|
Strawman posted:Who cares, it wasn't needed in 1990 and now it exists so where is problem? You might want to brush up on your history You just said that the Internet is an incredibly useful tool. Without the government, basic research funding would practically vanish. Without basic research, we wouldn't have the Internet or modern medicine or countless other extremely useful technological breakthroughs. If you want to practically halt technological progress, that's fine, but you should at least acknowledge that the end of all governments would bring scientific progress to a slow crawl.
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 01:57 |
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:It was needed in 1990 and it was also in use in 1990. As a matter of fact it was also needed and in existence in 1970 and 1980. In Lithuania in 1990? Bullshit. Local gangs handle everything. I really believe the state is obsolete. The only reason it is existing is because it has guns. QuarkJets posted:You might want to brush up on your history Maybe if nanny state goes, we forget wheels and fire too, if Al Gore is not there to make them for us?  All state does is take money and freedom to give to banker elites.
Strawman fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Jan 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
Strawman posted:In Lithuania in 1990? Bullshit. Local gangs handle everything. I am sure there weren't any problems.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Strawman posted:In Lithuania in 1990? Bullshit. Local gangs handle everything. I really believe the state is obsolete. The only reason it is existing is because it has guns. The cumulative knowledge of science is a result of the past 400 years and despite how much both extremes of theories on authority would like to erase knowledge from history it isn't possible short of a world ending event. While your supposition of Lithuania in times past is a fresher perspective, if that was sustainable, why didn't it stay that way?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Heh come on VitalSigns, this thread was started to argue with people who weren't here. Actually, as the person who started this thread I can tell you that I started it specifically to have a place where libertarians can come and make their arguments without getting banned outright. Specifically I wrote it after Xylo probated a libertarian for making GBS threads up the USPol thread, though sadly that one got himself banned by opening an "Argue with me" thread after being told not to. You'll note that its actually been successful as Jrodefeld hasn't been banned for all his posting in this thread, unlike every other time he came to the forums, posted a "Argue with me a whole bunch" thread and then disappeared. But don't let facts stop you. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I am sure there weren't any problems. It was better than under Soviets, that for sure  RuanGacho posted:The cumulative knowledge of science is a result of the past 400 years and despite how much both extremes of theories on authority would like to erase knowledge from history it isn't possible short of a world ending event. Banksters sent men with guns, like they always do when freedom from their debt slavery breaks out  A collapse of the government and banks means virtually everyone is debt free and no longer enslave by the zionist-made debt-based economy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Strawman posted:zionist-made debt-based economy. Tell me more about the secret Lizard-Jew warlock cabal that runs the banks. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Strawman posted:But why would you want a fascist leader in charge? Anarcho-Syndicalism is a far more reasonable system. Anyone who says total anarchy is a joke has no loving clue! I lived in total anarchy, when in 1990 soviets were driven of from Lithuania there was total anarchy for about 2-3 years, police had no resources, government was a bunch of idealists with no idea wtf to do, no taxes no law in practice. local "tough guy" would pop up, he could not be super cruel or hosed up as when intellect level of people is pretty high (unlike lets say Somalia or any other dumb country which always pops up as example why anarchy is poo poo, they would be exact same poo poo anarchy or not...) people expect certain living standards and will get mad if poo poo goes down, as local mob could not muster army like governments do they were always in check. it was very safe and taxes were at least 10 times lower, as very efficient 5-10 mobster guys ran whole town and would not take half your money like government does. back in those days there was no internet so organizing big scale stuff was hard, but now with internet, Bitcoin etc., why you would ever need government? what government does what could not be done by just people organizing poo poo on internet? Tell us more about the glorious Lithuanian master race and their superiority over Somalians Strawman posted:In Lithuania in 1990? Bullshit. Local gangs handle everything. I really believe the state is obsolete. The only reason it is existing is because it has guns. As opposed to the notoriously gentle eastern European mafia organizations that arose during the collapse of the USSR.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
