Topic: What's the big deal about Ron Paul?
Tekamine !AnRbswGQv. started this discussion 15 years ago #12,008
Obviously, I haven't got a clue about American Politics.
I see his name everywhere, did he create free energy or something?
I see his name everywhere, did he create free energy or something?
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 29 minutes later[^] [v] #216,219
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPoCsC8VT9g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRpD3YQmqvo
I don't like him, but if the US gets a Republican president I hope it's him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRpD3YQmqvo
I don't like him, but if the US gets a Republican president I hope it's him.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #216,227
He has gained a bit of a following among Republican stoners, survivalist gun nuts, Internet Randroids, and old people who read the constitution before bedtime every night. Some of his more libertarian views about hands-off foreign policy, ending the war on drugs, and reducing the power of the federal government have made him popular on the Internet. Some of his other ideas are a little over the top, potentially disastrous, or downright scary. Luckily though, he is vying for the Republican nomination where batshit-insane is par for the course.
Ks !KansasxqvM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #216,241
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 8 hours later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #216,851
@216,219 (B)
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPoCsC8VT9g
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRpD3YQmqvo
He's less dishonest than most of them.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPoCsC8VT9g
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRpD3YQmqvo
He's less dishonest than most of them.
hamfist !!snnYcROO9 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #216,852
Gary Johnson 2012
Born this Way !dLadyGAgAA joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #216,946
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #217,010
@216,852 (hamfist !!snnYcROO9)
I asked you this in another thread but instead of replying with a rational argument you posted a pic of a "rape stove", so I am asking asking you again here:
1. What are the deal-breakers that Ron Paul possesses that Gary Johnston doesn't?
2. Are these deal-breakers that you have identified a logical conclusion of a holistic political philosophy that you are rejecting because to do so would require a paradigm shift in thinking?
I asked you this in another thread but instead of replying with a rational argument you posted a pic of a "rape stove", so I am asking asking you again here:
1. What are the deal-breakers that Ron Paul possesses that Gary Johnston doesn't?
2. Are these deal-breakers that you have identified a logical conclusion of a holistic political philosophy that you are rejecting because to do so would require a paradigm shift in thinking?
Anonymous H double-posted this 15 years ago, 47 seconds later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #217,011
@216,227 (C)
> Some of his other ideas are a little over the top, potentially disastrous, or downright scary.
Care to elaborate?
> Some of his other ideas are a little over the top, potentially disastrous, or downright scary.
Care to elaborate?
sluggy joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #217,014
@217,010 (H)
You actually asked me that. Or you asked someone else in the topic where I said ron Paul has deal breaker stances I can't support.
My deal breakers with Ron Paul are his stance on civil rights (for women and gays) and his wanting to deregulate everything. Which, as history has shown, leads to companies bleeding people dry. Not with unnecessary things, but things considered necessary for survival.
The capitalist system would work if people weren't greedy and selfish.
As we are now seeing, the greedy and selfishness leads to the system collapsing on itself.
You actually asked me that. Or you asked someone else in the topic where I said ron Paul has deal breaker stances I can't support.
My deal breakers with Ron Paul are his stance on civil rights (for women and gays) and his wanting to deregulate everything. Which, as history has shown, leads to companies bleeding people dry. Not with unnecessary things, but things considered necessary for survival.
The capitalist system would work if people weren't greedy and selfish.
As we are now seeing, the greedy and selfishness leads to the system collapsing on itself.
(Edited 22 seconds later.)
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #217,015
inb4 mountainman
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #217,017
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #217,022
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 23 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #217,042
@217,014 (sluggy)
Firstly, we must define terms. When I speak of capitalism, I most strictly mean anarcho-capitalism. In this vein I do not consider any economy under which coercive territorial monopolies exist to be capitalistic in nature.
I hope this explanation leads to a better understanding between us. You will see how under my definition of capitalism, we have never, and now, to a greater extent than ever before, do not, live in a (anarcho)capitalist society.
So-called civil rights is easier. There are only individual rights, not group rights. A person belonging to a particular group has no more or less rights than any other person.
Firstly, we must define terms. When I speak of capitalism, I most strictly mean anarcho-capitalism. In this vein I do not consider any economy under which coercive territorial monopolies exist to be capitalistic in nature.
I hope this explanation leads to a better understanding between us. You will see how under my definition of capitalism, we have never, and now, to a greater extent than ever before, do not, live in a (anarcho)capitalist society.
So-called civil rights is easier. There are only individual rights, not group rights. A person belonging to a particular group has no more or less rights than any other person.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #217,046
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #217,048
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #217,058
@217,042 (H)
Thank god we don't now or ever live in an anarcho-capitalist society.
@217,046 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
I thought so, but don't think it is so at the moment.
Thank god we don't now or ever live in an anarcho-capitalist society.
@217,046 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
I thought so, but don't think it is so at the moment.
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #217,062
@previous (sluggy)
> Thank god we don't now or ever live in an anarcho-capitalist society.
Why do you say this?
> Thank god we don't now or ever live in an anarcho-capitalist society.
Why do you say this?
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #217,066
@previous (H)
I said one of Ron Paul's dealbreakers is deregulation. I'll add to that, though.
Mostly, it's because I'm not filthy rich. There is no benefit to me. What do I do when richy rich rapes me? Who do I go to? The private police that he likely owns?
This system could easily lead to a single company owning everything. I don't understand libertarians who aren't filthy rich.
I said one of Ron Paul's dealbreakers is deregulation. I'll add to that, though.
Mostly, it's because I'm not filthy rich. There is no benefit to me. What do I do when richy rich rapes me? Who do I go to? The private police that he likely owns?
This system could easily lead to a single company owning everything. I don't understand libertarians who aren't filthy rich.
(Edited 24 seconds later.)
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 23 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #217,072
@previous (sluggy)
This is of inestimable benefit to you. The state empowers corporations by giving them special benefits, crushing competition through tariffs, regulation, tax codes &c.
If you would prefer the state to monopolize justice, policing, and defense but stay out of everything else you are espousing minarchy. I view this a HUGE step in the right direction, but ultimately indefensible philosophically.
Under anarcho-capitalism there would be competing private police forces, along with charitable associations providing free services to the poor &c. Courts would likewise be numerous and competing, and separate to the police forces. Free market justice. I can understand this might seem shocking to you (it was to me; I was a minarchist for many years before I finally admitted to myself that it couldn't be justified) but I ask you to carefully consider the matter.
I could understand a criticism of anarcho-capitalism being a waste of resources through "doubling-up" i.e. having many companies with their own infrastructures offering a service where there is currently a coercive territorial monopoly, but I can not understand your "single company" criticism. The exact opposite of anarcho-capitalism would be socialism or communism, wherein all property is owned by a single company, the state.
This is of inestimable benefit to you. The state empowers corporations by giving them special benefits, crushing competition through tariffs, regulation, tax codes &c.
If you would prefer the state to monopolize justice, policing, and defense but stay out of everything else you are espousing minarchy. I view this a HUGE step in the right direction, but ultimately indefensible philosophically.
Under anarcho-capitalism there would be competing private police forces, along with charitable associations providing free services to the poor &c. Courts would likewise be numerous and competing, and separate to the police forces. Free market justice. I can understand this might seem shocking to you (it was to me; I was a minarchist for many years before I finally admitted to myself that it couldn't be justified) but I ask you to carefully consider the matter.
I could understand a criticism of anarcho-capitalism being a waste of resources through "doubling-up" i.e. having many companies with their own infrastructures offering a service where there is currently a coercive territorial monopoly, but I can not understand your "single company" criticism. The exact opposite of anarcho-capitalism would be socialism or communism, wherein all property is owned by a single company, the state.
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #217,101
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #217,177
Ron Paul would be an awesome President only because he'd fuck over the powers that be more than any president has dared to do in a long fucking time. Those fuckers have it coming after fucking over the whole country.
In a Ron Paul administration:
Bankers would be fucked.
Unions would be fucked.
Welfare niggers would be fucked.
The Prison System would be fucked.
Fat-cat lawyers would be fucked.
Military contractors would be fucked.
People who think the government owes them something would be fucked.
And they'd all have it coming to. But he'll never get elected cause he's backed by the Jesuits. The haven't been able to get a President in since Kennedy.
In a Ron Paul administration:
Bankers would be fucked.
Unions would be fucked.
Welfare niggers would be fucked.
The Prison System would be fucked.
Fat-cat lawyers would be fucked.
Military contractors would be fucked.
People who think the government owes them something would be fucked.
And they'd all have it coming to. But he'll never get elected cause he's backed by the Jesuits. The haven't been able to get a President in since Kennedy.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous K double-posted this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #217,178
@217,101 (sluggy)
Air is free to you under the free market system. But it's not really free to produce. Technically, you owe some debt to the landowners in who are in possession of the trees that make that shit.
However, with free markets air is free because it is an abundant positive externality and nobody can charge you for that which is an abundant supply. Now in a regulated market environment, some tool can come along and say wait a minute, we need to get paid for this air and the mediative authority can start charging you for air in the belief this is actually more fair.
Air is free to you under the free market system. But it's not really free to produce. Technically, you owe some debt to the landowners in who are in possession of the trees that make that shit.
However, with free markets air is free because it is an abundant positive externality and nobody can charge you for that which is an abundant supply. Now in a regulated market environment, some tool can come along and say wait a minute, we need to get paid for this air and the mediative authority can start charging you for air in the belief this is actually more fair.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 14 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #217,181
@217,177 (K)
and you know hes not just a puppet trying to get votes from the younger generation how?
and you know hes not just a puppet trying to get votes from the younger generation how?
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 44 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #217,198
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 18 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #217,206
@217,177 (K)
Can you elaborate on Ron Paul being backed by the Jesuits? I can't find this claim anywhere except conspiracy sites.
I did an assignment on the Jesuits though so I quite like them.
Can you elaborate on Ron Paul being backed by the Jesuits? I can't find this claim anywhere except conspiracy sites.
I did an assignment on the Jesuits though so I quite like them.
