Fiery_penguin_of_doom Posts
fatman wrote...
A lot of PRIVATE research is taxpayer funded? A LOT of them?Given that "private" and "public" are opposites, I'd like to see proof of a lot of private research being publicly funded.
Since the 1950's the U.S Federal Government has spent 2% of GDP on Research and Development. From 1953 to 2004 the amount rose to 4.7. In 2004 R&D spending reached 199 billion dollars, with the Federal Government spending 93 billion of that.
The U.S Government either directly or indirectly pays for research ranging from research on why men dislike condoms to space exploration and many, many more.
citation.
In other words, the Feds subsidize or simply "outsource" research to private companies. At that point, the lines between public and private are blurred.
Damoz wrote...
In my opinion people should chill, its not going to happen. SOPA is trying to kill what makes the government ALOT of spending money, they don't want to give that up i sure as hell wouldn't.That's cute, you think this is about money. This isn't about money, it's about control.
Filtering something doesn't protect stupid people it makes them STUPIDER thats what the people pushing this bill don't seem to understand.
What you fail to understand is this isn't filtering, this is outright censorship. It puts control over the flow of information into the hands of major corporations via the powers of the Federal Government. In other words, it gives companies the powers of our federal government
TheEpicSock wrote...
The Republican candidates are either total bigots (Perry, Bachmann, Santorum, Paul), encourage the abolition of porn (and hentai) (Romney, Santorum), theocrats (Paul, Bachmann)Let me correct you here.
Paul is not a bigot and anyone who tells you so if grossly misinformed. In order to properly correct you, I need to know what leads you to believe Dr. Paul is a bigot.
Secondly, while Dr. Paul is a religious man, he has a proven track record of not forcing his religious beliefs on others like some of the other Republican Candidates. He believes in keeping his religion personal and not forcing it on others.
Randumb wrote...
Obama catches most of the flak for problems that aren't his fault, namely carryovers from Bush's presidency and bills Congress overrides him on.Congress has yet to "override" Obama on anything. Considering Obama has yet to Veto anything that the congress voted 2/3rd majority on. So that statement is completely false. Congress can only "override" the President in terms of a Veto.
The "blame Bush" excuse should have ended a while back. It's been 4 years, if you can't accomplish anything in 4 years then you won't accomplish anything with 4 more years. Just look at the failed campaign promises;
He promised to close GitMo. It's still open.
He promised to protect our civil liberties, he renewed the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act and signed the National Defense Authorization Act into law.
The patriot act and NDAA should be enough of a clue to what his priorities are.
Lollikittie wrote...
I'm deeply unimpressed with a lot of candidates, save for Ron Paul. I agree with a lot of his ideals, but as we are now so acutely aware -- what he plans to do, and what he would in fact do.. can be two completely different things. For me.. I'd prefer to have Obama for a second term... unless Ron Paul steps up his game.
His supporters are so confident because, he's voted exactly how he's preached. So if there is any candidate that I can believe won't compromise on their principles, it'd be Ron Paul. Other candidates are too bound to the special interests they groveled to for money to finance their campaigns.
I'm quite tired of this too. So I cut out a lot just to make some final points.
The "law" stepping in and saying "You can't do that" is an infringement on the rights of the business owner or owners. If you stop a business from preventing people from entering, then you can not make a legal distinction that separates your home from the same fate. Whether you like it or not, a business is the property of it's owner, the same as a house or car belongs to it's owner. Whatever decision affects one affects the other since they both rely on the same property rights.
No group is ever totally committed to something. Anyways, we're on the same page here. I don't think the government should force the business owner to allow me onto his property if I have a firearm. I would like that the business allow me in WITH the firearm but, they have the right to exclude me. So I hold no hard feelings towards this establishment, I simply choose not to shop there until they reform their policy.
I don't owe him anything and he doesn't owe me anything. We made a fair deal for my time and energy for his money. Quid pro quo
Doesn't work that way. The deal between me and my employer was to exchange my time for his money. Nothing more, nothing less. He doesn't get rights to the food in my pantry, the car in my driveway, the home I bought with the wages that he traded me. His customers don't get the right to enter his property simply because he sold them something. They made a fair deal for their money for his property and they went their separate ways.
So the fireman that keeps your fathers business from burning down, can freely enter your home, sleep in your bed and eat whatever is in your fridge? Can he also piss all over the walls because it's his home too? If I gave your father a penny, I can walk into his business and start painting the walls however I see fit? Can I walk in with a sledge hammer and begin remodeling because I feel that his current layout isn't right? Of course not. If I buy something from your father, he only owes me what he has agreed to sell me.
My car still relies on a mechanic. Does he get the right to drive my car whenever he wants because he changed the oil one time? What about the tire guy who rotated the tires on it? What about the oil refinery worker who refined the crude oil into gasoline, how about the trucker who delivered the gasoline to the fuel station, or the fuel station attendant who rung me out when I bought $20 worth of fuel and a Coke the last time I was there. What about the tanker trailer manufacturer employees who built the tanker that carried the fuel, what about the tire manufacturer who built the tires for the tanker truck trailer? I just becomes ludicrous once we follow your logic to the extreme. Every person involved in this chain, was given something for their time and effort. They don't have any ownership of my car, nor any right to tell me how to drive that car unless those actions are affecting their rights.
Banning pornography would be a violation of their freedom of speech. Once you justify the violation of any right, then you justify the violation of any right. Which at that point they cease being rights and are mere privileges. If you however voluntarily gave up viewing pornography as part of a movement of awareness or something. Then by all means I support you, I simply oppose any sort of action where the people involved don't give consent.
Then why the hell have we been arguing about this section then?
Hypothetically, Europe descends into another global war. The sides effective break down into A's and B's. The American people support the A's because of similar views or we're just sympathetic to them while at the same time we disdain the B's because of their views or motives. So, the U.S would sell or send them food, medical supplies, even war machines if they requested them. We would even attempt to rally other countries to impose sanctions on the B's. The U.S would not have any time of military involvement until Congress made a constitutional declaration of war.
I believe war is never a good answer. It drains us of treasure and resources that would be better suited elsewhere.
I was quite upset with my father. I even stopped speaking to him for a while but, I eventually realized that I don't have a right to be angry at him. I asked for something, he declined, not out of spite but, because of other reasons that I won't mention. Now, my father and I are speaking again, he even paid for my doctors visit to get the physical I needed to join the Marine Corps.
If something lacks the voluntary element then it is imposed by force. The application of force is where I deem something "evil" or "wrong".
BigLundi wrote...
Oh you're damned right black people will attempt to shop there. They'l try to shop there out of civil disobedience. And when Wal Mart tries to enforce their policy, that's where the law can step in and say, "No. You don't get to do that."The "law" stepping in and saying "You can't do that" is an infringement on the rights of the business owner or owners. If you stop a business from preventing people from entering, then you can not make a legal distinction that separates your home from the same fate. Whether you like it or not, a business is the property of it's owner, the same as a house or car belongs to it's owner. Whatever decision affects one affects the other since they both rely on the same property rights.
As far as your "no firearms" business, do you think that all people who value their second amendment rights will do the exact same as you? Maybe some of them simply shrug and are OK with it. Not allowing firearms on business grounds is a reasonable position, and I don't see why there ought to be a law against businesses doing it. It's a position that not only protects the business, but other patrons OF the business, potentially.
No group is ever totally committed to something. Anyways, we're on the same page here. I don't think the government should force the business owner to allow me onto his property if I have a firearm. I would like that the business allow me in WITH the firearm but, they have the right to exclude me. So I hold no hard feelings towards this establishment, I simply choose not to shop there until they reform their policy.
Right, so you owe your employer for everything you have.
I don't owe him anything and he doesn't owe me anything. We made a fair deal for my time and energy for his money. Quid pro quo
he certainly has the right to enter your establishment and do what he pleases within the confines of the law. Also where did your EMPLOYER get his money? From the people. Where did the people get their money? From more people, and it goes back and back and back, until we get to the source of all the US' money...the government...so that meas the government has the right to govern, in SOME ways, how you ought to run your business.
Doesn't work that way. The deal between me and my employer was to exchange my time for his money. Nothing more, nothing less. He doesn't get rights to the food in my pantry, the car in my driveway, the home I bought with the wages that he traded me. His customers don't get the right to enter his property simply because he sold them something. They made a fair deal for their money for his property and they went their separate ways.
