Fiery_penguin_of_doom Posts

Wars start because someone has something to gain, usually banks or weapon manufacturers.




Nobody can agree on what will "bring prosperity and peace to the homeland". Democrats believe in heavy taxation on producers and a large welfare state A.k.a "safety net" as the method to bring prosperity. Libertarians view that as tyranny, blatant theft and vote buying. Republicans believe that peace will be secure when every nation is a Democratic state (usually installed through the violent toppling of non-democratic regimes). Democrats and Libertarians think this is wrong and that negotiations and mutual understanding will bring peace.

Warhawks and Doves will never agree on what methods bring peace. While big Government and limited Government supporters will never agree on what brings prosperity.

I view contracts in the same way a anrcho-capitalist would view them. We would use a third party to hold the goods until services are rendered. Failure to render services would warrant the return or repossession of those goods.



I lean towards Georgism in regards to land. I often debate with myself whether or not land can be owned in the sense that I own my PS3.



Traffic laws have no weight if I choose not to obey them (ignoring the threats of force by the Federal, State and local governments). Beyond that nothing stops me from speeding on the highway if I am so inclined. The threats of force are mainly the only consistent reason we have to not do something. Morality will generally shift depending on circumstances. A staunch "pro-lifer" might commit murder to save the life of another. I have to stop here otherwise I'll start meandering into a discussion on morality.



If you treat morality as law, then that "law". Then yes, it prohibits me because of my own moral code. In that sentence when I referred to "law" I speak of the rules imposed on us by a third party. The Federal tax code, holds no weight if they have no means to enforce it (threats of force). The U.S environmental regulations have no weight if they can't enforce them. So on, so forth.

When you get down to brass tacks, all laws are arbitrary. Subject to the whims of the person making the decision.

If they are apathetic enough to let a test discourage them. Do we really want their vote? Sure, it won't be a "true democracy" but, I personally disdain Ochlocracy. Democracy is nothing more than mob rule and hinges on the flawed concept that a positions popularity equals correctness.

I'm sure you're familiar with the quote about Democracy being two wolves and a sheep, etc.

You probably have a PS90. An adorable semi-auto carbine using a 5.7X28 round.



There was a psychological experiment that was done that essentially proved that good people will do horrible things. I believe it was called the "Lucifer Effect". Google "Stanford Prison Experiment"



Woodrow Wilson imprisoned Eugene V. Debs for speaking out against the country during WW2. Maybe, I'm not the first on the list doesn't mean that a vocal citizen, such as myself, couldn't be labeled a terrorist just to silence them.



Attempted Straw man.



I'd rather stop it before it's passed because once it's past we might not get an opportunity to remedy the situation.

Yeah, hand them a perfect opportunity to activate the NDAA or to further restrict what semblance of freedoms the American people still have left. Killing one corrupt politician won't do jack shit. Killing several corrupt politician won't do jack shit. You would have to kill the entire line of succession and congress to eliminate the cancer that is killing this country.



You are nothing. The people have no say in how the government runs, they have no weapons capable of standing up to the U.S military. The American people gave up the only thing that kept the government in check.



I can't tell if you're serious or joking. If you are serious, then you have no concept of how impotent any revolution will be in this country. Even if the entire U.S population revolted. How are they going to take on the U.S military and police forces with hunting rifles and pistols?

How would you stop them? Sue them? Launch an impotent protest with some sign you bought at the craft store? Point to the constitution and tell them "You can't do that". You don't have rights because you have no way to protect those rights.

All it takes is a false flag operation and martial law can be declared in the United States. That is, IF they want to take the legal route. Otherwise, martial law can be declared because Obama says so even if congress objects. The government has the guns and tanks, you don't.

You are now a vassal subject to the whims of the political nobility.

As Oxford puts it



To me, laws are a kind of contract. I agree to not do X otherwise I face penalty Y. I feel they are mostly arbitrary rules imposed on us by a third party under threat of violence. I say arbitrary because all laws really come down to somebody wants to penalize a certain behavior and then someone with the ability to authorize the use of force agrees with them.

Without the person applying threats of force or violence the "law" has no weight. IF the Government can't use threats of force to deprive me of tax money. I certainly would not pay taxes on the things I don't use or disagree with.

Bill text.

In case anybody is interested in reading the 900+ pages.

For those hoping for an Obama veto.

I'll let you make a thread about if you're inclined to.



I've reread my previous posts and I'm still not sure what you are referring to as the example.



Unfortunately, I don't have all the answers. If it was like a drivers license then it would be $20-25 for a license that lasts you 4 years. Pay the fee, take the test. There would likely be a variety of options available for those who fail the test. Regardless, private groups will take it upon themselves to educate the populace and to subsidize or even pay for the test. I personally would donate to such an organizations.

Usually when people pull out the "without ruler" bit as their first point. They are usually ignorant of what Anarchy really is. Force of habit to clarify like that. You can still have laws in an anarchist society. By laws I mean guiding principles for the commune, society, whatever. Freetown Christiania has "rules" forbidding stealing, violence, weapons, hard drugs, and a few other things. Just because Kropotkin personally believed something doesn't mean he speaks for the entire anarchist movement.



The Federal & State governments impose their will on me by threats of violence or incarceration every day.



Driving requires a license, voting probably should too. The requirements should be a series of tests that test a persons knowledge of the U.S (similar to the test we give immigrants to become Americans) and to test the knowledge of U.S policy, political parties, etc. I'm perfectly fine with not being allowed to vote if I can't prove that I am knowledge enough to be trusted with the responsibility.