Strawman posted:In Lithuania in 1990? Bullshit. Local gangs handle everything. I really believe the state is obsolete. The only reason it is existing is because it has guns. I'm going to feel real dumb for asking, but Strawman a literal strawman gimmick?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:As opposed to the notoriously gentle eastern European mafia organizations that arose during the collapse of the USSR. Mafia has no monopoly on force because it has to work on a local level with local people. They don't interfere with private matters that don't concern them in order to 'protect and sever' like police. In a country that claims freedom, I should be free to do anything I want that does not interfere with the rights of another. Which, I think means I could talk about killing someone, buy a gun and barrel, even drive to the person's house with gun and barrel, and I have still not interfered with the rights of another person, therefore no crime should have been committed. The moment I threaten the person, so that they can hear/witness me, there by affecting their rights, whether using the gun or not, I have committed a crime. But if I even pulled my car up to their street/road, got out, and walked around, before getting back in and driving off, I do not see how any reasonable entity could claim I had committed any crime against another. Certainly I had denied no other being any of their rights. Which is why I would agree that a conspiracy charge, is a charge that proves you never actually committed a real crime, only one that has been imagined possible in the mind of someone else. It is as close to thought crime as we can get, without psychics or behavior prediction algorithms in play. I do not argue that the police would have to wait until Charlie is dead, but they should have to wait until Charlie actually has a gun to him, before making an arrest and charging for a crime. The fact that they try and create a fictitious crime before that point, is laziness, or at least intellectual laziness. These are the issues I have with at least my Nation and possibly others.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
Strawman posted:It was better than under Soviets, that for sure Plus, this graph makes a sweet ramp you can do a kickflip off of: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
Strawman posted:Mafia has no monopoly on force because it has to work on a local level with local people. They don't interfere with private matters that don't concern them in order to 'protect and sever' like police. In a country that claims freedom, I should be free to do anything I want that does not interfere with the rights of another. Which, I think means I could talk about killing someone, buy a gun and barrel, even drive to the person's house with gun and barrel, and I have still not interfered with the rights of another person, therefore no crime should have been committed. The moment I threaten the person, so that they can hear/witness me, there by affecting their rights, whether using the gun or not, I have committed a crime. But if I even pulled my car up to their street/road, got out, and walked around, before getting back in and driving off, I do not see how any reasonable entity could claim I had committed any crime against another. Certainly I had denied no other being any of their rights. Which is why I would agree that a conspiracy charge, is a charge that proves you never actually committed a real crime, only one that has been imagined possible in the mind of someone else. It is as close to thought crime as we can get, without psychics or behavior prediction algorithms in play. I do not argue that the police would have to wait until Charlie is dead, but they should have to wait until Charlie actually has a gun to him, before making an arrest and charging for a crime. The fact that they try and create a fictitious crime before that point, is laziness, or at least intellectual laziness. These are the issues I have with at least my Nation and possibly others. I too think that we should only wait until after someone is murdered or attempted to be murdered before we even consider doing something about it, even in cases where someone is actively saying "I am going to go murder steve with this gun that I bought for the express purpose of killing Steve." I mean really, what is attempted murder right? Do they give a nobel prize for 'attempted' chemistry?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Tell me more about the secret Lizard-Jew warlock cabal that runs the banks. When you get the attention of the Rothschilds and their International Money Changer Banker's Cartel, you have a battle on your hands. Hitler wasn't a good guy, but he took Germany from being possibly the poorest of industrial nations - a nation that had "lost face" before the world when they lost WWI - to being one of the most powerful in the world. And he did it in just 6 years by kicking the Jews' banking system out. It took the banking system a long time to recover from the wound that Hitler gave them. If Hitler had been a good guy, if he had not been a bit crazy, killed a whole bunch of innocent people for nothing, he might have become famous and conquered the banking system for real. Of course, we wouldn't have Bitcoin then, because we wouldn't need it. As it is, the banking system used the United States and Russia to conquer Hitler before he could destroy them. After all, you hear about the holocaust on a regular basis. But you seldom hear about the fact that Stalin might have murdered as many as 10 times more in Russia and surrounding nations than Hitler did. And look at the 55 million of its own citizens the U.S. has killed through abortions! Luckily, we have been presented with a new chance to take down the bankers through the (non-statist) technological revolution of Bitcoin. Think of bitcoin as a virus, a virus that attacks the ills of society, our political ills, the ills brought on by the State. If you protect bitcoin from the State, if you shield in some way the State from accessing bitcoin, then you prolong the agony. Injecting bitcoin directly into the State, taking the weapon, raising