Topic: How do you feel about government versus anarchy?
The Continental !!+bfOgzYS+ started this discussion 15 years ago #1,037
In general, not dealing with any specifics at all, would you ideally prefer a government, or anarchy?
| Poll option | Votes | Percentage | Graph |
|---|---|---|---|
| Govenment | 13 | 68% | |
| Anarchy | 6 | 32% |
r04r !SimoniBNZI joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later[^] [v] #19,930
Government, obviously. Anyone who seriously chooses for an anarchy should take a few moments to think about what the government all manages.
dreamworks !xPoNIEsltA joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #19,931
Anarchy. Obviously impossible.
Ash Ketchup !iC5Sra0Wb2 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #19,934
Anarchy. Power to the people!
dreamworks !xPoNIEsltA replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #19,936
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #19,944
Government. I don't like anarchy, even in theory.
Triptych !!DP4/G/5A6 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,145
Anarchy. It's impossible.
Eventually, some sort of government will arise. That's how people work.
Eventually, some sort of government will arise. That's how people work.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,156
I know pure anarchy won't work, because as @previous (Triptych !!DP4/G/5A6) said, some sort of government would arise from that, and there are a lot of problems with pure anarchy. Nevertheless, I lean more towards anarchy than I do government. I consider myself a minarchist. I believe there should be just enough government to prevent pure anarchy, prevent violence and coercion, and fairly enforce legitimate contracts. At best, a little anarchy is sometimes needed to keep the government from getting too big, or tearing it down when it gets to big, so that a new, better, and smaller one can come from the anarchy.
The Continental !!+bfOgzYS+ (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,158
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
I want a king. When too many people are in charge, they become corrupt, and pass billions of laws, like in the USA. A single king with all authority cannot become corrupt, because by definition, he is already 100% corrupt.
I want a king. When too many people are in charge, they become corrupt, and pass billions of laws, like in the USA. A single king with all authority cannot become corrupt, because by definition, he is already 100% corrupt.
é¾ !cP2gi3jKX2 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 37 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,161
Government: I would prefer to be under the control of an organisation that was at least in theory aiming to benefit me as opposed to the whims of people or organisations accountable to only them and their financial backers.
psychopath !PSYCHOhc32 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 19 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,162
Minarchy.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,166
@20,158 (The Continental !!+bfOgzYS+)
No government with a single man running every aspect of it has ever lasted. There are only two lasting types of government: republics and oligarchies.
No government with a single man running every aspect of it has ever lasted. There are only two lasting types of government: republics and oligarchies.
hamfist !a4fa8BKGtQ joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,180
> choosing anarchy
Enjoy being 12 years old brah
Enjoy being 12 years old brah
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 20 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,181
@20,161 (é¾ !cP2gi3jKX2)
As long as there is a minimal government there to make sure that they don't try to coerce or harm you to get what they want, and to make sure they hold up their end of any mutual agreements they have with you, it forces them to act in your interest in order to be profitable. Any company that doesn't offer something in public interest, without using violence, coercion, or deception, goes out of business. There is no guarantee that any government will act in your interest. Even if the government act on the interest of the majority, there can still be tyranny of the majority over the minority. A lightly regulated free market is the best way to go.
As long as there is a minimal government there to make sure that they don't try to coerce or harm you to get what they want, and to make sure they hold up their end of any mutual agreements they have with you, it forces them to act in your interest in order to be profitable. Any company that doesn't offer something in public interest, without using violence, coercion, or deception, goes out of business. There is no guarantee that any government will act in your interest. Even if the government act on the interest of the majority, there can still be tyranny of the majority over the minority. A lightly regulated free market is the best way to go.
Triptych !!DP4/G/5A6 replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,187
Anarchy is, by definition, just as corrupt as a gov't.
As such, might as well do what you want, no?
As such, might as well do what you want, no?
é¾ !cP2gi3jKX2 replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,188
@20,181 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Hahaha. Underregulated free markets only serve to fuck over the common person due to the monopolistic, pseudoimperialistic nature of corporations.
