Enter the state to bribe the cowardice to negotiate their consciousness lower, to do the dirty work for them, out of sight, literally out of “mind”.”

      I’ve never had anyone take money from me by force, mindlessly, bribed by the government or otherwise. It’s a completely non-violent interaction that I would like to remain so.

      I choose to let the government take part of my paycheck because I want to get paid. You make the same choice whether you wish it were so or not.

      Maybe you are just seeking pity with your overwrought sense of injustice? I really have none for you. I doubt many people would. You think it’s because they’re bribed, complicit agents in the government’s violent wrestling of YOUR money. I think it’s because they ain’t got time fo yo shit… they probably have real problems…



    • Richard Nikoley on June 6, 2014 at 19:38

      Don’t waste your time, WP. Jared is one of a small collection of “males” I get around here. I explained on FB the other day:

      You know what is the absolutely funniest thing about my fuck you and in your face blogging and tweeting and FBing?


      Women, from college chicks to 70 year olds love me the best. Every single metric I have says that. My top readership is women by 3/1.

      What’s funnier? All the pussies with physical cocks giving me shit about what I say, because they think it’s going to impress someone who has the genital hardware “he” aspires to. And they read my blog instead and love me, instead.

      Activist feminism is a fucktarded problem and most are females. I submit that none of it would be a problem, save for the “males.” (Scare quote, in case you didn’t see it)

      Don’t think for a second Jared isn’t spouting his nonsense to impress females in general.

      Problem is, most females do fine with pussy already.



    • Woodchuck Pirate on June 6, 2014 at 19:41

      Jared,

      I am not an altruist therefore I do not seek your conversion, neither am I vulnerable to conversion.

      Reality is not vulnerable to interpretation. Should you wish to call your membership within the current global Keynesian despotism your voluntary relationship I couldn’t care less. Should you and your ilk attempt to cross my farm to initiate force, you will not make it t’other side. Although my neighbors might cheer for your attempt to make it across, and afford them a chance for your skin.

      Have a very nice evening.

      Woodchuck Pirate
      aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA
      http://www.woodchuckpirate.com



    • Woodchuck Pirate on June 6, 2014 at 20:07

      Richard,

      Thanks for the insight. I’m responding to Jared with minimal effort. The stereotypical posture is amusing, veiled deceit denies credibility to his capacity to believe the pseudo-position offered by his commentary. It’s as if written asleep babbled in a dream, before falling out of bed. It speaks to one who has never lived, and vehemently resents internal and external calls to own up. Sometimes this phenomenon only changes when and if the individual progresses to the parenting stage, whereby they must give up acting the role of perpetual child or suffer unbearable guilt for the demise of their own bloodline. Up until the awakening everything is always someone else’s fault. These dregs gravitate toward church, politics, and any collective ego that affords them someone who will volunteer to be their slave. Jared is a slave who can’t face up to the fact that he’s been bested, but vows to continue competing for position of slave master. His entitlement mentality is enraged by the rejection of his indoctrination. He wonders if this indoctrination is not real, maybe he’s not real? His solution is to force indoctrination upon everyone; enter the perpetual child waiting in line to be proclaimed psychopath in charge.

      I return the denial.

      Woodchuck Pirate
      aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA
      http://www.woodchuckpirate.com



    • Richard Nikoley on June 6, 2014 at 20:07

      “I’ve never had anyone take money from me by force”

      False to fact, fucktard.

      Look up Stockholm Syndrome, lying fucktard.



    • Richard Nikoley on June 6, 2014 at 20:23

      Perhaps, Woodchuck.

      I’ve seen guys like this forever and it’s almost always “guys.”

      I’m convinced they do it because they think it’s what females want to hear. But ironically, even collectivist entitled females often really don’t. Beyond ideology, many females seem to value clear, no-nonsense honesty rather than a guy lying through his teeth that he loves to pay taxes.

      Any female worth a dam in the world will instantly know he’s a pussy boy, lip-service liar.



