|
it is an undisputed fact that humans act, and in light of this it is undoubtedly clear that Ron Paul is a racist fuckwit who would have happily joined the nazi party if they would let him execute a few minorities
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 10:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 20:41 |
|
|
asdf32 posted:Primarily the first thing I listed when talking about the end of slavery. Shifting economic realities causing a new moral outlook. Can you explain what these "shifting economic realities" were? Give us a definition of some sort? Use some sort of historical data to back up your claim? Also, after reading your posts on slavery asdf I can tell you that your interpretation of what slavery was as a historical phenomena is, without question, entirely wrong. To wit: asdf32 posted:Slavery has always been wrong. WRONG: Slavery has not "always been wrong" in the eyes of the vast majority of people. The Greeks and Romans by and large had little problem with owning slaves. The Bible is full of examples of people being sold into slavery with little reflection at all about whether or not owning a human being morally right (see, Lev. 25:44-46, Eph. 6:5 1 Tim. 6:1-2 and the entire book of Philemon). In the early modern period -- which is what you are talking about -- some thinkers did suggest that slavery was morally wrong, but these writers were in the clear minority until after 1750 when the Slave Trade Abolition Movement started to take off. asdf32 posted:Also when the economics shift to make it comparabley less beneficial. WRONG: While historians and economists have debated the profitability of slavery in the early modern period, it is not really up for debate as to whether slavery was inherently incompatible with the new modes of industrial capital that came to the forefront of economic activity in the nineteenth century. George Fitzhugh in his tract Cannibals All!: Or Slaves Without Masters argued that the white working class of Northern cities were analogous to the African-American slaves on Southern plantations in regards to their economic activity and viability. In fact, many nineteenth century writers -- both (classical) liberal anti-slavery reformers, and pro-slavery defenders -- believed that capitalism was simply another form of enslavement owing to the incentives that the market placed on keeping wages low. At the same time, as others have pointed out in this thread, workers in the north -- skilled and unskilled -- opposed slavery not because it was an outmoded form of economic activity, but rather because they feared the comparative cheapness of slave labor would cost them jobs and eventually lead to their enslavement as well. Bernard Mandel's Labor, Free and Slave: Workingmen and the Anti-Slavery Movement in the United States, does an excellent job of laying out the concerns that white workers had about slavery and their reasons for protesting the institution. None of which were that slavery was economically less beneficial than wage labor. asdf32 posted:U.S. slavery is notably terrible because of the way southern culture entrenched despite the things above changing and well past the point when, primarily for reasons given, contemporary powers had already done away with it. WRONG: This is one of the worst sentences ever written. BUT, if we break it down to it's constituent parts you are making the claim that American slavery was bad because other nations abolished slavery earlier and southern culture refused to change. That is just poor logic on your part. No scholar has attempted to show that American slavery was more or less terrible than any other form of slavery based upon when other nations ended their enslavement of human beings, so I cannot provide you with a nice book to read here (but, I will plug Seymour Drescher's Econocide: British Slavery in the Era of Abolition, as a place for you to start if you care to see why it is not just Pure Economics that brought about an end to slavery). I will note though that the American South was not the last place to abolish slaver in the Western Hemisphere. Cuba (admittedly a colony of Spain) abolished slavery in 1886, and it took Brazil until 1888 to abolish the practice. If slavery was such an economically poor idea, why did it linger on in these locations twenty years after the abolition of slavery in the United States? And, by extension, was the slavery in Cuba and Brazil more "notably terrible" than that in the United States? (Arguably: yes, but not for the reasons you are going to suggest!)