Hahaha. Underregulated free markets only serve to fuck over the common person due to the monopolistic, pseudoimperialistic nature of corporations.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 51 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,190
é¾ !cP2gi3jKX2 replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,194
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Good for you. I am more inclined to trust an organisation of citizens rather than organisations of shareholders.
Good for you. I am more inclined to trust an organisation of citizens rather than organisations of shareholders.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,201
@previous (é¾ !cP2gi3jKX2)
Shareholders are citizens, and citizens like you are shareholders. Just as you are the consumer who wants to get the most bang for your buck, but at the same time you are the producer who wants to get as much for your labor as possible. That "us vs. them" mentality is not constructive.
Shareholders are citizens, and citizens like you are shareholders. Just as you are the consumer who wants to get the most bang for your buck, but at the same time you are the producer who wants to get as much for your labor as possible. That "us vs. them" mentality is not constructive.
é¾ !cP2gi3jKX2 replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,205
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Look, until the income tax rate on all income over $1,000,000 per year is 101% and that money's going to infrastructure and welfare, I won't be satisfied.
Look, until the income tax rate on all income over $1,000,000 per year is 101% and that money's going to infrastructure and welfare, I won't be satisfied.
(Edited 16 seconds later.)
Malawi (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,209
@20,166 (J)
I would argue that, in ancient times, cultures with a single leader lasted for thousands of years, longer than any single oligarchy or republic has ever lasted so far. Egypt, for example, lasted for over 5,000 years with single, god-like Pharaohs. No other oligarchy or republic has ever lasted over 5,000 years.
I would argue that, in ancient times, cultures with a single leader lasted for thousands of years, longer than any single oligarchy or republic has ever lasted so far. Egypt, for example, lasted for over 5,000 years with single, god-like Pharaohs. No other oligarchy or republic has ever lasted over 5,000 years.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,220
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 30 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,222
@20,209 (Malawi)
They never did. They always turned into an oligarchy (where rulers were above the law) or republics (where rulers were ruled by the law).
Pharaohs did not govern alone. Neither Stalin nor Lenin governed alone. Not even Kim Jong Il governs alone.
They never did. They always turned into an oligarchy (where rulers were above the law) or republics (where rulers were ruled by the law).
Pharaohs did not govern alone. Neither Stalin nor Lenin governed alone. Not even Kim Jong Il governs alone.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,224
@20,205 (é¾ !cP2gi3jKX2)
Then it's pointless to try and prove my point to someone so stubborn with such a foolish "eat-the-rich/us vs. them" attitude. I could spent 2 years putting you through economics lectures trying to explain to you why your concept of "fair" doesn't work, and you still probably wouldn't get it. I'm not gonna draw this out into a huge econ debate. I've argued with your type hundreds of times before, and have probably typed out the equivalent of a 1,000,000 word novel trying to explain this, and it's pointless. And using your same tired straw-man arguments for why big government is necessary and corporations are evil isn't going to convince me of anything. I've heard it all before. MC isn't the place for this sort of debate. Let's leave it at that.
Then it's pointless to try and prove my point to someone so stubborn with such a foolish "eat-the-rich/us vs. them" attitude. I could spent 2 years putting you through economics lectures trying to explain to you why your concept of "fair" doesn't work, and you still probably wouldn't get it. I'm not gonna draw this out into a huge econ debate. I've argued with your type hundreds of times before, and have probably typed out the equivalent of a 1,000,000 word novel trying to explain this, and it's pointless. And using your same tired straw-man arguments for why big government is necessary and corporations are evil isn't going to convince me of anything. I've heard it all before. MC isn't the place for this sort of debate. Let's leave it at that.
(Edited 58 seconds later.)
psychopath !PSYCHOhc32 replied with this 15 years ago, 3 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,225
@20,205 (é¾ !cP2gi3jKX2)
Here, welfare only goes to the inferiour. Tax corporations at %15 to give them incentive to be here, and use that money for infrastructures and funding medicine and technology. Oh, and free healthcare.