Also, of course, because you do business in the government's property, that is, its country that it has jurisdiction over. And besides, it is customers that perpetuate your business in the first place. Even if I were to grant all the premises, that your business is yours exclusively, just like a home, then the people will have partial ownership as well given the fact that they're the ones keeping YOU afloat, and able to keep your doors open.
So the fireman that keeps your fathers business from burning down, can freely enter your home, sleep in your bed and eat whatever is in your fridge? Can he also piss all over the walls because it's his home too? If I gave your father a penny, I can walk into his business and start painting the walls however I see fit? Can I walk in with a sledge hammer and begin remodeling because I feel that his current layout isn't right? Of course not. If I buy something from your father, he only owes me what he has agreed to sell me.
Yes, it does become your car, however your car and your home, these things that belong to you exclusively, are dictated by documentation saying, "This belongs to person X" and, we all agree that one's home and car, and many other things that they own, is theirs and theirs alone to do with as they please. Because, and this is the big part, BECAUSE, we all agree that we desire to own and control our own property.
On a much smaller scale, like a car, or a house, it's a given that we have the right to control that as our own property. But on a larger scale, like a business that relies on the purchases of others to perpetuate them directly, this does not apply.
On a much smaller scale, like a car, or a house, it's a given that we have the right to control that as our own property. But on a larger scale, like a business that relies on the purchases of others to perpetuate them directly, this does not apply.
My car still relies on a mechanic. Does he get the right to drive my car whenever he wants because he changed the oil one time? What about the tire guy who rotated the tires on it? What about the oil refinery worker who refined the crude oil into gasoline, how about the trucker who delivered the gasoline to the fuel station, or the fuel station attendant who rung me out when I bought $20 worth of fuel and a Coke the last time I was there. What about the tanker trailer manufacturer employees who built the tanker that carried the fuel, what about the tire manufacturer who built the tires for the tanker truck trailer? I just becomes ludicrous once we follow your logic to the extreme. Every person involved in this chain, was given something for their time and effort. They don't have any ownership of my car, nor any right to tell me how to drive that car unless those actions are affecting their rights.
For instance. I have the right to view porn. However, if someone could, hypothetically, provide me s sufficient evidence to show that if porn is outlawed, then rape will go down significantly, I'm fully willing to submit that right to view porn for the greater good.
Banning pornography would be a violation of their freedom of speech. Once you justify the violation of any right, then you justify the violation of any right. Which at that point they cease being rights and are mere privileges. If you however voluntarily gave up viewing pornography as part of a movement of awareness or something. Then by all means I support you, I simply oppose any sort of action where the people involved don't give consent.
There are people, like you and me, that would lend our property to people who need it. There are people, like you and me, that donate to charities and support research into beneficial programs. Those are the people I deem to be 'good'.
Then why the hell have we been arguing about this section then?
I'm thinking you'd advocate invading then, now wouldn't you? Or would you rather drag out a war forever and say, "Nope. Stick to your home soil and only deal with them when they come over." Because I don't advocate that. I find that to be ineffective, insufficient, and would result in MORE deaths overall.
Hypothetically, Europe descends into another global war. The sides effective break down into A's and B's. The American people support the A's because of similar views or we're just sympathetic to them while at the same time we disdain the B's because of their views or motives. So, the U.S would sell or send them food, medical supplies, even war machines if they requested them. We would even attempt to rally other countries to impose sanctions on the B's. The U.S would not have any time of military involvement until Congress made a constitutional declaration of war.
I believe war is never a good answer. It drains us of treasure and resources that would be better suited elsewhere.
Ok, so you're saying that if your consisted of people saying, "No, fuck off." when you needed help, you'd say, "Good for you for exercising your freedom to tel me to do that."? Because to be honest, if that's the case...now I just pity you. to think that you wouldn't even get angry with people...being selfish dicks, and indeed advocate that they're perfectly fine in doing it.
I was quite upset with my father. I even stopped speaking to him for a while but, I eventually realized that I don't have a right to be angry at him. I asked for something, he declined, not out of spite but, because of other reasons that I won't mention. Now, my father and I are speaking again, he even paid for my doctors visit to get the physical I needed to join the Marine Corps.
You seem to think that infringing on someone's rights is, specifically and necessarily, a bad, and invasive thing. Are you not aware that all laws are made specifically to infringe on rights that people give themselves? Infringing rights is a necessary thing in society. It's the basis for law.
If something lacks the voluntary element then it is imposed by force. The application of force is where I deem something "evil" or "wrong".
Anesthetize wrote...
Who cares, the president doesn't run anything or have any real power anyways.Besides the power to effectively stop any bill from being passed (especially considering the divided congress) and the power to order the troops to return home. There is also the arguable power granted by Article II, Section 3, Clause 4 of the Constitution that would allow the President to order the Executive branch (i.e law enforcement and regulatory agencies) to not enforce a law.
I agree with Lustful angel. Under Obama we've had
A renewed P.A.T.R.I.O.T act, A failure to close Guantanamo bay as promised, The Bank and Auto company bailouts, continuation of 2 wars, the signing of the National Defense Authorization act (which contains vague language that could lead to the indefinite detention of any American citizen even so much as accused of being a terrorist or a sympathizer without requiring that they be convicted in a court of law). Rapidly increased the national debt faster than any president in the history of the country.
He campaigned on change and he didn't change anything. He's Bush in black face.
A renewed P.A.T.R.I.O.T act, A failure to close Guantanamo bay as promised, The Bank and Auto company bailouts, continuation of 2 wars, the signing of the National Defense Authorization act (which contains vague language that could lead to the indefinite detention of any American citizen even so much as accused of being a terrorist or a sympathizer without requiring that they be convicted in a court of law). Rapidly increased the national debt faster than any president in the history of the country.
He campaigned on change and he didn't change anything. He's Bush in black face.
Note: I cut out the segments that I believe either would just result in more personal attacks from either of us or segments that are less productive than bashing our heads against a brick wall.
Gaddafi actually took care of his people quite well. Free education, healthcare and plans to provide free housing which were never successfully implemented. Under Gaddafi the median income per capita rose to 11,000 which is the 5th highest in Africa.
Gaddafi's regime was a U.S ally for many years, then suddenly we made a 180 and ignore the fact that we used Libya as a place to interrogate terror suspects as we began bombing the bejeesus out of him.
Kind of suspicious that we supported such a "repressive" regime for all those years only to turn around and bomb him. The conflict between the history and the official story doesn't raise some flags for you?
There are a dozen other events throughout history with that list I gave you. They show a clear history of the CIA being involved in arming and training rebel factions to remove democratically elected governments that are not friendly towards the United States.
Unfortunately for your stance, the Federal Government is restricted by the constitution. You can claim to give it all the "rights" you want but, that doesn't change the fact the Federal Government is bound by the constitution. Get an amendment passed and then I'll agree with you. Also, rights only extend to living organisms like people, animals or plants(depending how liberal/progressive you want to get), not organizations like corporations. The Federal Government has no rights, Bank of America has no rights but, the individual employees of both organizations have rights.
In that context, you are right. However you were implying previously that Libertarians throw everything out the window in a orgy of debauchery and vice. As if a Libertarian was voted into power then we'd have legalized murder.
Can't blame the ignorant. "Forgive the, for they know not what they do".
In my opinion, that knowledge is not really that common.I've known people who work for wal-mart and none of them believe that Wal-mart has sexist or racist hiring practices. These are people who work inside the company and are exposed to the policies. If they are unaware of it, then they are probably ignorant that it even exists. I invite you to walk into a store, stop 1 person and say "Did you know Wal-mart was caught using illegal immigrants in their stores?" or "Did you know wal-mart gets fined hundreds of millions of dollars for discriminatory policies?"
I am willing bet that they will say they never heard of either.
Got me there but, that's not what I was arguing. I was arguing for the repealing of Affirmative Action which places the restriction on your father and requires that he hire people that he may find unqualified for a position. You've already stated that you were against affirmative action. Since we agree, we can end this argument now.
So if Wal-mart put up a sign that said "No colored". Black people will still try to shop there? There is a business in my city that has a sign that states that firearms are nor permitted on the property. I informed the company management that I would not enter their establishment until they removed their size and changed their policy.
I question the requirement of such laws on the grounds that they violate the property rights of the business owner (or his liaison). There was a story in 2009 I believe about several firefighters taking a test to become captains. The results of the test were thrown out because not enough minorities passed the test. Does it really matter the color of your skin when you're commanding men as they put out a fire? Fire doesn't care about your skin color and neither should anybody else.