Anonymous H double-posted this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #217,208
@217,101 (sluggy)
It could argued that free market justice is the natural state which would be reverted to in the absence of coercive territorial monopolies of justice in the hands of the state, in which case all that is truly required is acknowledgement of the fundamental injustice of the statist system.
I encourage you to read more on the subject if it interests you. http://mises.org/literature.aspx has a comprehensive library relating to almost every aspect of a free (anarchic) society.
It could argued that free market justice is the natural state which would be reverted to in the absence of coercive territorial monopolies of justice in the hands of the state, in which case all that is truly required is acknowledgement of the fundamental injustice of the statist system.
I encourage you to read more on the subject if it interests you. http://mises.org/literature.aspx has a comprehensive library relating to almost every aspect of a free (anarchic) society.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 44 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #217,230
@previous (H)
What are some good essays in support of the privatization of the courts system?
Also natural state =\= the best or even a good state. That's why all social contract theorists wanted to construct governments to get us away from the state of nature..
What are some good essays in support of the privatization of the courts system?
Also natural state =\= the best or even a good state. That's why all social contract theorists wanted to construct governments to get us away from the state of nature..
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #217,273
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
> Also natural state =\= the best or even a good state. That's why all social contract theorists wanted to construct governments to get us away from the state of nature..
Only it doesn't get us away from the state of nature. It simply creates new entities with a natural life cycle to which we are now subordinate cells. These entities struggle for dominance and exploit one another same as people do in the natural state. It's still survival of the fittest whether social contract theorists will like it or not.
> Also natural state =\= the best or even a good state. That's why all social contract theorists wanted to construct governments to get us away from the state of nature..
Only it doesn't get us away from the state of nature. It simply creates new entities with a natural life cycle to which we are now subordinate cells. These entities struggle for dominance and exploit one another same as people do in the natural state. It's still survival of the fittest whether social contract theorists will like it or not.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 54 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #217,319
@previous (K)
Right, that's all fine and dandy, but the last two and a half centuries of political philosophy have been undertaken with the goal of preventing a relapse into the state of nature. If you're going to disagree with that fundamental goal, then we are just talking past one another. So I guess the question we should be addressing is "why is the state of nature preferable to a civil society with a government."
Also I am still interested in seeing some essays or argumentation in favor of privatizing the courts system.
Right, that's all fine and dandy, but the last two and a half centuries of political philosophy have been undertaken with the goal of preventing a relapse into the state of nature. If you're going to disagree with that fundamental goal, then we are just talking past one another. So I guess the question we should be addressing is "why is the state of nature preferable to a civil society with a government."
Also I am still interested in seeing some essays or argumentation in favor of privatizing the courts system.
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #217,652
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
The last two and half centuries of political philosophy resulted in the greatest loss of human life than any single century before. But if that's not enough to convince you these guys are actually sorely misguided assholes. I'll answer your question.
> "why is the state of nature preferable to a civil society with a government."
Because emergence. Your so called "civil society" is a bullshit. And your non-question is biased since it appears to suggest the natural state in necessarily uncivil. Define civil please.
The last two and half centuries of political philosophy resulted in the greatest loss of human life than any single century before. But if that's not enough to convince you these guys are actually sorely misguided assholes. I'll answer your question.
> "why is the state of nature preferable to a civil society with a government."
Because emergence. Your so called "civil society" is a bullshit. And your non-question is biased since it appears to suggest the natural state in necessarily uncivil. Define civil please.
Anonymous N double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #217,657
@217,206 (H)
Well he's certainly not being backed by the Jews since they OWN the fucking FED. So who's that leave among the big players? Pretty much the only thing he's NOT talking about fucking over is religion. That's gotta be where the money's coming from.
Moreover, dismantling the state is good for churches because it makes some people destitute and they turn to churches for charity.
Well he's certainly not being backed by the Jews since they OWN the fucking FED. So who's that leave among the big players? Pretty much the only thing he's NOT talking about fucking over is religion. That's gotta be where the money's coming from.
Moreover, dismantling the state is good for churches because it makes some people destitute and they turn to churches for charity.
(Edited 58 seconds later.)
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #217,660
@217,230 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
- Defense Services on the Free Market by Murray Rothbard (http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap13.asp).
- The Myth of the Rule of Law by John Hasnas (http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm).
- Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society, Stephan Kinsella (http://mises.org/journals/jls/11_2/11_2_5.pdf).
- Law and Appeals in a Free Society, Robert Murphy (http://mises.org/daily/4683/Law-and-Appeals-in-a-Free-Society).
- Justice Entrepreneurship in a Freemarket, George Smith (http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_4/3_4_4.pdf).
- The Market for Security, Robert Murphy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0_Jd_MzGCw).
I didn't argue that any given "natural" state is best; merely that when one recognizes the manifest injustice of the statist system, and wholly rejects accordingly, we will be left with free market justice. We will not have to adopt it, it will be there.
- Defense Services on the Free Market by Murray Rothbard (http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap13.asp).
- The Myth of the Rule of Law by John Hasnas (http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm).
- Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society, Stephan Kinsella (http://mises.org/journals/jls/11_2/11_2_5.pdf).
- Law and Appeals in a Free Society, Robert Murphy (http://mises.org/daily/4683/Law-and-Appeals-in-a-Free-Society).
- Justice Entrepreneurship in a Freemarket, George Smith (http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_4/3_4_4.pdf).
- The Market for Security, Robert Murphy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0_Jd_MzGCw).
I didn't argue that any given "natural" state is best; merely that when one recognizes the manifest injustice of the statist system, and wholly rejects accordingly, we will be left with free market justice. We will not have to adopt it, it will be there.
Anonymous H double-posted this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #217,664
@217,657 (N)
He gets the majority of his finances from individual donations. Look it up.
I would argue that the state is good for churches, but bad for "religion". The church benefitted greatly from the state; receiving money, land, immunity from prosecution &c. but religion suffered as the church had to justify and support the state, so that it could continue it's privileged position.
Religion has suffered greatly under the state, which has murdered, imprisoned, deported and otherwise punished people for holding various religious beliefs.
Your statement implies that atheists/other religions do not and would not conduct charitable work.
He gets the majority of his finances from individual donations. Look it up.
I would argue that the state is good for churches, but bad for "religion". The church benefitted greatly from the state; receiving money, land, immunity from prosecution &c. but religion suffered as the church had to justify and support the state, so that it could continue it's privileged position.
Religion has suffered greatly under the state, which has murdered, imprisoned, deported and otherwise punished people for holding various religious beliefs.
Your statement implies that atheists/other religions do not and would not conduct charitable work.
Anonymous N replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #217,673
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 5 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #217,987
@217,011 (H)
> Care to elaborate?
While I like a lot of what he has to say about foreign policy, I think some of his ideas (for instance, his opposition to the UN) tend a little too far into John Birch Society--style isolationist paranoia. Many of his notions (eliminate the FED, the IRS, income tax, FEMA, the Department of Education, or whatever else he's wanting to eliminate this month) about reforming the federal government are unrealistic. He seems fixated with returning the US to a gold standard, which probably isn't a good idea. He seems bent on removing appellate jurisdiction from fedral courts with most of the legislation he introduces, upsetting the established system of checks and balances and leaving state governments free to establish laws that could potentially restrict liberties without any oversight.
@217,014 (sluggy)
> My deal breakers with Ron Paul are his stance on civil rights (for women and gays) and his wanting to deregulate everything. Which, as history has shown, leads to companies bleeding people dry. Not with unnecessary things, but things considered necessary for survival.
All of this as well.
Ron Paul has a lot of good ideas about trimming the federal government, but many of those ideas go too far. He seems to have a vision of the United States returning to some idyllic frontier democracy. While this is a romantic notion, it is without any solid plans about how to get there or how to handle the state and local corruption, inequality, profiteering, and general political and economic uncertainty we have historically seen. When asked about how these problems will be solved, his stock answer seems to be some hand waving about free markets and economic forces or the faith that charitable organizations ("Oh, the churches handle that!" seems to be a favorite line of his lately) will always be on hand to step in and pick up the slack.
If he somehow did manage to get elected, I imagine he would spend his term vetoing bills and arguing with Congress. At best, I see four years of stalled government during a bad economy. At worst, I see ill-planned economic and social policy that we have to dig our way out of later.
> Care to elaborate?
While I like a lot of what he has to say about foreign policy, I think some of his ideas (for instance, his opposition to the UN) tend a little too far into John Birch Society--style isolationist paranoia. Many of his notions (eliminate the FED, the IRS, income tax, FEMA, the Department of Education, or whatever else he's wanting to eliminate this month) about reforming the federal government are unrealistic. He seems fixated with returning the US to a gold standard, which probably isn't a good idea. He seems bent on removing appellate jurisdiction from fedral courts with most of the legislation he introduces, upsetting the established system of checks and balances and leaving state governments free to establish laws that could potentially restrict liberties without any oversight.
@217,014 (sluggy)
> My deal breakers with Ron Paul are his stance on civil rights (for women and gays) and his wanting to deregulate everything. Which, as history has shown, leads to companies bleeding people dry. Not with unnecessary things, but things considered necessary for survival.
All of this as well.
Ron Paul has a lot of good ideas about trimming the federal government, but many of those ideas go too far. He seems to have a vision of the United States returning to some idyllic frontier democracy. While this is a romantic notion, it is without any solid plans about how to get there or how to handle the state and local corruption, inequality, profiteering, and general political and economic uncertainty we have historically seen. When asked about how these problems will be solved, his stock answer seems to be some hand waving about free markets and economic forces or the faith that charitable organizations ("Oh, the churches handle that!" seems to be a favorite line of his lately) will always be on hand to step in and pick up the slack.
If he somehow did manage to get elected, I imagine he would spend his term vetoing bills and arguing with Congress. At best, I see four years of stalled government during a bad economy. At worst, I see ill-planned economic and social policy that we have to dig our way out of later.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #217,988
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #217,990
@217,178 (K)
Wow. So inciteful!
@217,208 (H)
Want to know what would happen? Look at places like Afghanistan where warlords rule.