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 13:31
|
|
BUG JUG posted:Econocide: British Slavery in the Era of Abolition This book is indispensable to people who study slavery, honestly.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 13:45
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:This book is indispensable to people who study slavery, honestly. I know, I study slavery.  Edit: In retrospect, the entire book of Philemon is not nearly so clear cut pro-slavery as I like to make it out to be (Peter suggests to Philemon that he ought to release his slave Onesimus because A: he served Paul so well, and B: he's a Christian now and therefore a brother whom you should make free), so you can ignore that if you want asdf. Though, Paul does not condemn the practice of slavery, rather simply suggests that good service should be enough to free someone from bondage (and, by extension, forms the backbone for the entire works argument that many Catholics make). BUG JUG fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Apr 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
BUG JUG posted:I know, I study slavery. How were Christians w/r/t the treatment of slaves, at least on paper? Was there a compulsion to feed them/clothe them/give them some manner of dignity like with the poor?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
Christianity was really, really popular among the slave classes of the Roman Empire so my guess would be "yes". There was also the whole "holy poo poo everyone is dying of plague" thing going on at the time that led to a loosening of slavery laws in general.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Cnidaria posted:Reminder that in a society that requires money to live, it's immoral to propose a system that requires inconsistent income systems like charity. Several pages behind, but this is a dangerous thing to assume. I believe this, and that makes me a hard-left liberal where I"m from. It's almost an axiom where I"m from that if you don't have enough money to live, then you deserve to die. Hooray for union Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
TwoQuestions posted:Several pages behind, but this is a dangerous thing to assume. I believe this, and that makes me a hard-left liberal where I"m from. I don't think he was making the assumption that it's a popular belief. Just that it's a correct one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 14:32
|
|
|
One of the canards libertarians and other anti-minwage types trot out is the assertion that government shouldn't be involved if someone wants to sell their labor at below market value. Are there actually people clamoring to do exactly that? On a truly voluntary basis? I can only think of retirees just looking for something to occupy their time but I've never actually heard any retiree make this case.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
SyHopeful posted:One of the canards libertarians and other anti-minwage types trot out is the assertion that government shouldn't be involved if someone wants to sell their labor at below market value. Are there actually people clamoring to do exactly that? On a truly voluntary basis? I can only think of retirees just looking for something to occupy their time but I've never actually heard any retiree make this case. They essentially argue that if people want to sell their labor below the current market value, the market value will drop and they are therefore getting a fair market price. And there are people who'd accept a job for sub-minimum wage, because they don't have a source of income now. Of course, the "truly voluntary" question is where things diverge. I would say that "get a job for a dollar a day or starve to death" is a coercive situation, but a libertarian would say that if there isn't an individual person making explicit threats against you specifically, then it counts as totally voluntary. This logic does not apply to taxation, because literally any action by the government is equivalent to men with guns threatening you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 16:36
|
|
SyHopeful posted:One of the canards libertarians and other anti-minwage types trot out is the assertion that government shouldn't be involved if someone wants to sell their labor at below market value. Are there actually people clamoring to do exactly that? On a truly voluntary basis? I can only think of retirees just looking for something to occupy their time but I've never actually heard any retiree make this case. There aren't really examples of people wanting to sell labour at less than value (unless you want to consider voluntarism in those terms), but there are people who want to be able to sell their labour for less than a given local min. wage - min. wage laws do effect the migration of low-skilled workers.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
"Fair" market value???? By definition ANY value the market gives is fair. "fair value"... that sounds like statist thinking!