Subtlety was never my strong point. I'd rather be blunt about it than dress the words up to placate sensitivities. Regardless, I'll make an effort for you since you've proven yourself knowledgeable.

I've said it for years and I'll say it again. If you don't watch and restrict your government, the government will watch and restrict you. Now, between the Media, corporate corruption, P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act, S.O.P.A, the N.D.A 1031 amendment, and American Imperialism, we have the foundations for 1984's Oceania.

Remember



Now get back to work you worthless proles.

Anarchy doesn't mean "without coordination, management , administration , etc.". Anarchy is management, coordination and administration etc. without publicly recognized government or violently enforced political authority.

How this works? You, and five other people are sitting somewhere trying to decide on what you should do for food. You have all agreed to band together for hunting & farming to increase your odds of survival this winter. So how do you decide? You vote. In Anarchy, a group can put Joe in charge of hunting and Mary in charge of farming but, that doesn't mean they have "rulers".

Intro to Anarchy

Anarchist Theory

Anarchy Works PDF[/url

In regards to your claim about you not wanting to have "millions of uneducated not having a say in how this country is run"...that's just generalising and, quite frankly, wrong. That view doesn't even consider the fact that many peoples votes, which happened to be for the minority, were made with regards to what they believe in. Besides, taking that comment even further, you made reference to the president; with regards to your comment, that doesn't even cover people who voted in a majority in their state but a minority overall.

Majority of Americans only vote based one three aspects.

1). What they hear in the mainstream (drive by) media. Example? People still think the [/quote][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting]Fort Hood Shooting. was done by a radicalized Muslim. The media (Fox News, MSNBC) is biased and that bias affects the minds of voters who take mainstream media as their sole source of information. I was guilty of that for the longest time and if I was guilty of it, I know others have to be guilty.

2). Whatever some "famous" person tells them to vote. Example? Oprah and other celebrities who throw their support behind a particular candidate. Should it really matter who Bono supports? Not in a critically thinking society. Problem is, we're not a critically thinking society.

3). Whatever their friends vote/peer pressure. Ziggy voted for Obama in 2008 and she admittedly knew NOTHING about Obama or his policies. I've known far too many people who goose stepped for a certain party just because their friends or family are voting that way.

Call that generalization if you want. It's already a fact that the majority of Americans don't vote (and by logical extension know little to nothing about politics) the few who do vote are subject to a dishonest, insane and ultimately intolerable propaganda system that corrupts their votes by praying on good intentions and naivety. If the majority of Americans were really politically aware, our country wouldn't be in the shape it's in.



I'm not one to be dishonest. I simply don't care for her. I believe she is uneducated and has a typical college demographic view on politics. I assume she is capable of critical thinking but, instead she just listens to those with the same opinions around her and shuts out the alternatives. I could make the statement about repealing the civil rights act and I believe her first thought/reaction would be to accuse me of being a racist, which is far from true.



If a few words hurt your feelings, that's a shortcoming on your end. It's the internet, grow some thicker skin.

Don't think I didn't miss the thinly-veiled insult. Kinda hypocritical to chastise me for disrespecting Neko then implying I'm childish with the pram comment.

I prefer to use the long sword or hammer depending on what I'm trying to do.

Side Note: Only monster hunter game I've played is Monster Hunter Freedom 2 for the psp.

Yeah, that's the problem with playing random people online as you get a lot of spammers. Hokuto can vouch that I would rage when I played a spammer. Also, that's all guile does, is spam sonic boom and flash kick, those are his only two specials.



That's the gameplay for shoto's. Spam fireballs, uppercut anyone who gets close. Learn to FADC those fireballs or use one of the various moves that are designed to get past a fireball. Hasan Shu is a good example for Chun-li, crouching medium kick for Cody, yoga tower for Dhalsim. Fei long's Rekkukyaku a.k.a. "chicken wing".

I understand audio's logic here. Investors pressure the company into risky behavior to satisfy their demand for profits.



That is the logic behind progressive tax system. The high tax rates would push the rich into saving their money in a bank which would then loan the money out to middle class individuals who want to open their own businesses.

Beyond that, all I hear is "eat the rich".

Allow me to try and lead you to my point of view. Would you prefer to travel on a bridge bridge built by an engineer or by a 16 year old fry cook? Would you prefer your car be repaired by a mechanic or a plumber? Would you prefer having your heart surgery done by a surgeon or by a computer programmer?

So I don't think I'm going out on a limb here when I say we all would prefer that the person doing a job to be knowledgeable of the profession. So, shouldn't we expect that the people voting know more about the candidates than they know about the Kardashians or Jersey Shore caste.?

Unfortunately, most Americans know more about their college football teams than they know about the people they are voting to govern an entire country.

I'm anti-corporation too but, even I find the word "conspirators" to be overly harsh.

So why not require instructional courses on weapons training?

As far as the second statement is concerned. Why is law-enforcement or the military so much more trustworthy than you? Is it because some arbitrary oath they take? Police can be as corrupt as anybody else. They can abuse their positions far more than anybody else.

What do, Sudan, Turkey, Communist China, Darfur, Soviet Union all have in common?

Give up? Genocide. These countries have incidents of government perpetrated genocide and laws that prevent the private citizen from carrying arms for their defense.

Doctors' kitchen knives ban call

The point of knives.

Bloomberg calls for kitch-knife law reform.

Boston set to restrict knife sales.

No arguing that but, shouldn't we concentrate on removing the incentive to shoot someone rather than the means? If someone wants to kill another person and you remove the gun from the equation, they still want to kill that other person. They'll just find another means but, if you remove the incentive then the problem is solved.