Here, welfare only goes to the inferiour. Tax corporations at %15 to give them incentive to be here, and use that money for infrastructures and funding medicine and technology. Oh, and free healthcare.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
The Continental !!+bfOgzYS+ (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 9 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,226
@20,222 (J)
You are changing definitions. Pharaohs did, indeed, rule alone. They ad 100%, exclusive authority, as did the king and Emperors of pre-Republican Rome, Israel, Assyria, China, and many other examples I could offer.
You are changing definitions. Pharaohs did, indeed, rule alone. They ad 100%, exclusive authority, as did the king and Emperors of pre-Republican Rome, Israel, Assyria, China, and many other examples I could offer.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 6 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,227
The Continental !!+bfOgzYS+ (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 55 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,229
@20,222 (J)
btw an oligarchy is a rule by a few select entities, not a rule where the ruler is above the law.
btw an oligarchy is a rule by a few select entities, not a rule where the ruler is above the law.
é¾ !cP2gi3jKX2 replied with this 15 years ago, 45 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,230
@20,224 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
No, it'd be nice if you could even attempt to explain, because your refusal to do so is a good indicator that you doubt the validity of your own reasons.
No, it'd be nice if you could even attempt to explain, because your refusal to do so is a good indicator that you doubt the validity of your own reasons.
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 34 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,233
@20,226 (The Continental !!+bfOgzYS+)
They never did. There was always some Ministry of something ruled by a Minister of something.
But, hey: believe what you want to believe. I'm sure you're a tenured professor at Columbia who teaches political science.
They never did. There was always some Ministry of something ruled by a Minister of something.
But, hey: believe what you want to believe. I'm sure you're a tenured professor at Columbia who teaches political science.
The Continental !!+bfOgzYS+ (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 50 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,236
@previous (J)
No that is not correct. In Egypt and china, for example, the single Kings could, at their discretion, ask people to give them advice, but those kings had 100%, pure authority, and no one else was above them.
No that is not correct. In Egypt and china, for example, the single Kings could, at their discretion, ask people to give them advice, but those kings had 100%, pure authority, and no one else was above them.
é¾ !cP2gi3jKX2 replied with this 15 years ago, 32 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,238
@20,225 (psychopath !PSYCHOhc32)
Use the money to eradicate poverty, and force NEETs to get jobs. Make sure that everyone is both contributing to society and/or the economy, and in acceptable living conditions.
Use the money to eradicate poverty, and force NEETs to get jobs. Make sure that everyone is both contributing to society and/or the economy, and in acceptable living conditions.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 20 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,240
@20,201 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
> citizens like you are shareholders [...] at the same time you are the producer who wants to get as much for your labor as possible.
That's called socialism.
> citizens like you are shareholders [...] at the same time you are the producer who wants to get as much for your labor as possible.
That's called socialism.
The Continental !!+bfOgzYS+ (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 39 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,243
@20,238 (é¾ !cP2gi3jKX2)
How would you deal with able-bodied people who want desperately to have jobs, and apply to dozens weekly, but never get one?
How would you deal with able-bodied people who want desperately to have jobs, and apply to dozens weekly, but never get one?
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,249
@20,230 (é¾ !cP2gi3jKX2)
I believe them very firmly, I'm just tired of repeating myself and wasting my time and effort on someone who is just going to straw-man everything I say and never be convinced of anything. If you actually believe what you say you believe, we have no common ground to stand on and I'm not wasting my time giving you a tl;dr lecture that's not going to convince you of anything anyway. If you were start by explaining what you like about my philosophy, and then go on to say what you don't understand, or what you don't quite agree with, I'd be willing to have a discussion about it. But you are so opposed to my ideas that it's clear that you really have no grasp on how they would even begin to work, and it's pointless to waste my time trying to convince you. You're too closed-minded.