Then I give myself the right to deprive you of that right. I also give myself the right to infringe on your right to infringe on my rights. See how silly this gets? In all honesty, this is where I think you are trolling me.
Wasn't in the scenario. You worked, traded your time and energy to your employer for money. That money is your property now. You bought the exclusive rights to the merchandise that your store is selling. If you sell me a laptop, car, vacuum, pet or a house. The item you sold ceases to be your item and is now my item.
That is not how ownership works. When I buy that building from the owner or owners. They are giving up their rights to that building. If I buy a car from you, you are then giving me exclusive ownership of that vehicle and giving up your own rights to that vehicle. This is done through the transfer of the title of the vehicle. Go to a title pawn and don't make the payments, your car becomes their car. You do not have legal ownership of that car anymore regardless of how long you had it.
Again, no you don't. Violate my property rights by keying my car or slashing my tire then I have the right to bring legal action upon you for restitution. Violate my first amendment rights, I have the right to bring legal action for damages or suffering you have caused me. You do not have the right to violate the rights of another human being. You can say you "give" yourself the right to do so and truthfully you could make a constitutional argument with it but, I doubt the case would ever gain any traction.
I stated that you have a cynical world view. I would be depressed all the time if I walked around thinking everyone was selfish, greedy and just an overall jackass waiting to stab you in the back at the first opportunity. At least, that is what I am drawing from your positions.
You advocated for invading other countries, I advocate the opposite. Can't be a warmonger when you believe in only defending your own country from an aggressive nation. I do not advocate, endorse or precipitate war, therefore I can not be a warmonger.
"Well that's unfortunate for me but, it's your money and your decision".
I have asked my father for rent money at one time and he declined. I went home, sat down on my couch, applied to a few more jobs and thought about how I was going to make rent so I wouldn't be evicted.
I'll help anyone I can given my means. If I have extra food, I'll give away what I personally don't require to survive. In December of 2009 we gave a weeks worth of food to one of Ziggy's Co-workers when she had to spend most of her money fixing her car after thieves broke into it and damaged the steering column when they failed to steal her car.
When I talk about the role of charity in a Libertarian society, I aim to prove that it works by physically doing it. Leading by example and whatnot.
This I will apologize for. I've picked up bad habits from other political forums and I can't seem to shake them.
[quote]Well you're certainly showing no signs of giving a shit towards being willing to change your mind now.
You have to convince me that people should not be allowed to live their lives as free people, that's a hard sell. If you can come up with a convincing argument that stated why people shouldn't be allowed to freely live their own lives. Then maybe you can sway me. It's possible, it just won't be easy. Gibbous converted me from a party Libertarian to advocating a branch of Neoliberalism (Ordoliberal if you are curious) for a while but, eventually I drifted back into libertarian territory and have been reading up on the subsections and branches of the various libertarian philosophies.
BigLundi wrote...
Firstly, the mass graves thing is just an example. Are you saying these guys weren't violently oppressing their people That their people were going, "Wow it's great to live under THIS guy's thumb."? I don't think so. Point still stands. I'm waiting for you to actually provide an argument, instead of introduce a bunch of red herrings.Gaddafi actually took care of his people quite well. Free education, healthcare and plans to provide free housing which were never successfully implemented. Under Gaddafi the median income per capita rose to 11,000 which is the 5th highest in Africa.
Gaddafi's regime was a U.S ally for many years, then suddenly we made a 180 and ignore the fact that we used Libya as a place to interrogate terror suspects as we began bombing the bejeesus out of him.
Kind of suspicious that we supported such a "repressive" regime for all those years only to turn around and bomb him. The conflict between the history and the official story doesn't raise some flags for you?
There are a dozen other events throughout history with that list I gave you. They show a clear history of the CIA being involved in arming and training rebel factions to remove democratically elected governments that are not friendly towards the United States.
As far as me demonstrating MY point: Rights are bestowed by the people. I am a part of the people, and I bestow that right to the united states, hence, the united states has that right. Do I need to spell out a syllogism for you? Because I'll do it if you want.
Unfortunately for your stance, the Federal Government is restricted by the constitution. You can claim to give it all the "rights" you want but, that doesn't change the fact the Federal Government is bound by the constitution. Get an amendment passed and then I'll agree with you. Also, rights only extend to living organisms like people, animals or plants(depending how liberal/progressive you want to get), not organizations like corporations. The Federal Government has no rights, Bank of America has no rights but, the individual employees of both organizations have rights.
Libertarians ARE for doing whatever you want. They're for rich people keeping their money and using it for whatever they want, and for anyone to marry who they want, have whatever job they want, go where they want, all that. The Libertarian view is taking the stance of total social freedom, and total economic freedom. Which is...letting people do what they want.
In that context, you are right. However you were implying previously that Libertarians throw everything out the window in a orgy of debauchery and vice. As if a Libertarian was voted into power then we'd have legalized murder.
Ahh there we go with the libertarian universal salve, "People will do what's right, and stop supporting racists like that." Sorry, but you're wrong. Big evil corporations do what they want, people KNOW the bullshit they do, and still buy from them to save whatever pennies they can.
Can't blame the ignorant. "Forgive the, for they know not what they do".
Most people know the bad things about Wal Mart, they tend to ignore it, or rationalize it away though, because where else can you get two pairs of jeans for 10 dollars? Oh, and before you simply sum your counter argument with, "Lolurfullofshit" like you have been, how else do you think Wal Mart's been doing so well, when it's common knowledge that they're sexist when it comes to women in the workplace, they're anti-union to the point of spreading propaganda, and the destruction of mom and pop stores by its locations happens all the time.
In my opinion, that knowledge is not really that common.I've known people who work for wal-mart and none of them believe that Wal-mart has sexist or racist hiring practices. These are people who work inside the company and are exposed to the policies. If they are unaware of it, then they are probably ignorant that it even exists. I invite you to walk into a store, stop 1 person and say "Did you know Wal-mart was caught using illegal immigrants in their stores?" or "Did you know wal-mart gets fined hundreds of millions of dollars for discriminatory policies?"
I am willing bet that they will say they never heard of either.
Go do some reading on social contract theory. It is my dad's right to hire someone or not, but the fact is, if he lives and does business in this country, then he agrees to abide by its laws, and social contracts, including the fact that racism? Not tolerated. The laws are way against someone who tries to do that, and they stand to lose their company in lawsuits. Is that the best way to go about it? No, I think it could be better, but it's a step in the right direction.
Got me there but, that's not what I was arguing. I was arguing for the repealing of Affirmative Action which places the restriction on your father and requires that he hire people that he may find unqualified for a position. You've already stated that you were against affirmative action. Since we agree, we can end this argument now.
God job, completely disregard my point, don't bother trying to debunk it, and try and build your libertarian policies off of it. In any case, you're still wrong, because of reasons I've already stated. Discriminating against customers or having a bad reputation in no way necessarily hurts a company. Sorry, but that's the fact of life you're gonna have to deal with.
So if Wal-mart put up a sign that said "No colored". Black people will still try to shop there? There is a business in my city that has a sign that states that firearms are nor permitted on the property. I informed the company management that I would not enter their establishment until they removed their size and changed their policy.
Does it not occur to you that it's possible to have more comprehensive laws that don't have the flaws of affirmative action.
I question the requirement of such laws on the grounds that they violate the property rights of the business owner (or his liaison). There was a story in 2009 I believe about several firefighters taking a test to become captains. The results of the test were thrown out because not enough minorities passed the test. Does it really matter the color of your skin when you're commanding men as they put out a fire? Fire doesn't care about your skin color and neither should anybody else.
I gave myself that right...just like ALL rights that ALL people have. Do you honestly think if a right isn't written down somewhere, then it necessarily doesn't exist? That's insane. Rights come from us in the FIRST place.
Then I give myself the right to deprive you of that right. I also give myself the right to infringe on your right to infringe on my rights. See how silly this gets? In all honesty, this is where I think you are trolling me.
People buying your services, or merchandise, or you receiving a loan from a bank, which used other people's money to do that.
Wasn't in the scenario. You worked, traded your time and energy to your employer for money. That money is your property now. You bought the exclusive rights to the merchandise that your store is selling. If you sell me a laptop, car, vacuum, pet or a house. The item you sold ceases to be your item and is now my item.