You are horribly naive.
Wow. So inciteful!
@217,208 (H)
Want to know what would happen? Look at places like Afghanistan where warlords rule.
You are horribly naive.
(Edited 27 seconds later.)
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #217,995
@previous (sluggy)
> warlords
> coercive force
> precisely what would be illegal under libertarian law
> implying a state is in any way different in nature to a warlord
> warlords
> coercive force
> precisely what would be illegal under libertarian law
> implying a state is in any way different in nature to a warlord
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 49 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #218,008
@previous (H)
You're right. A free market justice system is a realistic model. We should do that. I hope we can elect Ron Paul so we can have privatized education as well.
I'm sure this is the best system for a fair life for all. We are all born equal, so it will work out perfectly. I'm sure those that are poor will have adequate education because somebody will open a school for them. Right?
You're right. A free market justice system is a realistic model. We should do that. I hope we can elect Ron Paul so we can have privatized education as well.
I'm sure this is the best system for a fair life for all. We are all born equal, so it will work out perfectly. I'm sure those that are poor will have adequate education because somebody will open a school for them. Right?
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #218,017
Ron Paul for massive butthurt in 2012
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #218,020
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #218,022
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 19 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #218,024
Nickalollyoff !Aw0s40dyqw joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 22 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #218,029
ITT: angsty nerds
notice how all the nerds who talk about anarchy/anarchism are the fatties who only leave the house once a week to stock up on roll-on deodorant for when they avoid yet another shower.
notice how all the nerds who talk about anarchy/anarchism are the fatties who only leave the house once a week to stock up on roll-on deodorant for when they avoid yet another shower.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #218,033
@previous (Nickalollyoff !Aw0s40dyqw)
> notice how all the nerds who talk about anarchy/anarchism are the fatties who only leave the house once a week to stock up on Axe/Lynx body spray for when they avoid yet another shower.
ftfy
> notice how all the nerds who talk about anarchy/anarchism are the fatties who only leave the house once a week to stock up on Axe/Lynx body spray for when they avoid yet another shower.
ftfy
Nickalollyoff !Aw0s40dyqw replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #218,034
@previous (C)seriously, every anarchist I have ever known has stunk of shitty deodorant, weed and farts. vive la revolution
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #218,075
@218,008 (sluggy)
You have confused many separate issues. As President, Ron Paul would have no jurisdiction over States providing public education. He would end the unconstitutional federal Department of Education, however.
You have indicated in other threads that you are not interested in "fairness", by which I assume you mean justice. In fact you seem to continue to support the extortionary state, the expropriating protector of property, the murdering defender of life, and the tyrannical guard of liberty.
We are all born equal. All men are created equal. When you deny this fact you deny the very notion of justice.
I suppose your argument here is that you would not help the poor if the state did not coercively take your money from you and give it to the poor? Some people STILL help the poor, even after the state has stolen a substantial portion of their income in the name of helping the poor.
You have confused many separate issues. As President, Ron Paul would have no jurisdiction over States providing public education. He would end the unconstitutional federal Department of Education, however.
You have indicated in other threads that you are not interested in "fairness", by which I assume you mean justice. In fact you seem to continue to support the extortionary state, the expropriating protector of property, the murdering defender of life, and the tyrannical guard of liberty.
We are all born equal. All men are created equal. When you deny this fact you deny the very notion of justice.
I suppose your argument here is that you would not help the poor if the state did not coercively take your money from you and give it to the poor? Some people STILL help the poor, even after the state has stolen a substantial portion of their income in the name of helping the poor.
Anonymous H double-posted this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #218,077
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #218,091
@218,075 (H)
> You have confused many separate issues. As President, Ron Paul would have no jurisdiction over States providing public education. He would end the unconstitutional federal Department of Education, however.
>
There would be no public education in the kind of society you are advocating. Why are you attempting to present it out of context?
> You have indicated in other threads that you are not interested in "fairness", by which I assume you mean justice. In fact you seem to continue to support the extortionary state, the expropriating protector of property, the murdering defender of life, and the tyrannical guard of liberty.
>
Lets stay on one topic at a time. You have a very evasive style. You are much like a christian apologist.
> We are all born equal. All men are created equal. When you deny this fact you deny the very notion of justice.
>
No fucking way. What planet do you live on? A boy born into a wealthy white family has a ridiculous advantage over any minority, or anyone who's parents or less wealthy. If you deny that, you were born at a disadvantage to others, because you are retarded. I am sorry to tell you.
> I suppose your argument here is that you would not help the poor if the state did not coercively take your money from you and give it to the poor? Some people STILL help the poor, even after the state has stolen a substantial portion of their income in the name of helping the poor.
Maybe I wouldn't, but Im almost positive that I would. Its others I don't think would. I give money now. I don't get to deduct from my taxes because I would have to give a shit ton more than I could afford for the deductions to be more than my normal ones (since i don't deduct shit else). I dont need to and I do, and I don't make all that much money.
> You have confused many separate issues. As President, Ron Paul would have no jurisdiction over States providing public education. He would end the unconstitutional federal Department of Education, however.
>
There would be no public education in the kind of society you are advocating. Why are you attempting to present it out of context?
> You have indicated in other threads that you are not interested in "fairness", by which I assume you mean justice. In fact you seem to continue to support the extortionary state, the expropriating protector of property, the murdering defender of life, and the tyrannical guard of liberty.
>
Lets stay on one topic at a time. You have a very evasive style. You are much like a christian apologist.
> We are all born equal. All men are created equal. When you deny this fact you deny the very notion of justice.
>
No fucking way. What planet do you live on? A boy born into a wealthy white family has a ridiculous advantage over any minority, or anyone who's parents or less wealthy. If you deny that, you were born at a disadvantage to others, because you are retarded. I am sorry to tell you.
> I suppose your argument here is that you would not help the poor if the state did not coercively take your money from you and give it to the poor? Some people STILL help the poor, even after the state has stolen a substantial portion of their income in the name of helping the poor.
Maybe I wouldn't, but Im almost positive that I would. Its others I don't think would. I give money now. I don't get to deduct from my taxes because I would have to give a shit ton more than I could afford for the deductions to be more than my normal ones (since i don't deduct shit else). I dont need to and I do, and I don't make all that much money.
Anonymous Q joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 6 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #218,215
To all Liberfags shitting up this thread:
The shitty and perverse distribution of income you all bitch about and expect IRS goons can actually correct is not a consequence of free and open markets at all. It is the result of a government enforced monolithic money paradigm. In truly free and open markets, money is whatever we say it is. When some fat cat hogs all the chips and no longer plays fair people who don't like it can switch to different money at any time.
The government monopoly on money, which they willingly handed over to private bankers is the reason for the shit you're bitching about. Get your heads out of your assess. Ron Paul would rape the fed. I have no doubt about that and I'm sure they'd try to assassinate him too.
In a true libertarian society everyone would be free to choose whichever "money" the liked best.
Ron Paul for maximum lulzyness in 2012.
The shitty and perverse distribution of income you all bitch about and expect IRS goons can actually correct is not a consequence of free and open markets at all. It is the result of a government enforced monolithic money paradigm. In truly free and open markets, money is whatever we say it is. When some fat cat hogs all the chips and no longer plays fair people who don't like it can switch to different money at any time.
The government monopoly on money, which they willingly handed over to private bankers is the reason for the shit you're bitching about. Get your heads out of your assess. Ron Paul would rape the fed. I have no doubt about that and I'm sure they'd try to assassinate him too.
In a true libertarian society everyone would be free to choose whichever "money" the liked best.
Ron Paul for maximum lulzyness in 2012.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
dreamworks !AUIkTW/L46 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #218,219
whats the deal with airplane food
Rogi~ !tiQBrOS.jo joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #218,221
Anonymous T joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #218,328
@218,075 (H)
People can't handle options. They need the government to make decisions for them. It's better that way.
People can't handle options. They need the government to make decisions for them. It's better that way.
(Edited 21 seconds later.)
Anonymous U joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #218,444
@218,091 (sluggy)
> There would be no public education in the kind of society you are advocating. Why are you attempting to present it out of context?
Ron Paul ≠the society I am advocating. Nor do I advocate sudden revolution and overthrow of the state. I envisage a gradual phase-out and dismantlement of the state.
> No fucking way. What planet do you live on? A boy born into a wealthy white family has a ridiculous advantage over any minority, or anyone who's parents or less wealthy. If you deny that, you were born at a disadvantage to others, because you are retarded. I am sorry to tell you.
One's abilities have nothing to do with one's rights. All are born with equal rights but not with equal ability. Once again you conflate two separate issue. This is why philosophy is important. You really do have to sit down and think about the world. Define concepts and ideas. Form them into a logical thought-system/worldview.
A person with no legs has equal rights to a person with legs, but not equal ability. Both of them have an equal right to life and property. You, however, suggest that one's rights are directly linked to their ability. You suggest that one with "more" ability (however you choose to define it) has less or no right to liberty and property. This is obviously evil and wrong. All men are created equal.
> Maybe I wouldn't, but Im almost positive that I would. Its others I don't think would.
Surely you realize how silly this sounded as you typed it? ^^^ Everybody thinks this!
> There would be no public education in the kind of society you are advocating. Why are you attempting to present it out of context?
Ron Paul ≠the society I am advocating. Nor do I advocate sudden revolution and overthrow of the state. I envisage a gradual phase-out and dismantlement of the state.
> No fucking way. What planet do you live on? A boy born into a wealthy white family has a ridiculous advantage over any minority, or anyone who's parents or less wealthy. If you deny that, you were born at a disadvantage to others, because you are retarded. I am sorry to tell you.
One's abilities have nothing to do with one's rights. All are born with equal rights but not with equal ability. Once again you conflate two separate issue. This is why philosophy is important. You really do have to sit down and think about the world. Define concepts and ideas. Form them into a logical thought-system/worldview.