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:"Fair" market value???? By definition ANY value the market gives is fair. "fair value"... that sounds like statist thinking! Their idea is that the market will correct itself. It's actually a case where The Invisible Pink Unicorn will be used. Any time a lolbertarian says "the market" or "the invisible hand" you can just slap in God, Yaweh, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, or Eris or like just whatever really and the argument doesn't change. They're basically religious fanatics that don't understand how insane they sound to everybody else because The Market is Always Right.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
It's essentially an argument invoking punctuated equilibrium, in that a market is theorized to reach a new steady state after experiencing a shock. But what I never understand is why it's assumed the new state isn guaranteed to be better than the original one was. Every time I hear someone talking about the market correcting itself, all I can think of is places like Detroit. That is the market correcting itself, huge population outflows and massive destruction of wealth. What the hell do they think the whole 2008 crisis was if not a market correction on irrational exuberance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:It's essentially an argument invoking punctuated equilibrium, in that a market is theorized to reach a new steady state after experiencing a shock. But what I never understand is why it's assumed the new state isn guaranteed to be better than the original one was. Every time I hear someone talking about the market correcting itself, all I can think of is places like Detroit. That is the market correcting itself, huge population outflows and massive destruction of wealth. What the hell do they think the whole 2008 crisis was if not a market correction on irrational exuberance. Anybody that loses when the market rights itself obviously deserved it. All those people that lost when Detroit imploded should have seen it coming and left. I mean, duh. If they were smart they'd be able to literally predict the future.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
lol if you don't have high career mobility. This extends to countries too. Your entire country goes tits up? Why didn't you just take your high paying internationally-demanded tech career to a country that is stable and will pay you more? Why didn't you choose to be an integrated marketing network system engineering consultant or what ever the gently caress socially useless high paying bullshit job I have and just go get paid more somewhere else? I hear a lot of people just saying "why does anyone stay in detroit?" as if moving was free and you won't just become homeless showing up in another city with no money or support network. 
Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 06:51 on Apr 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
SyHopeful posted:One of the canards libertarians and other anti-minwage types trot out is the assertion that government shouldn't be involved if someone wants to sell their labor at below market value. Are there actually people clamoring to do exactly that? On a truly voluntary basis? I can only think of retirees just looking for something to occupy their time but I've never actually heard any retiree make this case. The min wage debate can go too far in either direction. On the one hand, for ~some reason~ manufacturing iPods ain't comin' back home, theater escorts all but don't exist anymore, and hiring off the book and/or undocumented workers to keep picked produce prices to what most shoppers will accept happens all the time. Conversely the SeaTac area has yet to turn into jobless armageddon. But the ability to move factories overseas or go under the radar clearly shows a ability to go outside the purview of government wage laws and you're not gonna stop them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 13:51
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Theater escorts were big all through the 50's and 60's when the minimum wage was higher in real terms than it is now, and they were disappearing as minimum wage fell, genius. They disappeared despite us hacking 40% off the minimum wage in the last half-century. Customers don't care about being shown to their seat to see Transformers 7; theaters aren't going to bring back ushers if it doesn't get butts in seats, that would just be a waste of money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 14:16
|
|
|
Ushers/"theater escorts" still exist though. It's just that instead of having one or maybe two screens at best and such plenty of time to show people to their seats, they're instead rotating between the 15+ screens of a modern theater spending most of their time cleaning up the theaters and checking audio/video quality.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
I read somewhere that Ron Paul used a time machine to travel back in time just so that he could personally whip some slaves, and then he modified the first audio recording in history, now it's Ron Paul saying "I hate the swift-footed nergro and his low time preference" I mean clearly this is proof that Ron Paul is a racist, right? Would any libertarians mind commenting on this indisputable fact?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