And other people spent THEIR time, and THEIR money, in a way that allowed you to HAVE that building, and that merchandise.
So no, you don't have exclusive ownership. Sorry.
So no, you don't have exclusive ownership. Sorry.
That is not how ownership works. When I buy that building from the owner or owners. They are giving up their rights to that building. If I buy a car from you, you are then giving me exclusive ownership of that vehicle and giving up your own rights to that vehicle. This is done through the transfer of the title of the vehicle. Go to a title pawn and don't make the payments, your car becomes their car. You do not have legal ownership of that car anymore regardless of how long you had it.
I have the right to violate your rights
Again, no you don't. Violate my property rights by keying my car or slashing my tire then I have the right to bring legal action upon you for restitution. Violate my first amendment rights, I have the right to bring legal action for damages or suffering you have caused me. You do not have the right to violate the rights of another human being. You can say you "give" yourself the right to do so and truthfully you could make a constitutional argument with it but, I doubt the case would ever gain any traction.
See the non sequitor? I don't share your moral view of life, so...you can stop being an ignorant douchebag? Or are you incapable?
I stated that you have a cynical world view. I would be depressed all the time if I walked around thinking everyone was selfish, greedy and just an overall jackass waiting to stab you in the back at the first opportunity. At least, that is what I am drawing from your positions.
I'm going to do exactly what you've done to me, just to see how you like it. "You're not anti-war? You're ok with war? fucking neocon warmongering bullshit."
You advocated for invading other countries, I advocate the opposite. Can't be a warmonger when you believe in only defending your own country from an aggressive nation. I do not advocate, endorse or precipitate war, therefore I can not be a warmonger.
Now, let me ask you a few questions. What if Ziggy, and your dad, never gave you that money or paid for your stuff? Where do you think scholarship money comes from? If they decided, "Nah, fuck you FPOD, I'm keeping my money." would you say, "Well that's your right, since it's your money, I understand." Or would you go, "Dude, I'm in a REALLY bad spot right now, a LITTle help won't hurt you, dick."?
"Well that's unfortunate for me but, it's your money and your decision".
I have asked my father for rent money at one time and he declined. I went home, sat down on my couch, applied to a few more jobs and thought about how I was going to make rent so I wouldn't be evicted.
I stand corrected then. I still don't believe that you'd literally adopt african families to move to america and live with you if you had...say...JUST ENOUGH money to do that though. The max I believe you MIGHT do is help some people you personally know.
I'll help anyone I can given my means. If I have extra food, I'll give away what I personally don't require to survive. In December of 2009 we gave a weeks worth of food to one of Ziggy's Co-workers when she had to spend most of her money fixing her car after thieves broke into it and damaged the steering column when they failed to steal her car.
When I talk about the role of charity in a Libertarian society, I aim to prove that it works by physically doing it. Leading by example and whatnot.
In all seriousness though FPOD, for the most part, I have little to argue with you about. The only thing I think we really disagree on is the libertarian position's efficacy. It's a shame we disagree so whole heartedly that it's turned into an out and out flame war/bitchfest.
This I will apologize for. I've picked up bad habits from other political forums and I can't seem to shake them.
[quote]Well you're certainly showing no signs of giving a shit towards being willing to change your mind now.
You have to convince me that people should not be allowed to live their lives as free people, that's a hard sell. If you can come up with a convincing argument that stated why people shouldn't be allowed to freely live their own lives. Then maybe you can sway me. It's possible, it just won't be easy. Gibbous converted me from a party Libertarian to advocating a branch of Neoliberalism (Ordoliberal if you are curious) for a while but, eventually I drifted back into libertarian territory and have been reading up on the subsections and branches of the various libertarian philosophies.
BigLundi wrote...
And not a single scholarly link for any of them. Not only that, but you an't specify to what degree. By backing do you meant they led the assault? Or that they sold weapons? Because selling weapons is something we do all the time that I don't find all that controversial.You're a big boy but, here let me get you started.
Yeah, I agree to that last bit. Unless diplomacy won't work. Like, say, with Hitler. And before you say, "Lol Godwin's Law" I AM right. Diplomacy was attempted with Hitler, and what happened? He took over countries and territory more and more until people said, "Right, enough of that, time to fight."
The United States, however, DOES have the right to interfere with domestic policies of other countries, either diplomatically or violently. I personally prefer diplomaticaly, though there ARE going to be instances when that's not enough. Are you seriously saying, our policy ought to be "Yeah, alll those mass graves of your citizens you've been putting in gass chambers? Could you...like..NOT do that? No? You're going to keep doing it? Well, I guess I tried."
The United States, however, DOES have the right to interfere with domestic policies of other countries, either diplomatically or violently. I personally prefer diplomaticaly, though there ARE going to be instances when that's not enough. Are you seriously saying, our policy ought to be "Yeah, alll those mass graves of your citizens you've been putting in gass chambers? Could you...like..NOT do that? No? You're going to keep doing it? Well, I guess I tried."
Oh yeah, everything is like Hitler. Qaddafi was totally filling mass graves in record time. Same for Mohammad Mosaddegh, Jacobo Ãrbenz Guzmán, Patrice Émery Lumumba and all the others that we've lead coups again.
Wah. If it's bullshit, show me why I'm wrong instead of just declaring it outright.
Burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. You claim the United States has the right to invade a sovereign nation. So why don't you show us where it says we have that right. Certainly not in the constitution and I'm certain there isn't a document in the U.N that says the United States has the sole right to invade foreign nations because it simply wants to.
Until then, you're stance on foreign policy is utter Neocon jingoistic bullshit.
So...you're not for freedom? Good lord, can you at least TRY to remain consistent?
I am remaining consistent, you're the one pulling the double standard of "Well, I don't like it so there should be restrictions but, I get the right to impose my will on others".
You don't even understand the basics of libertarianism. You inaccurately state that libertarians are for "doing whatever you want". Which is partially correct and partially false. Libertarianism believes freedom stops where you begin to infringe on the rights of others.
Unless diplomacy is proving to be completely ineffective. Seriously FPOD, do you honestly think that "having the right to do X" is an equivalent statement to "We ought to do X."? Because if so, I think you're on drugs.
You can't keep a consistent stance so I don't really know what to say. You'll say one thing then later in the same post you'll back step.
Which I've already conceded, yet you continue to miss the point. IF there are people out there that ARe saying, "You don't get to be hired to this place because you are black" Then that is a problem that needs to be stopped.
Yeah, we can stop it. Don't shop there. They will struggle or go out of business. In this day in age do you really think a store with an openly racist policy is going to do well? Regardless, using government to force someone to hire someone they don't want to is a violation of the hiring person's property rights.
You seem to think the only people who hire workers are the owners of businesses. Let me let you in a little secret: The owners of businesses regularly don't have the time to do the hiring, so they have someone else do it for them. I know. My dad's a business owner, and he doesn't hire anyone, nor get involved with what workers do.
Your father sets the hiring policy and instead has hired someone to do the hiring for him. It's still your fathers right to hire someone or not. Go do some reading on property rights.
Still, it's a moot point, because I disagree regardless. There's a difference between, "I don't want a black person in my house" and "A black person will never set foot in my company." The difference is that your company is only sccessful based on its consumer base. That consumer base may include black people, so black people are contributing the infrastructure of your company, meaning, they get to set foot in there, whether you like it or not.
There you go, you're starting to understand. If a company discriminates against black people. Black people won't shop there and their money will instead...go to the competition!
Hypothetically, you own a business. Should you be required to hire someone because they are gay? What if the person is under qualified when compared to a straight applicant? Should you still be required to hire them? What if the person was black? Should you be required to hire him if he's under qualified for the position? What if he's a Scientologist? Should you be required to hire them because of their religious beliefs? What if he's an ultra conservative Muslim who believes that sinners/infidels should be hunted down and killed, should you be required to hire him because he's Muslim?
I've already long conceded that I'm against affirmative action. I'm unsure why you keep asking me this question when I said as much
You conceded against hate crime laws, not affirmative action. If you are actually against affirmative action, then you wouldn't have been arguing against me on the subject from the start.
So you have the right to use force to impose your will on others? That's egotistical.
No, because that's EVERYONE'S right. Did I say it's exclusively my right because of reason X or it's exclusively my right because of characteristic Y? No, I just said it's my right, which doesn't exclude anyone else.
Here you go not being consistent again. So where do you get this "right" to impose your will on others? Certainly isn't in the Constitution or the bill of rights. Maybe there is a document in the U.N that says that.