it high and striking sure and fast, and then again, and again, and again ... infecting the host of the State with the virus, now. This is the the battle won. The ultimate test of bitcoin is to survive the strongest onslaught the State can mount, so why wait until the State grows more clever, why wait until the State hatches more and more plans, and prepares at a level which forestalls the inevitable and causes grief for some? The more politicians that accept campaign donations in bitcoin, the more infected the top echelons of the State hierarchy becomes. What more beautiful way to infect the State than by appealing to their avarice? The avarice, the greedy claw, grabbing and scooping, blinded by the shiny coins. The crow sees the shiny coin on the street, he swoops down but his beak is such that he cannot easily grasp the coin, so he stays in the street wrestling with it, his greed for it growing, but "the coin" resists the crow and it cries, it screeches it screams ... and then the car rushes over it, and it's over. This will happen everywhere over the next 5-8 years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
Bit coins? Really?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
Strawman posted:Hitler wasn't a good guy, but
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:Bit coins? Really? In an alien visitation scenario, Bitcoin will be what redeems us as a species. Free from grasping hands of elite, controlled by the people for people ( like the US constitution says) Whats not to like? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=md4cPHFBeiU Strawman fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Jan 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
Strawman posted:When you get the attention of the Rothschilds and their International Money Changer Banker's Cartel, you have a battle on your hands. Hitler wasn't a good guy, but he took Germany from being possibly the poorest of industrial nations - a nation that had "lost face" before the world when they lost WWI - to being one of the most powerful in the world. And he did it in just 6 years by kicking the Jews' banking system out. It took the banking system a long time to recover from the wound that Hitler gave them. Anyone else having comprehension problems with this? My eyes keep sliding past it like some sort of electronic, attention deflecting teflon. Oh, wait. I know I've seen this before. Yeah, this is sourced from bitcointalk and was referenced in the bitcoin thread. Nice try Strawman, but I'm not falling for your plagiarized trolling. Come back when you've got original material. Edit: Actually, its multiple different bitcoin arguments posted together in some reality offending hybrid argument. Caros fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Jan 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
Literally a "Hitler Did Nothing Wrong". I never thought I'd see the day when I'd see it in person.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
He's joking and pretending to be a famous bitcoin persona.  At least I think the crazy bitcoin mansion guy was lithuanian. He was from one of the Baltic States at any rate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
lol nice work Strawman.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
Holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:Bit coins? Really? Interesting that this was what made it implausible for you, rather than the Hitler stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
I could kind of tell he was gimmick-posting (alternatively, hacked) since just up the page from where he started he was making fun of wateroverfire for calling SedanChair creepy.
Jerry Manderbilt fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Jan 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:I could kind of tell he was gimmick-posting (alternatively, hacked) since just up the page from where he started he was making fun of wateroverfire for calling SedanChair creepy. The fact that he started dropping articles from his writing after claiming to be from Lithuania is what did it for me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
Why are libertarians often also conspiracy theorists? Who What Now posted:Literally a "Hitler Did Nothing Wrong". I never thought I'd see the day when I'd see it in person. If you follow the Bitcoin thread you're going to see a lot more of that, basically whenever someone quotes reddit
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Why are libertarians often also conspiracy theorists? They appeal to the same groups. Libertarians and conspiracy theorists both appeal to people who want to know how the world 'really' works. They have an appeal of secret or exclusive knowledge, along with a gently caress the man strain that makes them appeal to people who don't feel in control of their lives.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
Strawman posted:Interesting that this was what made it implausible for you, rather than the Hitler stuff. When skimming Walls of Text the term Bitcoin promises more fun than Hitler.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Why are libertarians often also conspiracy theorists? That's why I don't follow the Bitcoin thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
Strawman posted:In Lithuania in 1990? Bullshit. Local gangs handle everything. I really believe the state is obsolete. The only reason it is existing is because it has guns. Uh, you're really bringing up Lithuania in 1990, still not free from russian shitlordness or equipped with normal infrastructure yet as an example of what's needed? Hillarious. You know it's a funny thing, my grandfather and grandmother spent the 90s and early 2000s providing donated internet-and-LAN-capable computers to Lithuanian schools because they needed it so badly. They named a high school outside either Kaunas or Vilnius after my grandfather. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