I believe them very firmly, I'm just tired of repeating myself and wasting my time and effort on someone who is just going to straw-man everything I say and never be convinced of anything. If you actually believe what you say you believe, we have no common ground to stand on and I'm not wasting my time giving you a tl;dr lecture that's not going to convince you of anything anyway. If you were start by explaining what you like about my philosophy, and then go on to say what you don't understand, or what you don't quite agree with, I'd be willing to have a discussion about it. But you are so opposed to my ideas that it's clear that you really have no grasp on how they would even begin to work, and it's pointless to waste my time trying to convince you. You're too closed-minded.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 9 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,251
é¾ !cP2gi3jKX2 replied with this 15 years ago, 47 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,255
@20,243 (The Continental !!+bfOgzYS+)
Create more jobs. Force the economy to expand.
Create more jobs. Force the economy to expand.
(Edited 36 seconds later.)
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 27 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,256
@20,236 (The Continental !!+bfOgzYS+)
Right. And the advisors were above the law. That's an oligarchy.
That PhD from Columbia is certainly giving you some balls.
Right. And the advisors were above the law. That's an oligarchy.
That PhD from Columbia is certainly giving you some balls.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 9 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,257
The Continental !!+bfOgzYS+ (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 27 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,258
@20,255 (é¾ !cP2gi3jKX2)
So, you are alright with using government resources to create jobs for people who are not working to get jobs?
So, you are alright with using government resources to create jobs for people who are not working to get jobs?
The Continental !!+bfOgzYS+ (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 30 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,259
@20,256 (J)
lol the advisors were NOT above the law! The king could, at a mere whim, behead any and all advisors.
lol the advisors were NOT above the law! The king could, at a mere whim, behead any and all advisors.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 6 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,260
@20,256 (J)
No, you are incorrect. Your definition of monarchy and your definition of oligarchy are both wrong.
No, you are incorrect. Your definition of monarchy and your definition of oligarchy are both wrong.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 8 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,261
é¾ !cP2gi3jKX2 replied with this 15 years ago, 2 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,262
@20,249 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Bahahahahaha, yeah right. Ethos doesn't work on a forum. Logos or pathos, please.
Bahahahahaha, yeah right. Ethos doesn't work on a forum. Logos or pathos, please.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 18 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,263
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 19 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,265
The Continental !!+bfOgzYS+ (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 20 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,266
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 8 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,267
psychopath !PSYCHOhc32 replied with this 15 years ago, 9 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,268
@20,238 (é¾ !cP2gi3jKX2)
Unfortunately, the best system is closer to a free-market system with a few socialist elements.
Unfortunately, the best system is closer to a free-market system with a few socialist elements.
é¾ !cP2gi3jKX2 replied with this 15 years ago, 3 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,269
@20,257 (L)
No, it's not. Kill people that are incapable of providing anything to society, and make the rest get shit done.
No, it's not. Kill people that are incapable of providing anything to society, and make the rest get shit done.
The Continental !!+bfOgzYS+ (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 37 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,271
@previous (é¾ !cP2gi3jKX2)
So, a 30 year old woman who got injured, through no fault of her own, while working hard at her job, should be killed? Sorry bro, but you just lost me.
So, a 30 year old woman who got injured, through no fault of her own, while working hard at her job, should be killed? Sorry bro, but you just lost me.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 5 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,272
@20,262 (é¾ !cP2gi3jKX2)
Agreeing to disagree is not ethos. I'm just not wasting my time on someone who obviously who has no interest in what I have to say and just wants to have an argument rather than a debate.
Agreeing to disagree is not ethos. I'm just not wasting my time on someone who obviously who has no interest in what I have to say and just wants to have an argument rather than a debate.
é¾ !cP2gi3jKX2 replied with this 15 years ago, 24 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,273
é¾ !cP2gi3jKX2 double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,275
@20,272 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
No. I would like you to explain the merits of a free-market system over one that ensures adequate standard of living for everyone.
No. I would like you to explain the merits of a free-market system over one that ensures adequate standard of living for everyone.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 36 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,278
é¾ !cP2gi3jKX2 replied with this 15 years ago, 16 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,279
The Continental !!+bfOgzYS+ (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 26 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,280
@20,278 (L)
But in the historical examples I gave, the monarchs were, indeed, absolute. Are you really arguing that Pharaohs and Chinese Emperors did not have all power??