And our responsibility ought to be making it as hard as fucking possible for him or her to do it without getting sued like a motherfucker. Why? Because if they can't develop with society's morals, then they DESERVE bad shit to happen to them.
Not like the rest of us? We'll make bad shit happen to you. Gotta love herd mentality.
See above as to how commercial property is the property of everyone.
If I save money that I've earned over the years and buy a building from someone then use the same money to buy the materials to stock the business whether it be office supplies or merchandise. Where did you come into any ownership of that business? I traded my time for money and then traded that money for merchandise and a building. Under any definition of the law, that store and everything in that store is my personal property. Now, by extension to that, I have the exclusive right to sell or not to sell that property to anybody I choose. I have the exclusive legal right to bar or remove someone from my business because I own the building much like I own my house.
My time, my money, my building, my merchandise. Sole exclusive ownership. Sole exclusive rights to that property.
Concerning your question of if you can come in and start taking things, no, though not because you don't in part own the property...it's because the owner of the business owns more of his property than you do, because he/she has sunk far more money into it, and has legal documentation to prove it. Therefore, whe nthey buy goods or merchandise, or tools or what have you, they have the right to have discretion as to how the tools can be used, or how much goods and merchandise should cost to the general public. There's a social contract in play where we, as the general public, agree to pay for goods and merchandise from a business in exchange for that business being able to provide us with those things, which includes us not taking directly from its profits.
Stay on one side of the argument. Christ, I have a headache from my brain cells committing seppuku.
Pot, meet kettle.
I remain consistent while you flip stances more than Mitt Romney.
So..I'm a hypocrite because I'm extending the right I give myself to everyone else...what?
You're a hypocrite because you stated that you had the right to infringe on the rights of others. When it comes down to it, I know you'd oppose having your rights infringed. Therefore, you are a hypocrite.
Of course they have the right to do it. And I have the right to fight it should I find it unjust. I'm wondering how you don't understand this.
"I have the right to violate your rights. I have the right to fight you violating my rights" The hypocrisy is palpable.
Since you believe there are reasons to limit people's rights. Can I limit your right to free speech because I think you're an idiot who is incapable of managing the responsibly?
Give it a shot. I'm willing to make compromises for, say, the safety of others. Say I'm a shitty guy that spreads misinformation on the internet and causes people to go out and do bad things...there's some ground there to maybe try and get me to stop spreading that misinformation.
Libel is not protected under the first amendment. Arguing with you is becoming a tiresome chore. You are causing physical pain. Seriously, you're lack of understanding of anything you are arguing about is causing me physical pain via a headache.
See? You prove my point again. :D You would prefer to do something that personally makes you feel better, and that makes you personally feel like you've done something, than to do something that actually helps someone else. The time that you've been spending arguing with me could have been spent volunteering at a soup kitchen, or spending time going out and cleaning the highways, or whatever. There's always more you could do, yet you don't, because at a certain point you reach the point where you say, just like EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD, "Time for some time and energy spent on myself."
Yep, people don't reach your standards then we all hate each other and would gladly step over someone in the gutter rather than help. I can only imagine the cocktail of antidepressants that would be required to dig you out of such a depressingly cynical world via. Shit, if it's so bad, go ahead and kill yourself.
Should have used the Marine Corps line in the beginning, though I suppose it kind of undermines the whole idea of being anti-war. you should join the Peace Corps, not the Marines.
I am not anti-war, I am anti-proactive/aggressive wars like the Neocons love to do. That's besides the point. This will sound oddly sentimental but, I decided to join because I love my fellow Americans. Regardless of how infuriatingly narrow minded, etc they can be I still love them and I am willing to endanger my own life to protect them.
You have money, you don't have '0' dollars, otherwise there's no way you'd be able to pay for all the things that you do, including the internet. This isn't an assumption about you made based off nothing, it's the logical conclusion. The fact is, you care about providing for yourself first, before the Africans. That's the fact, proving my point all the more.
From November of 2010 until this week. I have had a very rough time financially. Ziggy has bared most of the burden while I tried to find a new job. What income I did earn was put towards food for us. If I starve, I can't continue to help. So I am serious when I said, I personally have no money. I even closed a bank account last year because it had nothing in it. My education is entirely paid for through scholarships so I don't earn anything from that either. I make enough money to ensure I don't starve. Hell, my father had to give me the money so I could get a haircut and the physical I require to join the Corps.
So you're lying when you say you pay for a basic internet package?
Ziggy does. 2011 was a rough year for contractors like me.
No, I took what you said and took it to it's logical conclusion. You currently have money, as evidenced by the fact that you're paying for internet, and a place to stay. You could voluntarily go homeless, sell all your shit, and give all the proceeds to african families if you wanted to...but...well..you don't. I know this because you're still here, on Fakku.
Sure, that would help out in the short term but, then I would require aid from other people. So, that solves nothing. It replaces one poor, starving homeless person with another poor, starving, homeless person. If you weren't going to such extremes to justify yourself then maybe we could have had a constructive argument.
Regardless, I am done with this section. Continue to harp on it if you wish, I don't really care anymore.
Already explained why you have a misconception of my position, and that I extend all the rights that I have to everyone else. Try to actually understand someone's position before frothing at the mouth.
I understand the position, you're a hypocrite who has the right to infringe on the rights of others but, would fight tooth and nail to prevent someone else from infringing on his rights. Hypocrisy, nothing more nothing less.
Ah, the old standby, "This guy infuriates me with his contradictory position, this makes him a troll."
Keep telling yourself that if makes you happy Lundi. Glad I could cheer you up.
Are you so set in stone that your position is the only right one that you're not even amicable to the position that someone who's...say...anti libertarian might have some actual points?
When I was younger, I was a communist. Fast forward a decade or so and I'm a libertarian. So no, I am not set in stone.
Seriously, puling the troll card is the last line of defense when someone has no real argument to offer. If I were to call you a troll right about now, would I be justified just because your contradictory stance and inability to comprehend what my argument is annoys me?
I called you a troll because I feel like you're screwing with me and then laughing as I take you seriously.
BigLundi wrote...
Listen, you're going to need to do a lot better than that if you want to convince me of something so blatantly absurd as what you're suggesting. I'm a skeptic by nature.Iran 1953, Guatemala 1954, Cuba 1956, Democratic Republic of the Congo 1960, Iraq 1963, Brazil 1964, Republic of Ghana 1966, Afghanistan 1973-1974, Iraq 1973-1975.
Want to know what all of these have in common? The CIA is officially on record as participating in the backing of coups against these democratically elected governments.
I never said that we should go topple governments we don't like, I simply pointed out an inconsistency in your logic. You believe it's ok to stop someone from oppressing someone if the person being oppressed is in America, because, and these are your words "The potential is there that it might come to you as well" Yet, you don't support the exact same thing happenning in a seperate country, because...it's further away. Connect the dots here. Make that make sense, because right now, that's retarded.
Let me spell it out for you in short snippets to aid in your comprehension.
I oppose oppression in all countries.
The United States does not have the right to invade or meddle in the domestic affairs of another sovereign nation.
It is hypocritical for the United State to interfere with the domestic affairs of another country through military action, when we would oppose any other nation doing the same to us.
Diplomacy is preferential to war.
Of course we do. And they have the right to be pissed off.
Utter NeoCon jingoistic bullshit.
I thought you libertarians were pro everyone having the right to do what they want. :)
Notsureiftrollingorjuststupid.jpg
I don't support war, but should we remain indifferent? Hell no. Should we do something about the injustice happenning in the world? Absolutely. If war were proven to be the only answer that'll work, then fuck it, war it is.
You claim we have the right to invade and yet, you "don't support war". Now, you're the one sounding retarded. Diplomacy is a much better option than war to resolve problems.
So no, they should allow segregation to occur, if segregation is occurring. Have fun convincing people that segregation isn't something to try to legally stop.
There is a difference between Segregate and Discriminate.
I don't need to convince people that institutionalized segregation is something that should be legally stopped. I'm not arguing for institutionalized segregation but, instead arguing that a person should not be required to hire someone because of their sex, creed, sexual orientation or skin color.
I believe that if we have the right to remove someone from our home for whatever reason we see fit then logically the same applies to other forms of property such as a business.