    • Bret on June 6, 2014 at 20:34

      Re: the Jared post that starts with “What doesn’t make sense about it?”

      Everything, Jared. Folks like you who think there is a magical ‘formula’ to making government function perfectly–and who annoyingly conflate economy with government in general–amaze me. I feel as though I am trying to explain high school physics to a four-year-old.

      The irony is that you are evidently a smart enough guy. But you’re out to lunch on how government works in practice, and on economics in general. Yes, you can remove government meddling, and economic/market systems will get better for everyone involved (except, of course, the rich cronies who were previously benefitting from lack of competition). You just have to stop being so silly and naive that you erroneously think government action is required to make a market work.



  10. phreebie on June 5, 2014 at 17:01

    Yeah but look at how the US needed to teach Iraq to share her oil 😉

    • Richard Nikoley on June 5, 2014 at 17:23

      Phreebie:

      Favorite troll of the day.

      Full disclosure: I was an early supporter of making a real lot of glass. It’s actually on the blog, still. 2003-05.

      I was wrong.



    • Anand Srivastava on June 8, 2014 at 23:48

      Do you think Iraq oil production increased after the war?

      No. The purpose of the attack on Iraq was not to get cheap oil. It was to prevent them from making the oil too cheap. Saddam had started selling its oil in Euros, this was what prompted the attack. US doesn’t want oil that is too cheap. It has something to do with Gold. If the price of gold rises the price of oil must rise. Not getting into the whole theory here, but suffice to say that if you compare the ratio of the price of oil and gold, you will see that they trade in a more or less narrow band.

      After Gold started to rise in value since 2001, it was important to get oil to rise, for this purpose , US started on a mission to destabilize the Middle East. Saudi Arabia has been its’ partner in this war. And it has provided them cheaper oil while allowing the price of oil to rise overall.

      The Shale oil miracle relies on expensive oil. It is very expensive and destructive for the environment.



  11. Nick Lo on June 5, 2014 at 18:58

    What I see here is the use of “a kid”, “a child”, “children” as reference to a generic individual that ignores the diversity of personality types and their potential role in a “tribe”.

    Even “sharing” is a fairly generic term since some individuals will happily share with complete freedom amongst their “tribe”, but will fight against the same from “outsiders”. Others will feel “sharing” to be a broader social responsibility. Others will be quite unwilling to share with anyone and be steadfastly protective.

    To me it is this generic and really, lazy, approach to thinking that is the issue. It ignores nuance and the value of variety of behaviours to a social group. You could call it “Commie Collectivist Bullshit” but product purveying mass-media relies on these generic characterisations just as much.

    I think Jonah’s comment demonstrates similarly flawed thinking when he says “do we really want this kind of sick society where we cling to pieces of plastic and oil products” as not only does he generalise the issue as being one of “society” but also of “products”. How about considering that the “kid [who] doesnt want to share” is of a certain personality type that attaches some symbolism to that “plastic and oil product”. Let’s imagine it’s a doll, that that child is protecting, or a tool that that kid needs in order to accomplish something, etc. Instead of which Jonah overshadows the individual with generic ideology and hyperbole. In that scenario I’d first ask my daughter to consider why that kid doesn’t want to share and secondly, does it really matter?

  12. TravellingBeard on June 5, 2014 at 21:25

    Forcing the share is teaching resentment to the giver, and teaches the recipient the art of manipulation, not cooperation. Altruism and compassion would be learned by neither.

  13. doogiehowsermd on June 6, 2014 at 00:37

    85,000 comments? I reckon you’d have about 15,000 more if you delete them all the time…

  14. doogiehowsermd on June 6, 2014 at 00:38

    85,000 comments? I reckon you’d have about 15,000 more if you *didn’t* delete them all the time…

    • Richard Nikoley on June 6, 2014 at 06:45

      I very rarely delete comments and most of the ones I have have been my own.