Bitcoin is a legit preoccupation of libertarians, as is the idea of currency competition. Ron Paul is notably, of course, obsessed with this - as he is with the idea of the return to the gold standard. To say that this shows fundamental understanding of the basics of economics is an amazing understatement.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Bitcoin is a legit preoccupation of libertarians, as is the idea of currency competition. Ron Paul is notably, of course, obsessed with this - as he is with the idea of the return to the gold standard. The most amusing thing about Buttcoins is the rampant fraud and financial fuckery that market has had to deal with for the entirety of its existence. So much for the free market doing better than regulations. Nah gently caress it, who cares, let's just embrace the incessant theft, price fixing, and market manipulation, it's totally a good thing. Then the gold standard. Oh boy. "But gold has inherent value!" Yeah well, so does wood. Why not go on a wood standard? Wood has inherent value. People buy and sell wood all the loving time and it's actually really, really useful. Like you can build houses and poo poo with wood so let's embrace the Wood Dollar! Or how about shirts? Shirts have inherent value. We need to enact a shirt standard immediately!
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
The most hilarious thing about Libertarians who believe in gold buggism is that it's mostly their own favourite economists who disproved the idea most effectively as fundamentally idiotic.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Then the gold standard. Oh boy. "But gold has inherent value!" Yeah well, so does wood. Why not go on a wood standard? Wood has inherent value. People buy and sell wood all the loving time and it's actually really, really useful. Like you can build houses and poo poo with wood so let's embrace the Wood Dollar! Or how about shirts? Shirts have inherent value. We need to enact a shirt standard immediately! The Incas ran a very economically successful empire on the shirt standard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:The most hilarious thing about Libertarians who believe in gold buggism is that it's mostly their own favourite economists who disproved the idea most effectively as fundamentally idiotic. I like how they just kind of ignore the mountains of historical evidence that points to the gold standard being pretty freaking stupid but just hand wave it away with "well they were doing it wrong!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The most amusing thing about Buttcoins is the rampant fraud and financial fuckery that market has had to deal with for the entirety of its existence. So much for the free market doing better than regulations. Nah gently caress it, who cares, let's just embrace the incessant theft, price fixing, and market manipulation, it's totally a good thing. To be fair, gold was a really good option for a currency during it's run. Gold is pretty much one of the only elements that fills most of the fundamental needs of a currency: 1. Fungible (ie you can make small or large units of it.) 2. Hard to duplicate. 3. Easy to transport (ie if you can't move it, you can't "give" it to someone else as easily. 4. It's durable. ie the 'react' part. If you're talking elemental materials, there really isn't much better than gold. NPR did a good thing on it a few years back, and basically if you go through the various building blocks of the world, you'll end up using copper, silver, and gold as money more often than not because they fulfill all of the above requirements. The problem with the gold standard people is they fail to realize that modern paper and electronic currency also fulfils those requirements and does so in a much more effective way. We have grown past needing hunks of gold to represent stores of value, and trying ourselves to it for histories sake is a stupid move.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
Caros posted:To be fair, gold was a really good option for a currency during it's run. Gold is pretty much one of the only elements that fills most of the fundamental needs of a currency: That's actually kind of my point as to why you can just pick any old arbitrary standard at all. The really interesting thing is that gold standards basically give way to other standards by default. For a long time (and this is how paper money came around) it was the promise of gold that was traded rather than the gold itself. Bank notes became the de facto currency because it's easier to move a piece of paper that says "10 pounds, gold" than it is to move the gold itself. It's also more secure. "10 pounds of gold, payable to only Richy McMerchantpants" is harder to steal and easier to track than just ten pounds of raw gold. Eventually fiat currency happened because people realized paper can represent value. What lolbertarians fail to realize is that fiat currency is basically an everything standard. As long as you have some of value (absolutely anything that somebody will pay for, including your time) you can exchange it for dollars which can then be exchanged for other stuff. It isn't strongly tied to gold which makes it much harder to manipulate for people that have a poo poo load of gold. Plus gold leads to insane things like mercantilism and colonialism. I really don't think it would be a good idea to go back to a world which was basically run on the basis of "hey let's see which rear end in a top hat king can stuff the most shiny crap in a vault somewhere."