Hypothetically, you own a business. Should you be required to hire someone because they are gay? What if the person is under qualified when compared to a straight applicant? Should you still be required to hire them? What if the person was black? Should you be required to hire him if he's under qualified for the position? What if he's a Scientologist? Should you be required to hire them because of their religious beliefs? What if he's an ultra conservative Muslim who believes that sinners/infidels should be hunted down and killed, should you be required to hire him because he's Muslim?
Because everyone has the right to do whatever they want. However, I'm damned sure going to do whatever I possibly can to stop the bad things(like keeping people from being racist dickheads) from happenning, up to and INCLUDING establishing a law to better keep it from happenning. And why? See if you can follow this: It's my right. :D
So you have the right to use force to impose your will on others? That's egotistical. People will be racist dickheads regardless if it's illegal or not. So really the law makes no difference. A racist who doesn't want to hire blacks will skirt around the law to the best of his ability.
Yes :D. Commercial property is the property of all people, including the people that don't want particular people to be there, or want to keep particular people from doing bad things, or hell, even good things.
How is commercial property the property of everyone? If you own a business, I can just walk in and take money from the register or merchandise off the shelf? I mean, the business belongs to me as well right?
It's a right that I am set on infringing. Why? Because it's a right that I think ought not be. Why? Because there SHOULD be limits to things we have the right to do. There are REASONS to limit things we have the right to do.
Now, you're just a hypocrite. You advocated earlier that you had the right to force your will on other people and make them do something they may not want to do under threat of fines or incarceration and now, you turn around and say that others can do the same.
So it's perfectly fine for you to impose your will on others but, other people can't because you don't like it. Blatant hypocrisy.
Since you believe there are reasons to limit people's rights. Can I limit your right to free speech because I think you're an idiot who is incapable of managing the responsibly?
*buzzer* Miss the point more why don't you? You're sitting here arguing on the internet instead of going out and trying to help people actively...why? And don't try and turn this around and say, "Well so are you!" because I KNOW I am, that's the point.
Trying to enlighten stupid people like yourself is a hobby of mine. If I manage to get you to realize your idiocy and blatant hypocrisy, then the world will become a better place. I fear that you're just far too stupid to save.
So? Doesn't mean you can't join one, or study to join one. Or hell, go become a janitor at one and try to help them that way.
By the same logic you've been spouting, if I choose to study and join a cancer research lab, I apparently hate people suffering from A.I.D.S., Lesch-Nyhan Syndrome, Cerebral palsy or any number of other diseases.
Pfft, you have way more money than most african families. You live WAY better than most african families. I know this because you're typing on a computer, and can respond to me at your leisure. You could adopt an african boy if you REALLY wanted to...but the problem is...you value YOUR life first. Money is spent on YOU first. Care is spent on YOU first. And all you've done so far...is prove my point.
Yep, because of my cheap ass laptop that I got on sale a year ago and a basic internet package. I'm so well off that I can afford to bring another human being into this household. You have no idea what my personal finances are like. If I can't afford to cloth or feed a child, then I can't. Before you pull the bullshit of "Well that's what food stamps are for". I won't rob Peter to pay for Paul. On top of that, I'll be entering the Marine Corps this year. So I won't be around to properly raise the child.
You have money now.
Really? I have money? Let me know where you found it.
What you really mean with this statement is, "If I had enough money that I could do it, and still live somewhat comfortably, I'd adopt as many downtrodden african families and kids as much as I could." Guess what? So would I. That's literally nothing special. At all.
In this section you've made about half a dozen assumptions about my character. You know nothing about me besides what I share on Fakku and simply make these assumptions to justify your cynical view.
I'll thank you for not spouting off ignorant nonsense in the future. Oh, and I accept the apology I expect from you for such an ignorant and inflammatory statement. :)
Why would I apologize to the hypocrite who makes inaccurate assumptions about my character? Not only that but, feels so egotistical that he can impose his will on others through law and yet, will oppose other people being allowed to do the same because he simply doesn't like it.
You can wait for that apology but, I will never apologize because I have nothing to apologize for.
I'll entertain this discussion a little longer simply because I enjoy feeding trolls. I can't feed you too much otherwise I risk overfeeding and then you'll get fat.
BigLundi wrote...
Conspiracy theories that I don't buy asideMcClatchy
According to the Wall Street Journal and the Guardian we were active allies with Libya until the "revolution".
So, let me ask you this, why were we so buddy-buddy with such an oppressive regime by having Libya interrogate capture terrorists. We even convinced them to give up their nuclear program. Yet, a few years later, we're bombing the bejeesus out of our former ally? Same shit happened in Iran and Iraq. We're allies with a regime until it gets annoyed with us shafting them, then we invade and install a new regime. For someone who "looks at each issue individually" you seem to just swallow the load of whatever the talking heads tell you.
I find that self contradictory. You support stopping oppression from someone else because there's a potential that it might fall to you. Yet, you don't support the exact same thing if it's happenning much further away. That potential doesn't disappear just because it's happenning further away. So why is it that you're ok with allowing oppression to happen in other countries, just not in ours, even if it's not an oppression to you? That makes no sense.
So you believe that whenever something happens in another country that we don't like, we should invade, topple the government and install a new one that better suits our needs? That is utter NeoCon warmongering bullshit. We have no right to invade a sovereign nation. China, North Korea, Burma, Laos and Vietnam are oppressing their people. Should we invade them? Should we invade every Islamic country around the world because women are oppressed in those societies?
Let me ask you something, should there be a law, preventing institutionalized segregation from being put into law?
Already answered that question. You clearly didn't read the entire segment. Federal and State governments should not be involved in segregation or anything remotely similar. However, private property is not subject to the same restrictions. I should not be forced at gunpoint to hire someone who I feel is unqualified for the job because of the color of their skin, sexual orientation, religious creed or whatever. I'm native American, does that give me the right to use the force of the Federal and State governments to make you hire me because I'm a different color? What if, it's a Christian Book store, do I as an Atheist have the right to force them to hire me?
You dodged my questions and I ask you to answer them now.
Do you believe you have the right to ask someone to leave your house if you do not want them there? What if he was black? White? Asian? Hispanic? What if it was a woman? What if she was a Lesbian? What if it was a mentally or physically disabled person? What if they were Christian? Atheist? Muslim? Buddhist? Jain? Scientologist? What if it was any combination of the above, do you still have the right to remove these people from your property? Why or why not?
Now, what if it was a commercial property like a warehouse or an office. Is there any combination of the above that would you should not be allowed to ask these people to leave?
I'll save you the time and hassle. No, there is no logical reason for any individual or combination of these characteristics that should be you or Law Enforcement to make the person vacate your property.
So how do these scenarios differ from the hiring practice?
Yet, as soon as anyone starts to decide they're not ok with the confines their working in, the only possible way to conserve the status quo is to either force them to accept it, or exile them outright. I don't like this kind of, "We all have to agree, or it won't work" idealism. People are different from each other, not everyone's the same. This is an unavoidable fact of life. If your political philosophy cannot account for it, but instead encourages overriding it, then it fails.
Pissing on your own feet here. No system can work unless "everybody agrees". If people suddenly said "Eh, fuck taxes, we're not paying" then the Social Democratic system falls apart. If people decided 'We're not going to pay for goods and services anymore. We'll just take what we want" Then a capitalist system would fall apart. Every system ever created requires that everybody be in general agreement. Democracy, Communism, Republicanism, Libertarianism, Monarchy, Socialism, Anarchy, etc, etc, etc, etc all require people to generally agree on how things should work. If they don't, it falls apart.
Both. People, in general, DON'T want to help people, because it's too much of a pain in the ass. It's much easier to just pay a little bit of money from a paycheck, or insert some money into a donation jar for a charity. And you're the same, just to a lesser extent. I'm sure you've donated to charities before, but you don't go out and actually do research on how to cure cancer, I'm sure that you don't actually adopt children from Africa and bring them over here.
Does this make you callous? Uncaring? To a certain extent it does. But to another extent it just means you don't care ENOUGH to go the extra mile. This is the same for just about everyone. No matter how charitable you are, you could always do more. But people have limits. IT can be fiscal limits, or just the fact that you want to live SOMEWHAT for yourself.
Does this make you callous? Uncaring? To a certain extent it does. But to another extent it just means you don't care ENOUGH to go the extra mile. This is the same for just about everyone. No matter how charitable you are, you could always do more. But people have limits. IT can be fiscal limits, or just the fact that you want to live SOMEWHAT for yourself.