  15. LaFrite on June 6, 2014 at 01:14

    Funny post.

    I don’t teach my kids to share. They do it spontaneously (they are 3 y.o. and 4.5 y.o.). They have conflicts, they can be very exclusive and throw some “it’s mine!” to each other. I don’t care, I let them sort it out. Half of the time, they share or display some level of caring for each other. I do the same with them, I share when I feel like, I keep them outside my space when I feel like. No stress.

    • Richard Nikoley on June 6, 2014 at 06:50

      Frite

      Yea, and also, share what? We all have things we like to share and things we don’t.

      For instance, nobody ever touches my computer or my devices.



    • LaFrite on June 6, 2014 at 08:08

      Yeah, I share my time and resources but my home-based music studio (lots of gears, etc): no sharing that!!! 😀



    • Richard Nikoley on June 6, 2014 at 09:12

      …I would never share my hang glider, even to a fully qualified pilot.

      I also hate to let people drive my X-5, except my dad and brothers, all excellent drivers. Makes me nervous even when Beatrice drives it.

      Used to own a Hummer (H2) and every year Bea would hold a reading contest and the 4 winners got a day in the H2 with Bea driving. Hated it. 🙂



    • Velvet on June 6, 2014 at 13:58

      I don’t teach my kids to share. They do it spontaneously (they are 3 y.o. and 4.5 y.o.). They have conflicts, they can be very exclusive and throw some “it’s mine!” to each other. I don’t care, I let them sort it out. Half of the time, they share or display some level of caring for each other. I do the same with them, I share when I feel like, I keep them outside my space when I feel like. No stress.

      All that.

      I’ve never met a child who didn’t voluntarily share a good bit of the time, at least as a source of social validation if not friendly impulse, unless their parents had forced the issue early and often resulting in bitterness. Charity doesn’t have to be taught, but attachment to meaningless material things almost always does, and it works exactly the opposite of what most people think. This notion that children are just stupid (rather than naive or immature – you know – childlike) backfires all the time, and IS part of the communist (and feminist – yeah, I said it) paradigm – vessels to be filled, rather than than whole, worthy individuals. Boys in particular are harassed to relinquish their territorial natures, to the sad, soy laden outcomes we currently see in young men.

      Children generally know how to achieve the rewards they desire and require, and are particularly good at sorting out the consequences of their behaviors. And those who don’t do it as two year olds will likely do it as older children. Respect of the person is a two way street. A toddler allowed to use a toy as long as he likes, without prompting to give it to another child just because, learns quickly that he has the ability play quietly alone, or to engage others by offering to share, or to trade, etc. And in those moments when he’s allowed to exercise his own judgement (to the extent his maturity will allow him to navigate), he just might give something away altogether. Give him his chance. It’s a spectacular thing to witness. GTF out of his way, already.



    • Richard Nikoley on June 6, 2014 at 14:24

      Velvet

      Beautiful.

      Should my wife and I ever decide to “swing,” I want to hit you up first. 🙂



    • Sam on June 6, 2014 at 15:46

      I’ve got first dibs…



    • Richard Nikoley on June 6, 2014 at 16:24

      Shotgun.



  16. Sassy Squatch on June 6, 2014 at 05:53

    Wow Richard, your baby bro is a driving unit (as
    a long haul truck driver). 40 k in 3 weeks, that’s almost 2000 miles a day. So in a 12 hour day, he’s driving an average of about 166 MPH. He must get paid by the mile! Just giving you shit!

    • Richard Nikoley on June 6, 2014 at 06:49

      Sassy

      I should have clarified that. He was doing a 2-man crew so the truck was running virtually 24/7. But, they both get paid the mileage, whether behind the wheel or not.

      His next trip, he’s headed out on his own.



  17. James H. on June 6, 2014 at 08:33

    As a semi-misanthrope, with daydreams of living as a (non-religious) eremite, I do not share.

