cynical_sheet

So, there is really no objective justification for the existence of US government, because its supposed purpose it to protect 'basic rights', such as life, liberty and pursuit of haaapineeess(i.e. ensure that subset of homo sapiens species can release endorphins, dopamine, anandamide...). Since rights don't exist, there is nothing to protect. It's kinda like paying security staff to protect non-existing house. BTW, contingent rights flow from natural rights and if those are illusory, then all rights and laws are not justifiable.

What natural right do these regulatory agencies (or group of thugs known as government) have to regulate free people who choose to associate freely? What they are doing is deeply immoral.

'Troll' seems to be a name for someone whose opinions you disagree with. Since internet is a huge echo chamber, any sign of contrary opinion is seen as trolling (like 'Are you serious?' or 'This guy must be trolling'). Calling someone a 'troll' is a psychological defense mechanism where a person is trying to use a label (i.e. do ad hominem) instead of rethinking their beliefs, which is hard to do.

You are an animal >... mammal >... species- homo sapiens sapiens-

Why do you think that being a member of a particular species somehow excludes you from a set of objects that can be poached, mainly animals? If lions are poached, then humans can be poached as well. Why would a bio-chemical process known as homo sapiens be more important(or sacred, if you want) than a bio-chemical process known as a lion and be excluded from something that can be applied to all animals?

I am not inconsistent.

Where exactly did I write that it is (morally) wrong to push for a higher minimum wage? I am not writing that it is wrong to push for $15/hour. I'm writing on why American workers have a hard time competing with people in Asia or South America, many of whom work for $15/day. That's why, among other things, companies are leaving for Mexico or Vietnam.

Students are taking huge government-backed student loans, so that they can go to college and study sociology/gender studies(or some other worthless field) and then get a job in the government or non-profit. Do you see the circular nature of that?

My point is that most people(except some spoiled & stupid rich kids) who are studying sociology now would NOT do it in a truly free market environment, because:

a) There wouldn't be many government jobs or government-inspired jobs waiting for them. b) 18 yo couldn't get student loans to study these subjects. Why? For the same reason homeless drug addicts aren't getting $10 million loans from banks. It's a bad investment for a bank to give unreliable people money. Likewise, sociology(or some other worthless field) majors couldn't get a loan, since their earning potential is very low. c) No welfare. Since there wouldn't be welfare checks to fall back on, most people would think twice about what to study and their choice would not be sociology.

Why does it matter if sociology or political science are focused on what I wrote above? It's not like they're going to solve the problem of parasitic people with worthless degrees, since they are one of them. They won't eliminate entitlement mentality. They won't promote trades, because if they did, then why didn't they study trades if they're so great?

They won't do anything, except enrich themselves with high-paying parasitic office jobs in the government or some non-profit.

What is your point? What does people making 6 figures on this site or 7 figures on some other site matter?

Is what I'm writing true or not?

You mean you don't want to live in a world where you actually have to learn useful skills, so that you can trade with other people who have learned to do something you find useful?

I've already addressed that when I mentioned 'rampant entitlement mentality'. It's people thinking that others owe them something just because they happen to be members of homo sapiens species. Entitlement 101.

It's not a coincidence that most of the people studying philosophy, sociology, gender studies etc. are leftists, many even radicalized (e.g. anarcho-syndicalism in philosophy departments).

That's why the leftists need a powerful state. Since they are useless parasites, they have to make money by working in government or non-profit or government-inspired jobs.

Americans are living way above their means with rampant entitlement mentality. You see a lot of these paper-shuffling office jobs where nothing of value is produced; people studying worthless subjects(sociology, political science, gender studies etc.) plus there is an assumption that everyone needs to go to college; trades are looked down upon; push for $15/hour minimum wage; entitlement mentality with welfare etc.

You have very little of that in China + some other countries and that is their appeal.

I don't even know why people then write papers, do research or discuss things when they could call someone dummy or label what they are talking about as 'pseudo-X'. What is 'pseudo-philosophical' about the questions asked? It is your reply that is a diatribe devoid of any substance.

  'We can define greatness however the fuck we want, because as far as we can tell we're the only self-replicating assemblage of molecules that knows or cares what greatness even means.'

  'So if, during whatever time we're not spending making more copies of ourselves, we decide we enjoy shuffling molecules into a particular arbitrary pattern, who the fuck is going to tell us that isn't greatness?'

  'When you ask why we should bother making copies of ourselves on a different pile of dirt than the one we're currently on, you might as well be asking why we should go on making copies of ourselves at all.'

  'There is no endgame. There is only doing interesting shit, doing boring shit, and death. I choose interesting shit.'

Thanks for replying. You make a good point.

I'm referring more to when the Sun explodes and wipes out Earth or when universe goes cold, becomes inhabited by black holes, which will also be gone - a dead universe.

You are only saying that certain bio-chemical structures reshuffle atoms in a different way, which in most cases suits their survival. You're judging a fish by its ability to climb a tree. Also, you make it seem that there is an objective scale which measures 'levels' [of greatness, I assume]. But, there is no evidence that such a scale exists. You pick these arbitrary shuffling of molecules, like building skyscrapers or going to another rock[Mars], as great or progressive. That is the result of having an unjustified bias towards your own species. Many animals can do things humans can't do and vice versa. But, that is just a difference, not an objective superiority or inferiority.

You made a great point. He puts building skyscrapers into a definition of greatness(an abstract term). But, why is that great and ants building they own habitats not great? They are small, so you can't expect them to build big habitats for humans.

Imagine saying that humans can't live and thrive in radioactive environment, like some fungi in Chernobyl do and therefore they are not great. Greatness means being able to live in radioactive environment.

I really don't get it! Could someone please explain this to me:

- Why do humans today work so hard so that some other members of homo sapiens species can inhabit another planet? Those creatures, you, everyone you know and the entire species will be gone. Why bother to do that or anything at all? What is the end game?

- Is the decision to care about humans going to Mars made by careful & rational consideration which resulted in conclusion that members of homo sapiens species should be on Mars and that there is an objective moral duty to do so? Why pick homo sapiens species instead of some other animal species? Is it objectively true that a bio-chemical process known as a homo sapiens has intrinsic value and that everyone should work to sustain it?

Why is enslavement of members of homo sapiens species illegal and wrong, but enslavement of AI robots legal and acceptable?

That's right, you owe no US taxes. You don't have what is called "Effectively Connected Income", that is - you provide services from outside the US, not within the US. Since 'single-member LLC' is pass-through entity, that means the person is taxed (Not corporation) and you(person) are outside of the US and owe no US taxes at all.

However, you might owe taxes in your home country.

If you sell goods or there are co-founders, then you have to pay.

- State filing fees = $50

- Processing fees(paying someone to file for you, obtain EIN etc.) = $50

- Registered agent service = $100/year

- EIN for foreigners = $50

You are right and it's also much cheaper to form and maintain an LLC. I think that forming an LLC in Colorado is the cheapest option ~ $250 total costs. That is great if you're just bootstraping and don't know if the business is going to be successful. BTW, if you're not a US citizen + the business is providing services + you're the only owner (single member LLC), then there are NO TAX-paying requirements.

Also, the business might not succeed, so why waste all that time+money on creating a C Corp, which is even more expensive to dissolve? C Corps also have many more expensive legal requirements. If the business is successful and you plan on getting VC money, convert it later to a C Corp.

Product Hunt is the mirror image of Silicon Valley startup VC scene. It's all about connections, nepotism, pedigree, ass-kissing and brown-nosing.