A person with no legs has equal rights to a person with legs, but not equal ability. Both of them have an equal right to life and property. You, however, suggest that one's rights are directly linked to their ability. You suggest that one with "more" ability (however you choose to define it) has less or no right to liberty and property. This is obviously evil and wrong. All men are created equal.
> Maybe I wouldn't, but Im almost positive that I would. Its others I don't think would.
Surely you realize how silly this sounded as you typed it? ^^^ Everybody thinks this!
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 7 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #218,702
@218,034 (Nickalollyoff !Aw0s40dyqw)
It's fucking true, and it's bad for the libertarian movement too. Libertarianism is not the same thing as anarchy, but anarchists identify with it believing it's closer to their vision. But they're just fucking it up because they highlight the biggest objection to Libertarianism--fear of uncertainty.
There are still rights in a Libertarianism system. In true anarchy there are zero rights. The freedom to choose is essential to both philosophies, but anarchy takes it to the level where freedom of choice means anyone is free to violate your essential rights.
Anarchists suck and we should ship them all to a place where the really is anarchy so they'll stop shitting all over the libertarian movement. I vote for Somalia.
It's fucking true, and it's bad for the libertarian movement too. Libertarianism is not the same thing as anarchy, but anarchists identify with it believing it's closer to their vision. But they're just fucking it up because they highlight the biggest objection to Libertarianism--fear of uncertainty.
There are still rights in a Libertarianism system. In true anarchy there are zero rights. The freedom to choose is essential to both philosophies, but anarchy takes it to the level where freedom of choice means anyone is free to violate your essential rights.
Anarchists suck and we should ship them all to a place where the really is anarchy so they'll stop shitting all over the libertarian movement. I vote for Somalia.
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 56 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #218,731
@218,444 (U)
I give money now. That's how I know I would give. Did you drop your UID?
You were advocating an anarcho-libertarian society, were you not? I mean, seriously how the fuck do you expect people to continue a discussion with you when you turn evasive and begin to present things out of context and try to misrepresent what ive said? I've warned you about this before. It's tiring. You always start out strong in arguments and dwindle to this. It's annoying.
I didn't say we aren't all born with equal rights. Now, let me go back and I'll quote exactly what I said. This is exactly the thing I hate with any extended discussion with you.
@218,008 (sluggy)
> You're right. A free market justice system is a realistic model. We should do that. I hope we can elect Ron Paul so we can have privatized education as well.
>
> I'm sure this is the best system for a fair life for all. We are all born equal, so it will work out perfectly. I'm sure those that are poor will have adequate education because somebody will open a school for them. Right?
Look what I put in bold. I was making a point about the largest flaw with libertarianism, it heavily favors those born into advantage. It leaves those born at a disadvantage at the mercy of those with power (wealth). Those born into advantage get to benefit from all of the works of human history, but don't need to contribute shit. Our government forces that through re-distribution of wealth. Many wealthy people do not earn their share. They take advantage of a system to profit far more than others. Look at companies that have had massive lay-offs in a year and see the kinds of bonuses that upper management got.
Also, Ron Paul looks like a cartoon character.
It is possible to be a social libertarian. I am one. I think that's what is most appealing to you, isn't it? Unless you come from wealth, but I dont think you do.
I give money now. That's how I know I would give. Did you drop your UID?
You were advocating an anarcho-libertarian society, were you not? I mean, seriously how the fuck do you expect people to continue a discussion with you when you turn evasive and begin to present things out of context and try to misrepresent what ive said? I've warned you about this before. It's tiring. You always start out strong in arguments and dwindle to this. It's annoying.
I didn't say we aren't all born with equal rights. Now, let me go back and I'll quote exactly what I said. This is exactly the thing I hate with any extended discussion with you.
@218,008 (sluggy)
> You're right. A free market justice system is a realistic model. We should do that. I hope we can elect Ron Paul so we can have privatized education as well.
>
> I'm sure this is the best system for a fair life for all. We are all born equal, so it will work out perfectly. I'm sure those that are poor will have adequate education because somebody will open a school for them. Right?
Look what I put in bold. I was making a point about the largest flaw with libertarianism, it heavily favors those born into advantage. It leaves those born at a disadvantage at the mercy of those with power (wealth). Those born into advantage get to benefit from all of the works of human history, but don't need to contribute shit. Our government forces that through re-distribution of wealth. Many wealthy people do not earn their share. They take advantage of a system to profit far more than others. Look at companies that have had massive lay-offs in a year and see the kinds of bonuses that upper management got.
Also, Ron Paul looks like a cartoon character.
It is possible to be a social libertarian. I am one. I think that's what is most appealing to you, isn't it? Unless you come from wealth, but I dont think you do.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #218,747
@previous (sluggy)
> I was making a point about the largest flaw with --libertarianism-- life, it heavily favors those born into advantage.
FTFY
> I was making a point about the largest flaw with --libertarianism-- life, it heavily favors those born into advantage.
FTFY
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #218,778
dreamworks !AUIkTW/L46 replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #218,789
Nickalollyoff !Aw0s40dyqw replied with this 15 years ago, 17 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #218,790
Anonymous U replied with this 15 years ago, 5 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #218,946
@218,702 (K)
> It's fucking true, and it's bad for the libertarian movement too. Libertarianism is not the same thing as anarchy, but anarchists identify with it believing it's closer to their vision. But they're just fucking it up because they highlight the biggest objection to Libertarianism--fear of uncertainty.
No, the biggest objection to libertarianism is it's philosophical inconsistency. It's completely untenable. It would be better than what we have today, but it is ultimately flawed. Any system that supports expropriation through violent coercive force is flawed.
> There are still rights in a Libertarianism system. In true anarchy there are zero rights. The freedom to choose is essential to both philosophies, but anarchy takes it to the level where freedom of choice means anyone is free to violate your essential rights.
You are confusing "rights" with "protection of rights", and furthermore assuming that a state is the only entity capable of protecting. Rights are inherent; they are not endowed by the state. We had rights before the state and will continue to have rights after the state. In an anarchic society, there would still be protection of rights; there would still be courts, there would still be enforcement agencies - but they would not be funded by expropriation through violent coercive force nor would they be given territorial monopolies of force.
> Anarchists suck and we should ship them all to a place where the really is anarchy so they'll stop shitting all over the libertarian movement. I vote for Somalia.
^^^ Cool libertarianism bro. You're about as libertarian as Romney.
> It's fucking true, and it's bad for the libertarian movement too. Libertarianism is not the same thing as anarchy, but anarchists identify with it believing it's closer to their vision. But they're just fucking it up because they highlight the biggest objection to Libertarianism--fear of uncertainty.
No, the biggest objection to libertarianism is it's philosophical inconsistency. It's completely untenable. It would be better than what we have today, but it is ultimately flawed. Any system that supports expropriation through violent coercive force is flawed.
> There are still rights in a Libertarianism system. In true anarchy there are zero rights. The freedom to choose is essential to both philosophies, but anarchy takes it to the level where freedom of choice means anyone is free to violate your essential rights.
You are confusing "rights" with "protection of rights", and furthermore assuming that a state is the only entity capable of protecting. Rights are inherent; they are not endowed by the state. We had rights before the state and will continue to have rights after the state. In an anarchic society, there would still be protection of rights; there would still be courts, there would still be enforcement agencies - but they would not be funded by expropriation through violent coercive force nor would they be given territorial monopolies of force.
> Anarchists suck and we should ship them all to a place where the really is anarchy so they'll stop shitting all over the libertarian movement. I vote for Somalia.
^^^ Cool libertarianism bro. You're about as libertarian as Romney.
Anonymous U double-posted this 15 years ago, 24 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #218,965
@218,731 (sluggy)
> I give money now. That's how I know I would give. Did you drop your UID?
Everybody gives money now. That's how you know they would give. However, it's not really important. One has no right to another's property, just as one has no right to another's labor. I deleted cookies, yes.
> You were advocating an anarcho-libertarian society, were you not? I mean, seriously how the fuck do you expect people to continue a discussion with you when you turn evasive and begin to present things out of context and try to misrepresent what ive said? I've warned you about this before. It's tiring. You always start out strong in arguments and dwindle to this. It's annoying.
My support for anarcho-capitalism is beyond my support for Ron Paul. I don't really know what you're referring to, as you haven't cited anything, so I can't respond to this. Honestly, you just seem mad that your argument is unconvincing.
> I didn't say we aren't all born with equal rights.
I know, and that's the problem. You are focusing on irrelevant issues.
> I was making a point about the largest flaw with libertarianism, it heavily favors those born into advantage. It leaves those born at a disadvantage at the mercy of those with power (wealth).
No, because libertarianism removes the power/wealth convolution by limiting power. It removes the ability to coerce people. No one is at anyone's mercy (unlike the statist system, where everybody lives at the state's mercy [the state has removed its mercy from that guy and will execute him soon]). All interaction will happen voluntarily.
Under statism, the man with wealth directs the state to set up tariffs, quotas, and subsidies; all of which benefit him and hurt the consumer. Under libertarianism the state no longer has the powers, which benefits the consumer.
> Those born into advantage get to benefit from all of the works of human history, but don't need to contribute shit.
So? They don't owe anything to you. You don't have a right to another's property. If they don't contribute, they will lose their wealth. Really this is just jealousy. If I gave you $100 and the person next to you $1000, you should be happy that I gave you $100, not pissy that I didn't give you as much as I gave someone else.
> Our government forces that through re-distribution of wealth.
LOL. Why stop there? Decriminalize all property crimes! It would encourage the lazy classes to work more. The state has a territorial monopoly on coercive force; that one could realize this yet continue to support it unthinkable.
> Many wealthy people do not earn their share. They take advantage of a system to profit far more than others. Look at companies that have had massive lay-offs in a year and see the kinds of bonuses that upper management got.
It is not your concern what people do with their private property. You don't want the state in the bedroom, but you're happy with it in the boardroom? You're a hypocrite.
> It is possible to be a social libertarian. I am one. I think that's what is most appealing to you, isn't it? Unless you come from wealth, but I dont think you do.
It is possible, but it is not defensible. It is illogical, inconsistent, philosophically untenable, and hypocritical to simultaneously propose extension and reduction of liberty. Also, enough with the class warfare bullshit. That's getting old fast.