    • Woodchuck Pirate on June 6, 2014 at 08:44

      James H.;

      Please if you wish, could you define “share”? Do you share love?

      I do not equate “share” with “sacrifice”. I never sacrifice; there are no selfless acts. If I make a charitable donation of potatoes to a neighbor, love is payment in full. I practice the virtue of selfishness.

      Woodchuck Pirate
      aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA
      http://www.woodchuckpirate.com



    • James H. on June 6, 2014 at 09:19

      Woodchuck Pirate,

      I of course “share” my love with my wife and certain members of my immediate family. My time though is grudgingly spent with those outside my wife. I live several hundred miles from the closest family member so I have a very good excuse to avoid family gatherings. I work in a mobile laboratory in the oil fields and it is possible to go several days without speaking to anyone. (My personal record is nine days without speaking.) I am a card-carrying loner and being around people drains the life from me.

      Unless my time, money, possessions. etc., are strictly voluntarily “shared,” any reduction of these assets is considered theft.



    • Richard Nikoley on June 6, 2014 at 09:32

      Thanks for sharing that, James H. 🙂



    • Richard Nikoley on June 6, 2014 at 09:38

      Thing is, James, the Internet affords us many, millions of opportunities to enjoy human contact–and on many levels from flaming debate to commiseration–and it’s all good, in principle because nobody can actually force anyone else ever.

      …Sticks & stones…arguably the most profound meme of all time.

      So, to my mind, you are sharing and being shared with, only in a context of being shielded from the baggage that goes with physical presence, social “norms,” etc.

      You don’t pick your family, but you do get to pick your friends and correspondents.

      Nice comment, Woodchuck.



    • Woodchuck Pirate on June 6, 2014 at 09:49

      James H.,

      I understand your words exactly then. Social norms are simply mechanisms to exercise aversion to principle, to facilitate sacrificing the individual to the collective. I shed those self-vulnerable traits before I left home a free man at the age of 17 still in high school.

      I’ve refined my behavior to embrace focused misanthropy as vital to survival living amongst human parasites. As Roy Harper said “Living with the nutters of god is as good as being 6 feet under the sod ” , it’s philosophically correct to recognize every collective ego (political included) worships through coercion facilitated by altruism.

      Witness the glaring misconception of self-importance exhibited by altruists in these posts as they struggle in cognitive dissonance, pleading faith and denial, against the fact that your life is yours. They do not respect their own life, how will they respect yours? They are saturated with self-hatred. There is no separateness and every attack they make upon others is manifest attack upon self. They hate “I”.

      It never ends, the parasites wiggle over their collective members and struggle for as much putrid meat as they can reach from their host(s). Having consumed self first, they are embodiment of entitlement mentality to consume all. They can not be converted, freedom must be accepted from within. There are no victims. They are at best semi-conscious predators.

      I prefer the company of chickens, friend and food. Chickens have zero voluntary relationship with me. That’s one example of a conscious predator.

      Woodchuck Pirate
      aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA
      http://www.woodchuckpirate.com



    • James H. on June 6, 2014 at 13:07

      Richard,

      True, the internet is a “sharing” mechanism but my posts are 100% voluntary. Of course after I hit the “go” button I completely lose control but we cannot have everything, can we?

      The shielding from physical contact of people the internet affords me is the reason I love it. I can spend hours…days…researching something without having to deal with a crowded library, or do most of my shopping or whatever. (The internet and UPS/FedEx are the greatest combined inventions to people of my bent.)



    • James H. on June 6, 2014 at 13:25

      Woodchuck Pirate,

      A somewhat loquacious statement but it works for me.

      I started out with “focused misanthropy” but after awhile it got to be too much work. Does that guy deserve my rejection or approbation? Is that group of people heroes or are they charlatans? After 60+ years I’ve gotten lazy and I just assume humanity deserves whatever it gets, “good and hard” as some sage said, and if I avoid contact with The Great Unwashed I may survive longer than most.