Flawed argument is deeply flawed and laughable. Seriously, I laughed pretty hard for about 10 minutes.
First, I don't do cancer research because I lack any formal education in that area. I also lack the finances to even start a cancer research laboratory. I do not adopt African children because I do not have the money nor the means to properly raise a child. If I had the money, I would adopt children from other countries and give them a better life here.
Edit: The difference between us Lundi, you're content with "giving". I'm more content with "doing".
Which one of us is actually making the world a better place?
BigLundi wrote...
So you've systemically determined that Ron Paul supporters aren't lock step supporters. I personally know some Ron Paul supporters that support him, yet when I question them, they really don't know why...so yeah, those kinds of people ARE out there.Completely missed the words "At least the ones I associate with"
Well, let's say I see someone else being oppressed, but nobody is oppressing me. Should there not be a law against it just because I'm not being affected?
Depends, are we talking about another American citizen whose rights are being violated or are we talking about a foreign nation? If it's an American citizen who is being oppressed then I say yes because the attention of their oppressors can eventually fall on you. This stems from my belief that every American man and woman has the same rights. If a group is violating the rights of another American, then by extension my rights are threatened.
If it's a foreign nation like Lybia, then I say no. I oppose all foreign entanglements without a constitutional declaration of war. The Libyan conflict was started by CIA operatives in order for western companies to gain access to Libyan oil reserves. The so called "leader" of the opposition was a CIA operative. These kinds of false flag operations are why I am a non-interventionist.
Say, for instance, that white people get preferential treatment, because people are being racists, as a whole, and treating non white people badly.
This doesn't negatively affect me in any way...does that mean there shouldn't be any laws against things like...segregation?
This doesn't negatively affect me in any way...does that mean there shouldn't be any laws against things like...segregation?
Here is where it gets delicate and I ask you to read the whole paragraph rather then succumbing to a knee-jerk reaction. I believe a property owner is allowed to discriminate, such as hiring practices, customer policy, etc. Otherwise we violate the rights of the property owner.
You're probably pretty appalled, angry with me or whatever. Look at it this way, you have the right to throw me out of your house and off your property at any time you desire right? So what if you owned a building and did not want me in it anymore? Let's say you opened a business and I applied for a job. Should you be obligated to give me a job based on the color of my skin (Note: I'm native American, not white)?
However, institutionalized segregation is something that I find abhorrent and a personal shame on this country's reputation. There should be no law in this country that treats one American citizen any differently than any other citizen regardless of criteria.
Well, that's a simple idea of what one ought to think in order for those philosophies to work, but if you think that's all it would take, you're sorely mistaken. In fact, unless there's a balance and check system within that philosophy, communism, for instance, falls apart.
I wasn't trying to justify an entire philosophy by a simplified example. Instead I was explaining as simply as I could HOW the shift in mentality could come about. Any political ideology can work if the people involved are in agreement. It's why Anarcho-communes are able to work despite the diversity of people involved. They all understand the limitations of the system and have agreed to work within it's confines.
Fine, but it's still unrealistic. Yes, it's true we didn't always have medicaid and all that stuff, but you're not asking the question of why these things were provided in the first place.
They are provided because someone thought it was the responsibility of government to provide these services.
If it were true that people kept helping each other, then there really wouldn't have been a need for medicaid. the reason it was needed was because in big cities, in populated areas, the old, the decrepit, the helpless, were trodden over by the ones who wanted their jobs and all that. The reason things like medicaid and all that happened was because there really was an actual call for them.
If we're such horrible people that we would simply step over the old, the decrepit, the helpless, etc then why did we create these programs to help these people? To simplify, it all boils down to someone thought that it was the responsibility of government to provide these services.
It seems contradictory for us to be such selfish, greedy people yet, when polled the American people generally agree that such programs are necessary. So which is it, are we callus people who would let people die in the streets or are we benevolent people who care?
Edit:
And in my opinion, that's a problem. you're not taking into account accidental overdoses, forced overdoses, prescribed overdoses as a result of incompetence on the doctor's part...there SHOULD be laws against these kinds of things. If you're saying libertarianism wouldn't make such laws, then great, all the more reason to reject it.
When we say "laws against X" we're not talking about throwing everything out the window, which would be a severe case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In a Libertarian society, you can still sue somebody for damages. If a doctor kills you by screwing up your medication, your family can sue him for malpractice, wrongful death, etc. Legal action will still be possible in a Libertarian society.
Useful Link.
BigLundi wrote...
Well that's unfortunate that you've met so many of those people. Though, I find it curious that you don't include Ron Paul supporters with "lock step" people.Ron Pauls supporters, at least the ones I associate with, support him because he represents what they hold valuable. If Dr. Paul suddenly changed and preached a different message they would leave him.
A "lock step' republican would be someone who would vote for anybody the Republicans nominated just because they are nominated by the RNC as the Republican presidential nominee. They'd vote Republican even if Ralph Nader or Donald Trump were the nominee.
But there ARE things there 'oughtta be a law against'.
You kinda missed the point I was making there. It was more like "There is someone doing something I don't like that doesn't negatively affect me in any significant way. There oughtta be a law". Social conservatives are guilty of that all the time.
Also, don't you think "Both Libertarianism and Communism require a shift in the thinking process, which doesn't happen overnight" is a rather throwaway statement?
In essence, what you're saying basically amounts to, "If everyone would just start agreeing with me, there wouldn't be an issue."
....
In essence, what you're saying basically amounts to, "If everyone would just start agreeing with me, there wouldn't be an issue."
....
When I said a shift in the thinking process. I didn't mean everybody agree on everything. Instead, it can be a simple statement where people say "Why do I sit on my ass an expect someone else to fix these problems? I should get out there and fix them myself". Right there, we don't all agree on everything but, instead people agree on one thing.
You say it can't happen in real life. Yet, you ignore the fact that originally government didn't provide all of these services to society. These agencies, laws and programs were phased in over time. Before SNAP, Medicaid and all these other programs. If people hit a rough patch, we helped each other out. It's still a fairly common occurrence in Iowa, a farmer gets hurt and his neighbors will come over and tend to his crops. When zig and I moved into our apartment. Our neighbor lost his job, we invited him over for dinner, took food up to him when we could. How often do you see other people doing that? It's not common anymore because we kick the can to the government and expect them to do it for us.
Sure, maybe it is "if everybody acted more like me"-ism but, I wanna prove that it can work so I live by example.
I voted "other"
NPR and HLN (CNN's sister network) are probably the most unbias but, I've caught both of them red handed a couple of times in their reporting. NPR is mostly guilty of misconstruing or even mocking conservatives. I can't care about your opinion of conservatives but, I believe we can all agree that as a news organization they have a responsibility to be factual.
HLN is slightly bias to the left but, that really comes down to wording used by the personality on screen. Overall they seem good. The worst sin this station is guilty of is having too many Greta Van Sustern clones like Jane Velez Mitchel, Nancy Grace and Mike Galanos (Former host of "Prime News" on HLN).
NPR and HLN (CNN's sister network) are probably the most unbias but, I've caught both of them red handed a couple of times in their reporting. NPR is mostly guilty of misconstruing or even mocking conservatives. I can't care about your opinion of conservatives but, I believe we can all agree that as a news organization they have a responsibility to be factual.
HLN is slightly bias to the left but, that really comes down to wording used by the personality on screen. Overall they seem good. The worst sin this station is guilty of is having too many Greta Van Sustern clones like Jane Velez Mitchel, Nancy Grace and Mike Galanos (Former host of "Prime News" on HLN).
BigLundi wrote...
Ok...That's not me, that's not you...it's not anyone I know, and from what I've seen on the forum, it doesn't reflect anyone on this forum either. So yeah, I know SOME people are staunch republicans or democrats, with no reverence to issues, but I already said, the people who do that, which I DON'T feel are the majority of people, are simply idiots.Unfortunately, I've met a lot of this type of person in my political life. I went to an event yesterday with Ziggy and the entire room minus the dozen or so Ron Paul supporters were lock step Neoconservative Republicans. Johnny Isakson (Georgia Senator) was speaking and one non-Paul supporter confronted him about N.D.A.A and Isakson tried to justify the bill being passed with the clause to the resounding applause to the rest of the audience. There are 200+ people in my country alone who are lock step Republicans. I can only imagine how many lock step Democrats there are here.
It's really easy to find out who these people are. If the state doesn't require registration with a specific political party to vote then you simply call the local Republican or Democrat office and ask how many members they have registered with them. It's not 100% but, it's a general ballpark of how many people will always vote Dem or Republican.