> I give money now. That's how I know I would give. Did you drop your UID?
Everybody gives money now. That's how you know they would give. However, it's not really important. One has no right to another's property, just as one has no right to another's labor. I deleted cookies, yes.
> You were advocating an anarcho-libertarian society, were you not? I mean, seriously how the fuck do you expect people to continue a discussion with you when you turn evasive and begin to present things out of context and try to misrepresent what ive said? I've warned you about this before. It's tiring. You always start out strong in arguments and dwindle to this. It's annoying.
My support for anarcho-capitalism is beyond my support for Ron Paul. I don't really know what you're referring to, as you haven't cited anything, so I can't respond to this. Honestly, you just seem mad that your argument is unconvincing.
> I didn't say we aren't all born with equal rights.
I know, and that's the problem. You are focusing on irrelevant issues.
> I was making a point about the largest flaw with libertarianism, it heavily favors those born into advantage. It leaves those born at a disadvantage at the mercy of those with power (wealth).
No, because libertarianism removes the power/wealth convolution by limiting power. It removes the ability to coerce people. No one is at anyone's mercy (unlike the statist system, where everybody lives at the state's mercy [the state has removed its mercy from that guy and will execute him soon]). All interaction will happen voluntarily.
Under statism, the man with wealth directs the state to set up tariffs, quotas, and subsidies; all of which benefit him and hurt the consumer. Under libertarianism the state no longer has the powers, which benefits the consumer.
> Those born into advantage get to benefit from all of the works of human history, but don't need to contribute shit.
So? They don't owe anything to you. You don't have a right to another's property. If they don't contribute, they will lose their wealth. Really this is just jealousy. If I gave you $100 and the person next to you $1000, you should be happy that I gave you $100, not pissy that I didn't give you as much as I gave someone else.
> Our government forces that through re-distribution of wealth.
LOL. Why stop there? Decriminalize all property crimes! It would encourage the lazy classes to work more. The state has a territorial monopoly on coercive force; that one could realize this yet continue to support it unthinkable.
> Many wealthy people do not earn their share. They take advantage of a system to profit far more than others. Look at companies that have had massive lay-offs in a year and see the kinds of bonuses that upper management got.
It is not your concern what people do with their private property. You don't want the state in the bedroom, but you're happy with it in the boardroom? You're a hypocrite.
> It is possible to be a social libertarian. I am one. I think that's what is most appealing to you, isn't it? Unless you come from wealth, but I dont think you do.
It is possible, but it is not defensible. It is illogical, inconsistent, philosophically untenable, and hypocritical to simultaneously propose extension and reduction of liberty. Also, enough with the class warfare bullshit. That's getting old fast.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 49 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #218,998
@previous (U)
You ever notice nobody ever agrees with you? You ever notice you tell everyone they are wrong about everything?
You ever notice nobody ever agrees with you? You ever notice you tell everyone they are wrong about everything?
Anonymous U replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #219,224
@previous (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Because majority consensus determines veracity, right?
I only tell people they are wrong when they are wrong. When they are right, I agree with them.
Because majority consensus determines veracity, right?
I only tell people they are wrong when they are wrong. When they are right, I agree with them.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #219,227
@previous (U)
Sigh...
You are the one who is wrong, and every time I've backed you into a corner about it, you've resorted to blatant trolling.
Every time. Its a complete waste of anyone's time to talk to you. Always.
Sigh...
You are the one who is wrong, and every time I've backed you into a corner about it, you've resorted to blatant trolling.
Every time. Its a complete waste of anyone's time to talk to you. Always.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #219,243
@218,965 (U)
> It is not your concern what people do with their private property. You don't want the state in the bedroom, but you're happy with it in the boardroom? You're a hypocrite.
What I do in my bedroom doesn't harm others. If it did, I'd expect someone to step in and say "you need to stop doing this."
When Someone's actions have the ability to harm many others, and they can profit off that then we need laws to prevent it.
> It is not your concern what people do with their private property. You don't want the state in the bedroom, but you're happy with it in the boardroom? You're a hypocrite.
What I do in my bedroom doesn't harm others. If it did, I'd expect someone to step in and say "you need to stop doing this."
When Someone's actions have the ability to harm many others, and they can profit off that then we need laws to prevent it.
sluggy double-posted this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #219,271
@218,965 (U)
last time I will do this with you. I'm gonna start to ignore this shit.
> My support for anarcho-capitalism is beyond my support for Ron Paul. I don't really know what you're referring to, as you haven't cited anything, so I can't respond to this. Honestly, you just seem mad that your argument is unconvincing.
We were discussing it. Keep track.
@217,042 (H)
> Firstly, we must define terms. When I speak of capitalism, I most strictly mean anarcho-capitalism. In this vein I do not consider any economy under which coercive territorial monopolies exist to be capitalistic in nature.
>
> I hope this explanation leads to a better understanding between us. You will see how under my definition of capitalism, we have never, and now, to a greater extent than ever before, do not, live in a (anarcho)capitalist society.
>
> So-called civil rights is easier. There are only individual rights, not group rights. A person belonging to a particular group has no more or less rights than any other person.
@217,072 (H)
> This is of inestimable benefit to you. The state empowers corporations by giving them special benefits, crushing competition through tariffs, regulation, tax codes &c.
>
> If you would prefer the state to monopolize justice, policing, and defense but stay out of everything else you are espousing minarchy. I view this a HUGE step in the right direction, but ultimately indefensible philosophically.
>
> Under anarcho-capitalism there would be competing private police forces, along with charitable associations providing free services to the poor &c. Courts would likewise be numerous and competing, and separate to the police forces. Free market justice. I can understand this might seem shocking to you (it was to me; I was a minarchist for many years before I finally admitted to myself that it couldn't be justified) but I ask you to carefully consider the matter.
>
> I could understand a criticism of anarcho-capitalism being a waste of resources through "doubling-up" i.e. having many companies with their own infrastructures offering a service where there is currently a coercive territorial monopoly, but I can not understand your "single company" criticism. The exact opposite of anarcho-capitalism would be socialism or communism, wherein all property is owned by a single company, the state.
Still confused on why I was addressing things you were saying?
You need to understand that, like usual, you are wrong on this.
Look at what was going on in Saipan with jack abramoff and Tom delay. The wealthy will use the poor as slaves. They do not care. They try to buy their way out of laws, what do you think will happen when they aren't regulated?
You can't pretend it's a beneficial society, when the practices lead to slave labor. People need to be protected. Those people working in the factories on the Marian islands couldnt even escape to go home.
They would go to the police for help and the police would drive them back to the factories.
Libertarianism leads to serfdom.
last time I will do this with you. I'm gonna start to ignore this shit.
> My support for anarcho-capitalism is beyond my support for Ron Paul. I don't really know what you're referring to, as you haven't cited anything, so I can't respond to this. Honestly, you just seem mad that your argument is unconvincing.
We were discussing it. Keep track.
@217,042 (H)
> Firstly, we must define terms. When I speak of capitalism, I most strictly mean anarcho-capitalism. In this vein I do not consider any economy under which coercive territorial monopolies exist to be capitalistic in nature.
>
> I hope this explanation leads to a better understanding between us. You will see how under my definition of capitalism, we have never, and now, to a greater extent than ever before, do not, live in a (anarcho)capitalist society.
>
> So-called civil rights is easier. There are only individual rights, not group rights. A person belonging to a particular group has no more or less rights than any other person.
@217,072 (H)
> This is of inestimable benefit to you. The state empowers corporations by giving them special benefits, crushing competition through tariffs, regulation, tax codes &c.
>
> If you would prefer the state to monopolize justice, policing, and defense but stay out of everything else you are espousing minarchy. I view this a HUGE step in the right direction, but ultimately indefensible philosophically.
>
> Under anarcho-capitalism there would be competing private police forces, along with charitable associations providing free services to the poor &c. Courts would likewise be numerous and competing, and separate to the police forces. Free market justice. I can understand this might seem shocking to you (it was to me; I was a minarchist for many years before I finally admitted to myself that it couldn't be justified) but I ask you to carefully consider the matter.
>
> I could understand a criticism of anarcho-capitalism being a waste of resources through "doubling-up" i.e. having many companies with their own infrastructures offering a service where there is currently a coercive territorial monopoly, but I can not understand your "single company" criticism. The exact opposite of anarcho-capitalism would be socialism or communism, wherein all property is owned by a single company, the state.
Still confused on why I was addressing things you were saying?
You need to understand that, like usual, you are wrong on this.
Look at what was going on in Saipan with jack abramoff and Tom delay. The wealthy will use the poor as slaves. They do not care. They try to buy their way out of laws, what do you think will happen when they aren't regulated?
You can't pretend it's a beneficial society, when the practices lead to slave labor. People need to be protected. Those people working in the factories on the Marian islands couldnt even escape to go home.
They would go to the police for help and the police would drive them back to the factories.
Libertarianism leads to serfdom.
Anonymous U replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #219,273
@219,227 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
> I've backed you into a corner
WTF? You actually believe this? Seriously, I actually lol'd. Fair enough, I don't expect you to be able to understand everything I say, but you really think you have logically refuted my philosophical worldview?
I don't believe you have ever responded to any of my posts seriously. Your replies almost entirely consist of "You're retarded" or "You're a troll". Real compelling arguments there, bud.
Check out your replies ITT for example. All shitposts, contributing nothing to the discussion.
Why don't you start now? Explain your opposition to Ron Paul and his political philosophy.
> I've backed you into a corner
WTF? You actually believe this? Seriously, I actually lol'd. Fair enough, I don't expect you to be able to understand everything I say, but you really think you have logically refuted my philosophical worldview?
I don't believe you have ever responded to any of my posts seriously. Your replies almost entirely consist of "You're retarded" or "You're a troll". Real compelling arguments there, bud.
Check out your replies ITT for example. All shitposts, contributing nothing to the discussion.
Why don't you start now? Explain your opposition to Ron Paul and his political philosophy.