But in the historical examples I gave, the monarchs were, indeed, absolute. Are you really arguing that Pharaohs and Chinese Emperors did not have all power??
The Continental !!+bfOgzYS+ (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 20 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,282
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 17 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,283
@20,269 (é¾ !cP2gi3jKX2)
> seriously proposes forced labor
Oh, okay. I'll stick to liberty, thanks.
> seriously proposes forced labor
Oh, okay. I'll stick to liberty, thanks.
Anonymous L double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,286
@20,273 (é¾ !cP2gi3jKX2)
> strawman
Oh, okay.
> If you were start by explaining what you like about my philosophy, and then go on to say what you don't understand, or what you don't quite agree with, I'd be willing to have a discussion about it.
> strawman
Oh, okay.
> If you were start by explaining what you like about my philosophy, and then go on to say what you don't understand, or what you don't quite agree with, I'd be willing to have a discussion about it.
é¾ !cP2gi3jKX2 replied with this 15 years ago, 7 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,287
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 48 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,289
@20,275 (é¾ !cP2gi3jKX2)
> over one that ensures adequate standard of living for everyone.
That's already a biased statement, because you're assuming that your philosophy ensures an adequate standard of living for everyone, while my philosophy has no regard for a person's standard of living. I have no reason to even respond to that statement.
If you're sincerely interested in learning about libertarian philosophy, there is tons of information already available over the internet and in many books. I'm not going to waste my time explaining them for you. Once you have a rudimentary understanding of the philosophy, I'd be willing to debate with you from there. If you read some of the stuff that's out there, and you're still disgusted by the concept of liberty, then you and I have nothing to discuss.
> over one that ensures adequate standard of living for everyone.
That's already a biased statement, because you're assuming that your philosophy ensures an adequate standard of living for everyone, while my philosophy has no regard for a person's standard of living. I have no reason to even respond to that statement.
If you're sincerely interested in learning about libertarian philosophy, there is tons of information already available over the internet and in many books. I'm not going to waste my time explaining them for you. Once you have a rudimentary understanding of the philosophy, I'd be willing to debate with you from there. If you read some of the stuff that's out there, and you're still disgusted by the concept of liberty, then you and I have nothing to discuss.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 9 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,290
@20,280 (The Continental !!+bfOgzYS+)
No. The examples you provided were absolute. However a monarch need not be absolute. A monarch could, for example, be bound by rulings of previous monarchs.
No. The examples you provided were absolute. However a monarch need not be absolute. A monarch could, for example, be bound by rulings of previous monarchs.
(Edited 12 seconds later.)
é¾ !cP2gi3jKX2 replied with this 15 years ago, 20 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,291
@20,286 (L)
...there's very little that I like about the free market system. Too much opportunity for victimisation and oppression of plebes.
...there's very little that I like about the free market system. Too much opportunity for victimisation and oppression of plebes.
The Continental !!+bfOgzYS+ (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 45 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,293
@20,290 (L)
But you originally said that republics and oligarchies have lasted longer than any monarchy. I provided several examples of absolute monarchies that lasted longer than any oligarchy or republic in history.
But you originally said that republics and oligarchies have lasted longer than any monarchy. I provided several examples of absolute monarchies that lasted longer than any oligarchy or republic in history.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 12 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,295
The Continental !!+bfOgzYS+ (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 23 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,296
@20,291 (é¾ !cP2gi3jKX2)
You also said to kill anyone who is not productive. What about the 30 year old disabled woman? Kill her?
You also said to kill anyone who is not productive. What about the 30 year old disabled woman? Kill her?
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 33 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,298
é¾ !cP2gi3jKX2 replied with this 15 years ago, 33 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,300
@20,289 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Liberty? I like. However, excessive freedom for corporations that already have unfair amounts of political power due to economies of scale isn't a good thing. I think that the bottom 99.99% of society needs more freedom than the lucky few that can use money to get their way.