    • Richard Nikoley on June 6, 2014 at 16:07

      Well James, that’s the thing about sharing. At a point, you have to let it go.

      Hit send.

      Thanks for sharing, again. 🙂



  18. Woodchuck Pirate on June 6, 2014 at 08:39

    At the core of dysfunction can be found the notion that parents think their children are private property. They are not property, they are individuals. Have you ever witnessed a crying baby at a mall piercing station confined to stroller while the mother assists a clerk in piercing the baby’s ears? The pathology assaults every human from cradle to grave. There is nothing innocent about socialism.

    Public school is a cultural construct whereby parents hand over their children either in response to direct threat of force by the state, or in response to indirect force cumulative and specific to the mixed economy model. The mixed economy model (socialism) is built upon altruism the philosophy of death. The word “Altruism” was coined by Auguste Comte who stated “[The] social point of view cannot tolerate the notion of rights, for such notion rests on individualism. We are born under a load of obligations of every kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, to our contemporaries. After our birth these obligations increase or accumulate, for it is some time before we can return any service…. This [“to live for others”], the definitive formula of human morality, gives a direct sanction exclusively to our instincts of benevolence, the common source of happiness and duty. [Man must serve] Humanity, whose we are entirely.”

    Get that? Property of “humanity”.

    No valid philosophy can’t be practiced to the nth degree. If you are practicing socialism, you have relegated yourself to be property of humanity, and a willing participant in initiating force against individuals, treating them as property from the moment they are born, through public school (prison), and will continue doing so combined and enhanced by never ending threats of intentional designs to enslave even their unborn children and grandchildren.

    No amount of pragmatism (aversion to principle) will beg forgiveness for the rot initiated and sustained until death by altruism. Socialism is established by vote, and communism is established by force. Both share the same destination and it is called despotism. Socialists deserve to suffer; despotism is too good for them. No self respecting anarchist will lift a finger to impede the extermination of socialist versus socialist. They’re all fucking wolves. Their notion of sharing is democracy, two wolves and a sheep voting about what to eat. Auguste Comte was a wolf. Every witchdoctor and tyrant a wolf.

    There is no right way to do something wrong.

    Woodchuck Pirate
    aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA
    http://www.woodchuckpirate.com

    • Richard Nikoley on June 6, 2014 at 09:44

      You go Woodchuck. Rant on.

      Did you notice how, when you deal with a social-commie in these issues, they always ignore the distinction of force vs. voluntary, and frame it as though you are preaching against good will towards men.

      …I know you did notice. Just egging you on to rant more. 🙂



    • Woodchuck Pirate on June 6, 2014 at 10:00

      Richard,

      Yes, and what is magnified to absurdity is how self-professed anarcho-socialists and anarcho-syndicalists seek to implement socialism as devoid of force, while faithfully attempting to equate capitalism (in the absence of statism) as diametrical opposition to anarchism. There really is no utility present in a self-professed altruist except that which is locked away under arrest within their own free will.

      Woodchuck Pirate
      aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA
      http://www.woodchuckpirate.com



  19. MeThinks on June 6, 2014 at 17:54

    Surely there’s going to be one or two kids who don’t figure it out. Kids who under-share, and by mere chance, don’t suffer the consequences, miss the “learning moment”, and develop an attitude of not only “what’s mine is mine, but what’s yours is mine, too.” What are we going to do about these kids, once they grow up?

    (and please, don’t tell me that we’ll agree do deal with them when/if they come along… because that means we’ve formed a… GOVERNMENT).

    • Woodchuck Pirate on June 6, 2014 at 18:43

      MeThinks,

      Govern yourself accordingly. Your underlying premise appears to be “justice requires a state monopoly on force”. You are in error.

      Woodchuck Pirate
      aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA
      http://www.woodchuckpirate.com



Leave a Comment





Pinterest118k
Pinterest
fb-share-icon
YouTube798
YouTube
Follow by Email8k
RSS780