Anonymous U double-posted this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #219,282
@219,243 (sluggy)
> What I do in my bedroom doesn't harm others. If it did, I'd expect someone to step in and say "you need to stop doing this."
Precisely.
> When Someone's actions have the ability to harm many others, and they can profit off that then we need laws to prevent it.
Not when they merely have the ability, but do harm other people (driving a car has the ability to harm people yet is not wrong. Deliberately running people over IS wrong).
Your post seems to be lacking a key point. As it stands, it does not argue in favor of the expropriating state, but against - theft hurts people, and is therefore wrong ("taxation" means "theft by the state").
> What I do in my bedroom doesn't harm others. If it did, I'd expect someone to step in and say "you need to stop doing this."
Precisely.
> When Someone's actions have the ability to harm many others, and they can profit off that then we need laws to prevent it.
Not when they merely have the ability, but do harm other people (driving a car has the ability to harm people yet is not wrong. Deliberately running people over IS wrong).
Your post seems to be lacking a key point. As it stands, it does not argue in favor of the expropriating state, but against - theft hurts people, and is therefore wrong ("taxation" means "theft by the state").
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #219,283
@219,273 (U)
You did get backed into a corner. You resort to quote mining, taking things out of context and pretending not to understand the direction of the conversation.
I think the problem is that you are good at memorizing. You can state things you learned in theology class or from your libertarian friends and from reading online. You can repeat things, but you can't apply that knowledge. Once a point is questioned you become evasive.
You always start out strong and fall apart. It's very disappointing because I always think we might have an interesting discussion.
You did get backed into a corner. You resort to quote mining, taking things out of context and pretending not to understand the direction of the conversation.
I think the problem is that you are good at memorizing. You can state things you learned in theology class or from your libertarian friends and from reading online. You can repeat things, but you can't apply that knowledge. Once a point is questioned you become evasive.
You always start out strong and fall apart. It's very disappointing because I always think we might have an interesting discussion.
sluggy double-posted this 15 years ago, 13 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #219,296
@219,282 (U)
You need to understand something - we live in reality. It would be great if we could keep every dollar we earned. I wish I did.
However, we rely on things like roads, public transportation, and many other things that are necessary.
In a libertarian society, you would be "taxed" in another way. Every road would be a toll road. Someone has to maintain it.
So, instead of being taxed you'll be tolled, charged, invoiced. Fire? Better hope you can afford a private fire department, or that you have a volunteer department with adequate funding and water. They're gonna need water to put it out. Fire hydrants will need to be maintained and the water needs to come from somewhere.
Sucks if you can't afford it. Sucks if your neighbor can't, cause now his fire is coming over to your house because it couldn't be put out.
You need to understand something - we live in reality. It would be great if we could keep every dollar we earned. I wish I did.
However, we rely on things like roads, public transportation, and many other things that are necessary.
In a libertarian society, you would be "taxed" in another way. Every road would be a toll road. Someone has to maintain it.
So, instead of being taxed you'll be tolled, charged, invoiced. Fire? Better hope you can afford a private fire department, or that you have a volunteer department with adequate funding and water. They're gonna need water to put it out. Fire hydrants will need to be maintained and the water needs to come from somewhere.
Sucks if you can't afford it. Sucks if your neighbor can't, cause now his fire is coming over to your house because it couldn't be put out.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 22 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #219,308
@219,273 (U)
I stopped trying to talk to you long ago, bud. I'm not gonna try again, I've given you ample opportunities. I have gone above and beyond trying to discuss things with you, I always regret it.
I stopped trying to talk to you long ago, bud. I'm not gonna try again, I've given you ample opportunities. I have gone above and beyond trying to discuss things with you, I always regret it.
(Edited 20 seconds later.)
The Truth !!vSp31CfSr joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 57 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #219,309
Donald Trump 2012
Anonymous U replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #219,310
@219,271 (sluggy)
> last time I will do this with you. I'm gonna start to ignore this shit.
Do what? Present another twist on an old argument because I refuted it once logically and within a consistent political philosophy?
> We were discussing it. Keep track.
> Still confused on why I was addressing things you were saying?
I am not confused. There are two separate issues in this discussion. One ie Ron Paul, the other is anarcho-capitalism, and more particularly, justice in a post-state society. In this post @218,091 (sluggy) you began conflating them. Ron Paul does not advocate anarcho-capitalism. I am quite able to keep two discussions going; if you would prefer to focus on one that is acceptable.
> You need to understand that, like usual, you are wrong on this.
>
> Look at what was going on in Saipan with jack abramoff and Tom delay. The wealthy will use the poor as slaves. They do not care. They try to buy their way out of laws, what do you think will happen when they aren't regulated?
Wow. It's hard to know where to start. It's difficult to know what your actual problem is, because you mention obliquely and only in very shallow depth. What exactly about Saipan is that bothered you? Slavery (owning a person's labor) is illegal; except when practiced by the state. By buy their way out of laws, I assume you are referring to bribes - this is another argument AGAINST the state. By concentrating power in the hands of the few, you enable this sort of abuse.
Basically what supposedly happened in Saipan is that people paid fees to migrate there because they were promised jobs. This is a contract, and as such they are entitled to jobs (with conditions and pay) they agreed to in that contract. However, when they got there, there were no jobs and the people they paid fees to were gone. This is nothing less than violation of contract - contract being the basis of libertarian law, this is a great example of a specific case libertarian law would be apt to deal with.
> You can't pretend it's a beneficial society, when the practices lead to slave labor. People need to be protected. Those people working in the factories on the Marian islands couldnt even escape to go home.
The practices don't lead to slave labor, as I demonstrated above. People should not be protected from themselves, at their own expense, against their will. Are you saying that people were being held captive against their will? Libertarianism repudiates coercive force - this would not be possible under a free society. Are you saying they merely couldn't afford to go home? It would still be wrong to steal to help them. Set up a charity paying for voyages back home. Just don't steal.
> They would go to the police for help and the police would drive them back to the factories.
Classic example of statist violence. You see violence initiated by the state, for the state's benefit - and you use this as an argument AGAINST a stateless society?!
> Libertarianism leads to serfdom.
You don't know what serfdom is lol. Serfdom is synonymous with Statism - i.e. it's heriditary (we made no contract with a state; our ancestors did, yet we are considered bound by it = serfdom), we are reliant upon the lord (state) for protection (the state claims a territorial monopoly of force), we owe the lord (state) part of our labor (through taxation or conscription). Oh to be sure, the lord was nice to his serfs. He fed them when he could, let them marry who they wanted if he could spare them, and let them buy their freedom sometimes.
libertarians = freemen, statists = serfs.
> last time I will do this with you. I'm gonna start to ignore this shit.
Do what? Present another twist on an old argument because I refuted it once logically and within a consistent political philosophy?
> We were discussing it. Keep track.
> Still confused on why I was addressing things you were saying?
I am not confused. There are two separate issues in this discussion. One ie Ron Paul, the other is anarcho-capitalism, and more particularly, justice in a post-state society. In this post @218,091 (sluggy) you began conflating them. Ron Paul does not advocate anarcho-capitalism. I am quite able to keep two discussions going; if you would prefer to focus on one that is acceptable.
> You need to understand that, like usual, you are wrong on this.
>
> Look at what was going on in Saipan with jack abramoff and Tom delay. The wealthy will use the poor as slaves. They do not care. They try to buy their way out of laws, what do you think will happen when they aren't regulated?
Wow. It's hard to know where to start. It's difficult to know what your actual problem is, because you mention obliquely and only in very shallow depth. What exactly about Saipan is that bothered you? Slavery (owning a person's labor) is illegal; except when practiced by the state. By buy their way out of laws, I assume you are referring to bribes - this is another argument AGAINST the state. By concentrating power in the hands of the few, you enable this sort of abuse.
Basically what supposedly happened in Saipan is that people paid fees to migrate there because they were promised jobs. This is a contract, and as such they are entitled to jobs (with conditions and pay) they agreed to in that contract. However, when they got there, there were no jobs and the people they paid fees to were gone. This is nothing less than violation of contract - contract being the basis of libertarian law, this is a great example of a specific case libertarian law would be apt to deal with.
> You can't pretend it's a beneficial society, when the practices lead to slave labor. People need to be protected. Those people working in the factories on the Marian islands couldnt even escape to go home.
The practices don't lead to slave labor, as I demonstrated above. People should not be protected from themselves, at their own expense, against their will. Are you saying that people were being held captive against their will? Libertarianism repudiates coercive force - this would not be possible under a free society. Are you saying they merely couldn't afford to go home? It would still be wrong to steal to help them. Set up a charity paying for voyages back home. Just don't steal.
> They would go to the police for help and the police would drive them back to the factories.
Classic example of statist violence. You see violence initiated by the state, for the state's benefit - and you use this as an argument AGAINST a stateless society?!
> Libertarianism leads to serfdom.
You don't know what serfdom is lol. Serfdom is synonymous with Statism - i.e. it's heriditary (we made no contract with a state; our ancestors did, yet we are considered bound by it = serfdom), we are reliant upon the lord (state) for protection (the state claims a territorial monopoly of force), we owe the lord (state) part of our labor (through taxation or conscription). Oh to be sure, the lord was nice to his serfs. He fed them when he could, let them marry who they wanted if he could spare them, and let them buy their freedom sometimes.
libertarians = freemen, statists = serfs.
Anonymous U double-posted this 15 years ago, 48 seconds later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #219,312
@219,308 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
> Check out your replies ITT for example. All shitposts, contributing nothing to the discussion.
> Why don't you start now? Explain your opposition to Ron Paul and his political philosophy.
> Check out your replies ITT for example. All shitposts, contributing nothing to the discussion.
> Why don't you start now? Explain your opposition to Ron Paul and his political philosophy.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #219,316
@previous (U)
> I stopped trying to talk to you long ago, bud. I'm not gonna try again, I've given you ample opportunities. I have gone above and beyond trying to discuss things with you, I always regret it.
I will however make an effort to insult you less.