Liberty? I like. However, excessive freedom for corporations that already have unfair amounts of political power due to economies of scale isn't a good thing. I think that the bottom 99.99% of society needs more freedom than the lucky few that can use money to get their way.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 26 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,301
@20,291 (é¾ !cP2gi3jKX2)
> refuses to engage
Oh, okay.
> ...there's very little that I like about the free market system.
What is that very little?
> refuses to engage
Oh, okay.
> ...there's very little that I like about the free market system.
What is that very little?
The Continental !!+bfOgzYS+ (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 28 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,302
@20,300 (é¾ !cP2gi3jKX2)
Please answer my question about the 30 year old disabled woman. Also, do you think North Korea is the ideal state? They force labor upon everyone, and anyone who is not productive is killed. Do you like that model?
Please answer my question about the 30 year old disabled woman. Also, do you think North Korea is the ideal state? They force labor upon everyone, and anyone who is not productive is killed. Do you like that model?
é¾ !cP2gi3jKX2 replied with this 15 years ago, 1 second later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,304
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 16 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,305
@20,293 (The Continental !!+bfOgzYS+)
No, I agree with you that monarchies have historically been a very stable form of government.
No, I agree with you that monarchies have historically been a very stable form of government.
é¾ !cP2gi3jKX2 replied with this 15 years ago, 7 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,306
The Continental !!+bfOgzYS+ (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 33 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,307
@20,304 (é¾ !cP2gi3jKX2)
And the young, disabled people? You said earlier that they should be killed. Can you elaborate? Also, please answer my question about North Korea.
And the young, disabled people? You said earlier that they should be killed. Can you elaborate? Also, please answer my question about North Korea.
é¾ !cP2gi3jKX2 replied with this 15 years ago, 34 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,308
The Continental !!+bfOgzYS+ (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 7 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,309
@20,306 (é¾ !cP2gi3jKX2)
So, let me get this straight. You like:
1. Forcing all citizens to work according to what the government defines as "productive."
2. Killing anyone who cannot work, for any reason.
Sorry, but that is not a society that any sane person would want to live in.
So, let me get this straight. You like:
1. Forcing all citizens to work according to what the government defines as "productive."
2. Killing anyone who cannot work, for any reason.
Sorry, but that is not a society that any sane person would want to live in.
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 6 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,310
@20,302 (The Continental !!+bfOgzYS+)
You confused me with another poster?
Temple Grandin called. She wants her disease back.
You confused me with another poster?
Temple Grandin called. She wants her disease back.
é¾ !cP2gi3jKX2 replied with this 15 years ago, 25 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,311
The Continental !!+bfOgzYS+ (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 39 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,314
@previous (é¾ !cP2gi3jKX2)
See, the fact that you will not answer me indicates that you do not have an answer, that you have seen that your ideas are not, in fact, good, but that you are too proud to admit it.
See, the fact that you will not answer me indicates that you do not have an answer, that you have seen that your ideas are not, in fact, good, but that you are too proud to admit it.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 0 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #20,315
@20,300 (é¾ !cP2gi3jKX2)
So everyone should be free to conduct business as they please, unless they're a corporation, or a stockholder of a corporation, or a high-up employee of a corporation, or a large business owner that may resemble a corporation, or family members of any of the aforementioned people because of the power/money they get from being related to them, and anyone who makes over a $1,000,000 per year should have all their money taken away from them. Yeah, sounds like you really like freedom. You clearly don't even know what freedom really means. You only like freedom as a political rhetoric. You see why your "us vs. them" mentality doesn't work?
So everyone should be free to conduct business as they please, unless they're a corporation, or a stockholder of a corporation, or a high-up employee of a corporation, or a large business owner that may resemble a corporation, or family members of any of the aforementioned people because of the power/money they get from being related to them, and anyone who makes over a $1,000,000 per year should have all their money taken away from them. Yeah, sounds like you really like freedom. You clearly don't even know what freedom really means. You only like freedom as a political rhetoric. You see why your "us vs. them" mentality doesn't work?