Poor phrasing. When I said I'm fiscally conservative, what I meant was "What we have now as far as economic policy is ok, it just needs to be tweaked, not drastically overhauled." In other words, not the traditional stance that the word is a connotation for, but what the word literally means.
If you believe believe that "government intervention is the best way to bring about economic equality and development". Then you're an Economic progressive. If you disagree with government intervention you are an Economic liberal(Aka Fiscal Conservative). Political word games are fun aren't they?
Because it's not the main point of my post. Safe to say, I just feel libertarianism doesn't have the right answers, and most libertarians that I talk to are rather naive in how much confidence they have in their proposed system and strange "If we just did THIS, that'd fix soooooo much." ideas.
Both Libertarianism and Communism require a shift in the thinking process which doesn't happen overnight. If Libertarianism was to be properly implemented, it would have to be phased in gradually allowing the mentality of the people to shift from Government dependence to self reliance. Also the graduate shift would allow for private organizations to begin appearing that would take over the roles the government had. Honestly, the biggest hurdle for Libertarianism is not the economic policy but, the social policy. People need to stop thinking they can control other people because that person doesn't like what someone else is doing i.e. "there outta be a law against...."
Anesthetize wrote...
I don't know where you're getting your figures from, because China certainly didn't disclose them. Although this rationally assumes to the actual figures as being negative rather than positive, it's still discreditable to use it as a point for your argument.October issue of Time Magazine
It's common knowledge that local Chinese governments are heavily in debt. The same local governments also get a lot of their funding by selling land to developers. Since average Chinese citizens are unable to own land, they are unable to invest in land to make a profit (like our real estate market) however they ARE allowed to invest in the development of that property. So a lot of Chinese citizens have invested heavily in housing.
There was an article in another edition of Time magazine that I saw later the same day (it might be in that edition of Time Magazine) that described how the Chinese government is trying to encourage the transition from thrifty spending to consumer spending.
As far as conflict goes, China uses North Korea as a buffer to keep American influences away from it's boarder. It would prefer to use other forces in proxy wars like it did in Korea and Vietnam.
EllieX wrote...
I watched part of a filmed university debate on the subject, I can't remember what it was called and I only remember enough to know that I left room for people to legitamently debate about it.Doesn't answer my question. Can you elaborate on what the question was asking for?
BigLundi wrote...
I don't think there are a lot of people who vote via, "Is he a democrat? Then I vote for him." Or "Is he a republican? Then I vote for him." And the people who DO say that are idiots.You'd be surprised. The majority of voters are already locked into party voting. Some people are lifelong Democrats and will never vote for an independent or a Republican same for some lifelong Republicans.
You can attempt to nail down where I stand if you want, but the fact is the second you try and ascribe a particular political philosophy to me, I can almost guarantee you I will find something in that philosophy I am staunchly opposed to, or find ridiculous, or stupid.
I don't follow the Libertarian philosophy lock step but, it is the most accurate description for my beliefs.
Also, I like how you say you doubt I'm fiscally conservative, and then say I don't seem like the kind of person that would be pro-free trade. If that's what it means to be fiscally conservative? Getting rid of all regulations and letting all the markets just do whatever they want whenever they want? Then no, I'm not fiscaly conservative, though I don't buy that that's what fiscally conservative means.
You claim to be fiscally conservative and yet, you didn't even know the basics.
I once had a libertarian tell me that he felt monopolies COULDN'T happen under a libertarian free market system, because even if some store were to get to the point where they could undercut all other local stores unfairly, people would still remain loyal to local stores, and would be willing to pay extra just to support friends.[quote]
I know that is how I would act. I choose to avoid buying anything I can from Wal-mart. I shop at the regional grocery store and the international farmers market. I only buy things from Wal-mart if I can't get them elsewhere.
[quote]That's absolute bullshit. People are greedy and are willing to do anything to save a penny, including spending hours cutting coupons from newspapers and going to a superstore over a mom and pop shop run by friends.
I know that is how I would act. I choose to avoid buying anything I can from Wal-mart. I shop at the regional grocery store and the international farmers market. I only buy things from Wal-mart if I can't get them elsewhere.
[quote]That's absolute bullshit. People are greedy and are willing to do anything to save a penny, including spending hours cutting coupons from newspapers and going to a superstore over a mom and pop shop run by friends.
That's a complex issue that is much deeper than you are making it out to be.
I'm an independent moderate partisan that weighs every issue on a case by case basis.
You labeled yourself fiscally conservative and didn't even know what it meant. You should take the time to do more research to avoid these kinds of situations in the future.
BigLundi wrote...
You've got the parties wrong. It's not "Republican" ad "Democrat" It's "Conservative" and "Liberal".Notsureiftrollingorjuststupid.jpg
Republican & Democrat.
Conservative & Liberal are degrees on the political scale. The modern definition for "liberal" is more accurately replaced with the term "progressive" since liberalism a.k.a "classic liberalism" is the foundation for libertarianism.
You can be a "liberal/progressive" republican a.k.a NeoConservative. Neoconservative was created by former liberals who opposed Lyndon Johnson. You can also be a "conservative" Democrat A.k.A Blue Dog. Blue Dogs are generally economically and socially conservative Democrats.
I'm socially liberal, and fiscally conservative. However I'm also not, in any way, a libertarian. And if any libertarian says that a 'true' liberal is a libertarian, they're an idiot.
I highly doubt you are fiscally conservative. You don't strike me as the type who advocates for reduced government spending and free trade. I will agree that you're no Libertarian but, you could fall into one of the libertarian philosophies like libertarian Marxism a.k.a left-libertarianism.
When did we get a second party?
While there are "Officially" three main parties. The "Democrats", "Republican", and "Libertarian". I disagree that the Democrat and Republican parties are really all that different which really becomes apparent when you look into the parties.
*Note: This is looking past the rhetoric and listing the behaviors of the members of congress.
-Both are bought and paid for by corporations or special interests groups.
-Both believe that the government should be involved in social engineering at some level.
-Both promote expansion of government for subsidies and or regulation.
-Both parties have introduced legislation that have curved the civil rights of the American people.
-Both promote policies of military intervention. Either for "Democracy" or for "Humanitarianism"
-Both parties promote accumulation of power in the executive branch.
-Both parties promote policies of wealth redistribution. Democrats take from those who don't vote for them and give it to those who do. Republicans take money from those who don't vote for them and give it to those who do.
-Both parties oppose the removal of the income tax or the implementation of an alternative like a flat tax or a consumption tax.
The list goes on. The only party that has any significant difference from the Democrats and Republicans are the Libertarians.
-Libertarians are non-interventionists and oppose all foreign wars.
-Libertarians believe that the government intervention in the forms of welfare and "social engineering" are harmful to a free society.
-Libertarians wish to repeal the income tax and abolish the internal revenue service.
-Libertarians oppose government subsidies and regulations.
-Libertarians oppose social engineering from the government.
So in reality we have the Democratic-Republican party and the Libertarian party.
While there are "Officially" three main parties. The "Democrats", "Republican", and "Libertarian". I disagree that the Democrat and Republican parties are really all that different which really becomes apparent when you look into the parties.
*Note: This is looking past the rhetoric and listing the behaviors of the members of congress.
-Both are bought and paid for by corporations or special interests groups.
-Both believe that the government should be involved in social engineering at some level.
-Both promote expansion of government for subsidies and or regulation.
-Both parties have introduced legislation that have curved the civil rights of the American people.
-Both promote policies of military intervention. Either for "Democracy" or for "Humanitarianism"
-Both parties promote accumulation of power in the executive branch.
-Both parties promote policies of wealth redistribution. Democrats take from those who don't vote for them and give it to those who do. Republicans take money from those who don't vote for them and give it to those who do.
-Both parties oppose the removal of the income tax or the implementation of an alternative like a flat tax or a consumption tax.
The list goes on. The only party that has any significant difference from the Democrats and Republicans are the Libertarians.
-Libertarians are non-interventionists and oppose all foreign wars.
-Libertarians believe that the government intervention in the forms of welfare and "social engineering" are harmful to a free society.
-Libertarians wish to repeal the income tax and abolish the internal revenue service.
-Libertarians oppose government subsidies and regulations.
-Libertarians oppose social engineering from the government.
So in reality we have the Democratic-Republican party and the Libertarian party.