> I stopped trying to talk to you long ago, bud. I'm not gonna try again, I've given you ample opportunities. I have gone above and beyond trying to discuss things with you, I always regret it.
I will however make an effort to insult you less.
Anonymous U replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #219,319
@219,283 (sluggy)
> You did get backed into a corner. You resort to quote mining, taking things out of context and pretending not to understand the direction of the conversation.
Ks claimed to back me in a corner. lol @ "Don't mention the dumb things I say - that's Quote-Mining!" I am literally facepalming. YOU attributed support of free-market justice to Ron Paul - a position he does not espouse. I can only assume you're high when you get stuck in these ruts like this.
> I think the problem is that you are good at memorizing. You can state things you learned in theology class or from your libertarian friends and from reading online. You can repeat things, but you can't apply that knowledge. Once a point is questioned you become evasive.
I answer every single point made in every single thread. Point out ONE single, solitary instance that I haven't responded to a point raised against me.
> You always start out strong and fall apart. It's very disappointing because I always think we might have an interesting discussion.
I am the last post in most topics. Threads die because you can't come up with any more objections, yet you are not quite ready to change your mind. I understand, it's hard.
> You did get backed into a corner. You resort to quote mining, taking things out of context and pretending not to understand the direction of the conversation.
Ks claimed to back me in a corner. lol @ "Don't mention the dumb things I say - that's Quote-Mining!" I am literally facepalming. YOU attributed support of free-market justice to Ron Paul - a position he does not espouse. I can only assume you're high when you get stuck in these ruts like this.
> I think the problem is that you are good at memorizing. You can state things you learned in theology class or from your libertarian friends and from reading online. You can repeat things, but you can't apply that knowledge. Once a point is questioned you become evasive.
I answer every single point made in every single thread. Point out ONE single, solitary instance that I haven't responded to a point raised against me.
> You always start out strong and fall apart. It's very disappointing because I always think we might have an interesting discussion.
I am the last post in most topics. Threads die because you can't come up with any more objections, yet you are not quite ready to change your mind. I understand, it's hard.
Anonymous U double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #219,320
@219,316 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
> I stopped trying to talk to you long ago, bud. I'm not gonna try again, I've given you ample opportunities. I have gone above and beyond trying to discuss things with you, I always regret it.
No, you reply to me all the time. You love talking to me, you just hate debating with me.
I would be interested to know the last time you went "above and beyond trying to discuss things" with me.
> I stopped trying to talk to you long ago, bud. I'm not gonna try again, I've given you ample opportunities. I have gone above and beyond trying to discuss things with you, I always regret it.
No, you reply to me all the time. You love talking to me, you just hate debating with me.
I would be interested to know the last time you went "above and beyond trying to discuss things" with me.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #219,324
@previous (U)
Fine then, lets just not debate. That seems simple enough.
> I would be interested to know the last time you went "above and beyond trying to discuss things" with me.
Its been awhile, and I've dropped my UID several times since. Don't pretend you don't remember blatantly trolling though, hell you do it other threads I create too, always popping in with some smart-ass comment... I'm not the only you don't get along with MM, don't throw this one on me, bud.
Fine then, lets just not debate. That seems simple enough.
> I would be interested to know the last time you went "above and beyond trying to discuss things" with me.
Its been awhile, and I've dropped my UID several times since. Don't pretend you don't remember blatantly trolling though, hell you do it other threads I create too, always popping in with some smart-ass comment... I'm not the only you don't get along with MM, don't throw this one on me, bud.
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #219,341
@219,319 (U)
I never attributes free market justice to
Ron Paul. I did to libertarianism. This is exactly what I am talking about. Again, you misrepresent me.
You never justified free market justice. You talked about air. Justify it:
I never attributes free market justice to
Ron Paul. I did to libertarianism. This is exactly what I am talking about. Again, you misrepresent me.
You never justified free market justice. You talked about air. Justify it:
Anonymous U replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #219,349
@219,296 (sluggy)
> You need to understand something - we live in reality. It would be great if we could keep every dollar we earned. I wish I did.
I live in reality. You live in a fantasy world where theft, violence and murder is ok when done by men in suits with shiny badges. This is the only difference in our philosophy: I reject coercive force; you don't. This is the reality you must face up to. Your political philosophy rests upon territorial monopolies of violence. This is evil and wrong, I know you that within yourself you know this to be true, but you try to kill these thoughts with "the greater good": Just like Germans who knew the Holocaust was wrong but did it for the greater good of Germany; just like the Russians who knew the Holodomor was wrong but did it for the greater good of communism; &c. &c. throughout history - people have justified egregious evils for "the greater good". "Shall we do evil, that good may result?" Evil results from evil.
> However, we rely on things like roads, public transportation, and many other things that are necessary.
No, we don't. Rather the state has a monopoly on these industries by virtue of their being able to fund their ventures through expropriation (theft). Private companies must charge for these services, making them unprofitable because the state is stealing people's money and giving away free services.
> In a libertarian society, you would be "taxed" in another way. Every road would be a toll road. Someone has to maintain it.
Lol such sophistry! Is it called taxation when you buy a Big Mac? No, because it is an UNforced, UNcoerced, voluntary transaction, agreed to by both parties. Someone has to maintain it - the person who owns. And who can he collect money from? only those who agree to pay him in exchange for use of the road. No force, no coercion.
> So, instead of being taxed you'll be tolled, charged, invoiced. Fire? Better hope you can afford a private fire department, or that you have a volunteer department with adequate funding and water. They're gonna need water to put it out. Fire hydrants will need to be maintained and the water needs to come from somewhere.
There's enough money for a fire department now = there will be enough money for a fire service then. Insurance companies, wishing to lower payouts will also likely play a large part in this. Fire hydrants will be maintained by a water company who will not be given a state monopoly, but have to compete with other water carriers.
> Sucks if you can't afford it. Sucks if your neighbor can't, cause now his fire is coming over to your house because it couldn't be put out.
It does suck, which is why kind, compassionate, empathetic people will form and fund fire services with charitable donations.
> You need to understand something - we live in reality. It would be great if we could keep every dollar we earned. I wish I did.
I live in reality. You live in a fantasy world where theft, violence and murder is ok when done by men in suits with shiny badges. This is the only difference in our philosophy: I reject coercive force; you don't. This is the reality you must face up to. Your political philosophy rests upon territorial monopolies of violence. This is evil and wrong, I know you that within yourself you know this to be true, but you try to kill these thoughts with "the greater good": Just like Germans who knew the Holocaust was wrong but did it for the greater good of Germany; just like the Russians who knew the Holodomor was wrong but did it for the greater good of communism; &c. &c. throughout history - people have justified egregious evils for "the greater good". "Shall we do evil, that good may result?" Evil results from evil.
> However, we rely on things like roads, public transportation, and many other things that are necessary.
No, we don't. Rather the state has a monopoly on these industries by virtue of their being able to fund their ventures through expropriation (theft). Private companies must charge for these services, making them unprofitable because the state is stealing people's money and giving away free services.
> In a libertarian society, you would be "taxed" in another way. Every road would be a toll road. Someone has to maintain it.
Lol such sophistry! Is it called taxation when you buy a Big Mac? No, because it is an UNforced, UNcoerced, voluntary transaction, agreed to by both parties. Someone has to maintain it - the person who owns. And who can he collect money from? only those who agree to pay him in exchange for use of the road. No force, no coercion.
> So, instead of being taxed you'll be tolled, charged, invoiced. Fire? Better hope you can afford a private fire department, or that you have a volunteer department with adequate funding and water. They're gonna need water to put it out. Fire hydrants will need to be maintained and the water needs to come from somewhere.
There's enough money for a fire department now = there will be enough money for a fire service then. Insurance companies, wishing to lower payouts will also likely play a large part in this. Fire hydrants will be maintained by a water company who will not be given a state monopoly, but have to compete with other water carriers.
> Sucks if you can't afford it. Sucks if your neighbor can't, cause now his fire is coming over to your house because it couldn't be put out.
It does suck, which is why kind, compassionate, empathetic people will form and fund fire services with charitable donations.
Anonymous U double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #219,352
@219,324 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
I don't blatantly troll. Being a smart ass is different to being a troll. I consider you a troll sometimes.
I don't blatantly troll. Being a smart ass is different to being a troll. I consider you a troll sometimes.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #219,354
@previous (U)
Most people would disagree with you. We even had a poll about it. Remember the poll?
A smart-ass, a troll, call it what you will, you didn't have good intentions.
Most people would disagree with you. We even had a poll about it. Remember the poll?
A smart-ass, a troll, call it what you will, you didn't have good intentions.
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #219,356
@219,349 (U)
No. No. No.
There isn't enough money for adequate fire service now. Poor communities will be fucked.
What about the disabled? Who is gonna pay for them when the wealthy do not want to help them now.
You are naive, bud. You think the Koch brothers are gonna be helping to build fire stations.
Your political beliefs aren't based in reality. You are unable to think critically. You are a surface thinker.
No. No. No.
There isn't enough money for adequate fire service now. Poor communities will be fucked.
What about the disabled? Who is gonna pay for them when the wealthy do not want to help them now.
You are naive, bud. You think the Koch brothers are gonna be helping to build fire stations.
Your political beliefs aren't based in reality. You are unable to think critically. You are a surface thinker.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #219,357
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #219,358
Oh, and I realized I forgot to address your misrepresentation of what happened in Saipan. There wasnt the kind of regulation we have in the US. So they were able to bring on indentured servants who were paid less than the US min wage and were working to pay off debt. They got no money to be able to pay to get off the islands. They were abused by employers.
That's libertarianism at heart. It fucks the workers. What happened was the US passed laws that made what they were doing illegal so they packed up and left leaving the workers.
I guess your cool with that. It's exploitive and it's illegal to do in the US for a reason. We see what happens when there isn't regulation or there is loose regulation.
The wealthy exploit the poor, they do not help.
How can you reconcile your Christian beliefs with this? I get you heard a lot about "taxes are stealing no one has the right to tell me what to do." We need those laws to protect society.