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:That's actually kind of my point as to why you can just pick any old arbitrary standard at all. The really interesting thing is that gold standards basically give way to other standards by default. For a long time (and this is how paper money came around) it was the promise of gold that was traded rather than the gold itself. Bank notes became the de facto currency because it's easier to move a piece of paper that says "10 pounds, gold" than it is to move the gold itself. It's also more secure. "10 pounds of gold, payable to only Richy McMerchantpants" is harder to steal and easier to track than just ten pounds of raw gold. Oh we agree, I was just pointing out that they had a point as to why people used gold over say... wood to begin with. Once you get to the idea of fiat currency however, there really isn't much use for a gold standard because you are just tying your imaginary value bucks to a stack of metal that also represents your imaginary value bucks but also costrains your fiscal policy in dangerous ways. I personally think a lot of the gold worship has to do with using the gold standard as a way to shrink down the government so as to drown it in the bathtub.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
When I was 18 I joined the Ontario Libertarian Party and within a few months they tossed out the idea of me running in my riding in the next provincial election. What a joke of a party that was.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 04:54
|
|
|
prom candy posted:When I was 18 I joined the Ontario Libertarian Party and within a few months they tossed out the idea of me running in my riding in the next provincial election. What a joke of a party that was. The Libertarian Party of Canada is currently trying their damnedest to get as many people on the ballot as physically possible, without regard to the quality of those particular candidates. For example: quote:Biography I can point to public postings where the Libertarian Party Candidate for Saskatoon West Ethan Erkiletian condoned and excused murder for hire as not violating the non-aggression principle or necessarily being morally wrong. They're going for breadth to try and up their total number of votes to make it seem like the party isn't a tiny minority that will never, ever win a canadian election. Hell, their party leader pulled in 2.9% of the vote in Fort Mac, one of the most libertarian leaning parts of the country. My favorite part however, is this plank of their party platform: quote:The official position of the Libertarian Party of Canada is that the federal government should leave the entirety of health care decisions to provincial and territorial governments. The current system costs Canadians approximately $6,000 a year, per citizen. For the average family, their healthcare tax burden will be approximately $24,000 per year. Although Canadians spend a lot on the provision of healthcare, the system is painfully slow. The median wait time for an emergency room visit in Canada is 8.8 hours, which places Canada dead last among OECD countries for timeliness of care. For you non-Canadians out there, the Canada Health Act is essentially the Canadian universal healthcare system. The government sets a bunch of standards that all places must uphold, and gives transfer payments from the federal government to try and equalize the burden so poorer provinces don't get shittier healthcare. The official policy of the Libertarian Party of Canada is to dismantle our universal healthcare system in favor of eventual transfer to privatization. It is worth noting that the approval rating of Canada's universal healthcare is 91%, which means more people approve of their healthcare than approve of cute puppies. (89%). I mean I get that they are taking an ideological stand, but they will never, ever get elected. Edit: HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!! quote:Biography Fun fact, Derek Elliott is the one cousin my family does not talk about, and so I only just now realized he is a libertarian because he is on their list of approved candidates that they are running this election. I assume he lost faith in the federal Conservatives ability to produce small government after he was arrested for child molestation in 2007. Oh sorry, did I say arrested? I meant convicted. He was convicted of child molestation in 2007. Also checking fraud, but that is sort of burying the lead. Caros fucked around with this message at 05:52 on Jan 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 05:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 01:57 |
|
|
Caros posted:The Libertarian Party of Canada is currently trying their damnedest to get as many people on the ballot as physically possible, without regard to the quality of those particular candidates. For example: The big question is, has there ever been a Libertarian candidate who didn't lose his deposit?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2015 05:50
|
|