Mises.org weighs in on the root cause of the problems in America's cities. Surprise, it's the existence of the government. Seven Changes Needed in Baltimore and Ferguson Right Now I am regularly asked what can be done to solve the problem of “urban blight” in places like Detroit. The question is usually asked with exhausted desperation and a shrug, as if there are no possible answers. The cause of this “blight” is the root of the problem, and when ignited by police brutality, sets off riots in cities like Ferguson and Baltimore. There are a whole range of answers that we know will work to at least improve the situation. The root problem of urban blight is government. With this in mind I want to focus on seven areas that if you eliminate government from the scene will solve the problem, or at least reduce the scope of the problem. Some of these solutions can be easily adopted by cities; others will require state and federal governments to remove or modify various forms of intervention. Some aspects of urban blight, such as the deep-seated ideology of victimhood, are likely only to be solved — as with the problem of aging tenured professors — one funeral at a time. 1. Grant “Urban Blight Status” to Free Communities from Regulatory Dead Weight What we need are more "real" jobs because gainfully employed people commit fewer crimes. The government creates all sorts of problems in labor markets other than the minimum wage law. City governments, or city elders, should be able to request what I’ll call “Urban Blight Status” for all of the city or parts of their city. Such status will allow for the removal of the minimum wage law and all licensing requirements. It will further remove property taxes and sales taxes. This will immediately create a competitive advantage for labor contracts in the “Urban Blight Zone.” Naturally, all of these measures are decidedly non-radical and would be considered “first steps” that should later be applied to the entire population nationwide. 2. Lower Taxes Any person living below the poverty line, or some other relevant measure, should be allowed to opt out of Social Security. This will immediately create a competitive advantage for urban workers as employers would not have to pay “their share” of the Social Security taxes. Such measures are badly needed given the high rate of unemployment prevalent among the young in urban areas, with some areas experiencing unemployment rates of 30 to 40 percent for young black men since 2011. 3. Let Young Workers Learn Real Skills Also, students trapped in public schools will be able to opt of out the last three years of high school if they can maintain a job working at least thirty-two hours per week. Students will also be able to opt out of afternoon classes in grades seven through nine if they can pass a basic competency test and maintain a part time job. 4. Legalize Self-Defense In addressing the problem of urban crime, the first thing that needs to be done is to remove gun control and gun restrictions in the cities where they exist. Gun ownership deters crime and violence. Recent state laws that allow citizens to carry guns have contributed to falling crime rates in recent years. Moreover, victims of real crimes often find themselves on their own, thanks to drug war incentives, since police in recent decades have increasingly been prioritizing drug war enforcement over real property crime like burglaries and violent crime. 5. End the War on Marijuana One of the most important reforms to reduce crimes is to legalize marijuana. This will reduce government budgets for police, courts, district attorney offices, jails, and prisons. As a result, fewer black and Hispanic males will be killed or locked up in prisons. The city of Philadelphia, for example, made marijuana possession the lowest priority for the police department and saves a good deal of money as a result. The violent crime rate in Colorado has fallen since marijuana legalization. 6. Sell Off City Property City governments should engage in true privatization. Property and buildings now controlled and maintained by city governments should be turned over to the private sector. Urban areas need properties for things such as private schools, safe parking lots, and new businesses. Maintaining the city government’s property is simply a burden on the taxpayer. 7. Phase Out Welfare Welfare remains a major cause of family and social disintegration. Welfare benefits should be reduced and phased out, and the welfare that does remain should immediately come with strings attached such as work requirements and drug testing. Expect Opposition Not everyone will be happy with these reforms. It is easy to imagine a great deal of political opposition from the likes of suburban businesses, licensed professional labor groups, unions, white collar workers, public school teachers, the private prison industry, police unions, public employee unions, and pharmaceutical industries, to name a few sectors. There are things we can do immediately to begin solving the problem of urban blight and thus eliminate some of the factors that lead to riots such as occurred in Ferguson and Baltimore. It may all seem like a pipe dream, but remember Detroit, Michigan was forced into bankruptcy and had to slash its budgets. Detroit today is already seeing urban revival in an environment of relative laissez faire. The next economic crisis could send other major cities mired in debt into a Detroit-like death spiral. It is the nature of government to think it is the solution to every problem. As Detroit found out, it is the removal of government restrictions and edicts that gave the city and its impoverished citizenry the opportunity to rise up and build a second life.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 13:54
|
|
|
Without government, who will protect people from the police?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
"Good news! You now live in an Urban Blight Zone! Enjoy doing the same job you had before for $2.15/hour!"