That's libertarianism at heart. It fucks the workers. What happened was the US passed laws that made what they were doing illegal so they packed up and left leaving the workers.
I guess your cool with that. It's exploitive and it's illegal to do in the US for a reason. We see what happens when there isn't regulation or there is loose regulation.
The wealthy exploit the poor, they do not help.
How can you reconcile your Christian beliefs with this? I get you heard a lot about "taxes are stealing no one has the right to tell me what to do." We need those laws to protect society.
Anonymous U replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #219,359
@219,341 (sluggy)
> I never attributes free market justice to
> Ron Paul. I did to libertarianism. This is exactly what I am talking about. Again, you misrepresent me.
In the post I mentioned you began conflating what Ron Paul could/would do as President with my anarcho-capitalistic values. I'm not misrepresenting you. This isn't even part of the debate. This debate isn't even about Ron Paul anymore. That's cool. I just don't know why you're carrying on this little side debate. It's not important. I was just cautioning you against taking my opinions as Ron Paul's opinions. That's all. Maybe you thought I was attacking you or something? I wasn't. Chill out!
> You never justified free market justice. You talked about air. Justify it:
I'm hesitant to because it's like the deep end and you haven't really accepted the easy stuff yet. I mean like you're still defending coercive force and territorial monopolies of violence. You're not going to understand this yet. I don't mean to belittle you but the concepts are like extensions of the introductory concepts like liberty, individual sovereignty, which you don't seem to accept yet. There are books out there: mises.org has a free booklist of relevant works available for free download if you want to read about it; but I'm not sure how I would explain it to someone who rejects the basic concepts of libertarianism.
For example, I was a minarchist for several years before I could escape the statist paradigm and embrace anarchy. It required shifts in other areas, like theology, and morality too. It really is a worldview change. We are indoctrinated into the statist system from birth - it is very hard to escape its propaganda.
The basic elements would involve private law, competition of enforcement agencies, competition of courts, competition of prisons &c. There would be no coercive force: rather all actions would require consent, often through contract.
> I never attributes free market justice to
> Ron Paul. I did to libertarianism. This is exactly what I am talking about. Again, you misrepresent me.
In the post I mentioned you began conflating what Ron Paul could/would do as President with my anarcho-capitalistic values. I'm not misrepresenting you. This isn't even part of the debate. This debate isn't even about Ron Paul anymore. That's cool. I just don't know why you're carrying on this little side debate. It's not important. I was just cautioning you against taking my opinions as Ron Paul's opinions. That's all. Maybe you thought I was attacking you or something? I wasn't. Chill out!
> You never justified free market justice. You talked about air. Justify it:
I'm hesitant to because it's like the deep end and you haven't really accepted the easy stuff yet. I mean like you're still defending coercive force and territorial monopolies of violence. You're not going to understand this yet. I don't mean to belittle you but the concepts are like extensions of the introductory concepts like liberty, individual sovereignty, which you don't seem to accept yet. There are books out there: mises.org has a free booklist of relevant works available for free download if you want to read about it; but I'm not sure how I would explain it to someone who rejects the basic concepts of libertarianism.
For example, I was a minarchist for several years before I could escape the statist paradigm and embrace anarchy. It required shifts in other areas, like theology, and morality too. It really is a worldview change. We are indoctrinated into the statist system from birth - it is very hard to escape its propaganda.
The basic elements would involve private law, competition of enforcement agencies, competition of courts, competition of prisons &c. There would be no coercive force: rather all actions would require consent, often through contract.
Anonymous U double-posted this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #219,360
@219,354 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
I have good intentions. I want you to change from being just another talk show host "LIBRULS R KILLING AMERICA" "REPUBLICANTS ARE EVIL" and progress to nuanced discussion of individual candidates/representatives and their political philosophies.
I have good intentions. I want you to change from being just another talk show host "LIBRULS R KILLING AMERICA" "REPUBLICANTS ARE EVIL" and progress to nuanced discussion of individual candidates/representatives and their political philosophies.
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #219,361
sluggy double-posted this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #219,363
@219,360 (U)
> The basic elements would involve private law, competition of enforcement agencies, competition of courts, competition of prisons &c. There would be no coercive force: rather all actions would require consent, often through contract.
All of these things are terrible for people. I don't care what your philosophy is, you are naive to think the poor won't suffer horribly.
Saipan demonstrates this. When there's nonstate at all to protect people what do you think will happen? You are trapped in your mindset. "no, that was the state!" it was allowed through loose regulation. When the people with money have no one to stop them, we are all fucked.
They won't need to honor contracts because the contracts will have a stipulation that any disagreement will he handled by a particular court. Don't like it? Good luck finding a job.
> The basic elements would involve private law, competition of enforcement agencies, competition of courts, competition of prisons &c. There would be no coercive force: rather all actions would require consent, often through contract.
All of these things are terrible for people. I don't care what your philosophy is, you are naive to think the poor won't suffer horribly.
Saipan demonstrates this. When there's nonstate at all to protect people what do you think will happen? You are trapped in your mindset. "no, that was the state!" it was allowed through loose regulation. When the people with money have no one to stop them, we are all fucked.
They won't need to honor contracts because the contracts will have a stipulation that any disagreement will he handled by a particular court. Don't like it? Good luck finding a job.
Anonymous C replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #219,364
> enter thread
> post after post of MM schtick
> leave thread
> post after post of MM schtick
> leave thread
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #219,366
Nickalollyoff !Aw0s40dyqw replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #219,440
teenager's shouldn't debate politics in public
Anonymous K replied with this 15 years ago, 15 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #219,930
Anonymous U replied with this 15 years ago, 8 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #220,178
@219,356 (sluggy)
> No. No. No.
You love statist violence that you defend it so strongly?
> There isn't enough money for adequate fire service now. Poor communities will be fucked.
So you criticize liberty saying there won't be enough money for fire services, and advocate tyranny; and then claim that there isn't enough money under tyranny anyway! LOL sort your arguments out.
> What about the disabled? Who is gonna pay for them when the wealthy do not want to help them now.
You keep bringing up these stupid little objections - take a step back and look at what we are really arguing. We both want people to live happy lives. You suggest that the only way for people to live happy lives is to give a small group of people control over the rest of the people's lives. This small group can: take other's people's property, and initiate violent force against them if they so much as suspect them of engaging in an activity of which the small group does not approve.
I think this is insane; just because many people agree with you and support this system does not make it less crazy: Texans are crazy even though they all agree with each other lol.
This is our only difference: you support coercive force i.e. theft, assault and kidnapping when committed by the state; and I don't. There are real problems in the world: people get injured and can no longer work, people are born disabled, some people are just generally useless and bad at working. Nobody wants these people to live unhappy lives. But to suggest statist violence is the answer is not just crazy, but lazy: like the person who answers every scientific question with "GOD DID IT".
> You are naive, bud. You think the Koch brothers are gonna be helping to build fire stations.
>
> Your political beliefs aren't based in reality. You are unable to think critically. You are a surface thinker.
I hope after this post that you can truly appreciate that this is the opposite of what is really happening; you see a problem, and unable to think clearly, propose a territorial monopoly of force as the answer: I think critically, reject force (even though this is the easy answer), and consider the logical and philosophical underpinnings of the entire system.
> No. No. No.
You love statist violence that you defend it so strongly?
> There isn't enough money for adequate fire service now. Poor communities will be fucked.
So you criticize liberty saying there won't be enough money for fire services, and advocate tyranny; and then claim that there isn't enough money under tyranny anyway! LOL sort your arguments out.
> What about the disabled? Who is gonna pay for them when the wealthy do not want to help them now.
You keep bringing up these stupid little objections - take a step back and look at what we are really arguing. We both want people to live happy lives. You suggest that the only way for people to live happy lives is to give a small group of people control over the rest of the people's lives. This small group can: take other's people's property, and initiate violent force against them if they so much as suspect them of engaging in an activity of which the small group does not approve.
I think this is insane; just because many people agree with you and support this system does not make it less crazy: Texans are crazy even though they all agree with each other lol.
This is our only difference: you support coercive force i.e. theft, assault and kidnapping when committed by the state; and I don't. There are real problems in the world: people get injured and can no longer work, people are born disabled, some people are just generally useless and bad at working. Nobody wants these people to live unhappy lives. But to suggest statist violence is the answer is not just crazy, but lazy: like the person who answers every scientific question with "GOD DID IT".
> You are naive, bud. You think the Koch brothers are gonna be helping to build fire stations.
>
> Your political beliefs aren't based in reality. You are unable to think critically. You are a surface thinker.
I hope after this post that you can truly appreciate that this is the opposite of what is really happening; you see a problem, and unable to think clearly, propose a territorial monopoly of force as the answer: I think critically, reject force (even though this is the easy answer), and consider the logical and philosophical underpinnings of the entire system.
Anonymous U double-posted this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #220,179
@219,363 (sluggy)
> All of these things are terrible for people.
Freedom is terrible for people; and coercive force is good for them. straight out of 1984 lol
> When the people with money have no one to stop them, we are all fucked.
Except they can't do anything except what people agree to! When the state have no one to stop them, we are all fucked.
> They won't need to honor contracts because the contracts will have a stipulation that any disagreement will he handled by a particular court. Don't like it? Good luck finding a job.
Good luck finding workers.
> All of these things are terrible for people.
Freedom is terrible for people; and coercive force is good for them. straight out of 1984 lol
> When the people with money have no one to stop them, we are all fucked.
Except they can't do anything except what people agree to! When the state have no one to stop them, we are all fucked.
> They won't need to honor contracts because the contracts will have a stipulation that any disagreement will he handled by a particular court. Don't like it? Good luck finding a job.
Good luck finding workers.
Anonymous U triple-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #220,180
@219,930 (K)
Cause that's what happens when the mafia moves into a neighborhood. You don't kick the mafia out, you tell the people to move if they don't like their protectionist overlords.
> your clever
Cause that's what happens when the mafia moves into a neighborhood. You don't kick the mafia out, you tell the people to move if they don't like their protectionist overlords.
> your clever