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:Also, students trapped in public schools will be able to opt of out the last three years of high school if they can maintain a job working at least thirty-two hours per week. Students will also be able to opt out of afternoon classes in grades seven through nine if they can pass a basic competency test and maintain a part time job. hahahahahahhahahaahahahahahhahahhaaha. A 15 yo kid working in McD's on the weekend can drop our of PUBLIC school lol. Of course this is giving him skills he will need for the rest of his life. No mention of private schools, wonder if the rich kids can do that.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:Mises.org weighs in on the root cause of the problems in America's cities. Surprise, it's the existence of the government. gently caress the comments are worse: quote:sama81 • 2 days ago YOU BLACK PEOPLE DONT GET TO DO poo poo, NOW WORK FOR YOUR EMPTY BOX
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
Taking welfare and voting = conflict of interest Using public roads, universities, and tax credits and voting = not a conflict of interest Hiring high-budget lobbyists to argue for your financial interests while you park your money overseas and voting = not a conflict of interest
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
I love how voting is only a conflict of interest for the poor.
|
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I love how voting is only a conflict of interest for the poor. These same people would likely look at a privatized regulatory or certification body that takes fees from the companies that it is supposed to be policing, and see no conflict of interest at all.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
Only thing missing is the weekly executions, otherwise I thought it was Kim Jung himself posting.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:Only thing missing is the weekly executions, otherwise I thought it was Kim Jung himself posting.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:7. Phase Out Welfare You ever notice how libertarians, jrod included and especially, always say this as if it were a matter of fact without ever explaining why or how welfare causes family or social disintegration? Do you think they could even come up with valid reasons besides "people on welfare won't look for work"? -EDIT- happyhippy posted:gently caress the comments are worse: This is straight up copy-pasted from a email forward that has been around almost as long as I've been alive if not older, and I'm getting close to 30. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 18:47 on May 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
Cognac McCarthy posted:He doesn't need to advocate for that or frame it as what he would do if he were in charge. The police already execute poor black people for the crime of being poor and black on a weekly basis, and he's ok with that. I like how they talk about this stuff as the source of "the problems in Ferguson and Baltimore" without feeling the need to mention the actual problems in Ferguson and Baltimore. Nope, I'm sure the police would stop killing people if they just made less money and worked somewhere(???) instead of going to school. I mean, they give a cursory mention to the war on drugs, but at this point that's pretty much a mandatory Libertarian fig leaf in any article they write.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:
Back in high school I worked summers for a small roofing company. The owner was also the crew boss (I was one of, maybe, half a dozen employees at the most), a nice guy in his late fifties at the time, and he often talked about how back when he was young each town (or county maybe, I forget) had their own Commissioner of the Poor or some similar title, who's duties were more or less to do the various things advocated above, as appropriate to the 1950s-60s. Of course I'm from one of the most lily-white states in the country, so it was less dog-whistle for "lazy blacks" so much as it was "the poor shall have no respite while receiving a single cent of public money, the fuckers." An example he gave, if my memory serves, was taking those on benefits up to shovel snow off Willoughby Lake during the winter, not because it in any way needed to be done, but rather as it kept them from idleness. Captain_Maclaine fucked around with this message at 21:51 on May 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:An example he gave, if my memory serves, was taking those on benefits up to shovel snow off Willoughby Lake during the winter, not because it in any way needed to be done, but rather as it kept them from idleness. Protestantism is a hell of a drug.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
I keep hearing about how taxation is coercion/theft from Libertarians but is that really the case if the population has agreed to be taxed? It seems to me like they think the government and the people are separate entities in our democratic republic. We vote for people who uphold taxation therefor our taxation is legitimate. The only way taxation stops is if we vote for enough representatives that will end taxation. But like most of us, I appreciate the innumerable benefits and services. I understand that while I might not need some of these services (for the time being) it will make lives of others better. Which in turn makes a better society for me to live in. So I vote for like minded representatives. Am I wrong here or not?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
HP Artsandcrafts posted:I keep hearing about how taxation is coercion/theft from Libertarians but is that really the case if the population has agreed to be taxed? It seems to me like they think the government and the people are separate entities in our democratic republic. We vote for people who uphold taxation therefor our taxation is legitimate. The only way taxation stops is if we vote for enough representatives that will end taxation. But like most of us, I appreciate the innumerable benefits and services. I understand that while I might not need some of these services (for the time being) it will make lives of others better. Which in turn makes a better society for me to live in. So I vote for like minded representatives. Am I wrong here or not? They, personally, weren't consulted on the matter beforehand, therefore it's just MEN WITH GUNS stealing their money!
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
When libertarians argue against workplace protection laws, they do so on the grounds that e.g., a 12-hour day without a break does not constitute coercion, because 'well, you could always quit!' So it looks like the operative principle is that asking something of someone does not constitute coercion just so long as they have any choice (however unpleasant) but to comply. But this is inconsistent with the position that taxation is coercive; citizens in most democratic states may well choose to serve a sentence instead of paying. I've yet to see a libertarian defend a coherent definition of 'coercion' that doesn't either A.) conflict with much of libertarian orthodoxy, or B.) rig the game by defining it in terms of state power from the get-go. Have I not looked hard enough? What is the best account of coercion that libertarian political philosophers have to offer?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:When libertarians argue against workplace protection laws, they do so on the grounds that e.g., a 12-hour day without a break does not constitute coercion, because 'well, you could always quit!' So it looks like the operative principle is that asking something of someone does not constitute coercion just so long as they have any choice (however unpleasant) but to comply. But this is inconsistent with the position that taxation is coercive; citizens in most democratic states may well choose to serve a sentence instead of paying. Just look back through this thread where Libertarians discuss DROs. The penalty applied to someone who "chooses" to not pay a DRO is infinitely harsher than anything the US government will do to you should you choose not to pay your taxes (hint: anything from hostage family members to outright execution).
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
HP Artsandcrafts posted:I keep hearing about how taxation is coercion/theft from Libertarians but is that really the case if the population has agreed to be taxed? It seems to me like they think the government and the people are separate entities in our democratic republic. We vote for people who uphold taxation therefor our taxation is legitimate. The only way taxation stops is if we vote for enough representatives that will end taxation. But like most of us, I appreciate the innumerable benefits and services. I understand that while I might not need some of these services (for the time being) it will make lives of others better. Which in turn makes a better society for me to live in. So I vote for like minded representatives. Am I wrong here or not? No, you're right. But I've gone ahead and loaded up some software that I wrote called JAILBIRD, which stands for Jrodefeld Artificial Intelligence, Looks, Behaves, and Irritates like the Real Deal. I fed in your question (via punchcards) and these were the responses and their likelihood: 1) 62% - Ignore it, statist thug doesn't merit a response 2) 14% - Start ranting about police brutality and the evils of war, dropping lines like "war doesn't exist without taxation and fiat currency", ignoring countless counterexamples and the reality that private police forces are often way worse than their public counterparts 3) 24% - Start ranting about how Ron Paul, Rothbard, and Hans Hermann Hoppe are definitely NOT racists, no sir, surely being photographed at a klan rally shouldn't constitute proof of racism he was just there by mistake, he never actually explicitly said that he hates minorities, right? I think there might be a bug though, cause it feels like response 3 occurred a lot more often than that. If anyone has questions for JAILBIRD I'll be happy to relay the responses
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 20:41 |
|
|
archangelwar posted:Just look back through this thread where Libertarians discuss DROs. The penalty applied to someone who "chooses" to not pay a DRO is infinitely harsher than anything the US government will do to you should you choose not to pay your taxes (hint: anything from hostage family members to outright execution). With execution styles including "we will cut off all utilities and prevent you from leaving your home until you slowly die" This was proposed by a libertarian as a reasonable punishment for not allowing 24/7 George Orwellian style surveillance to be put everywhere in your home
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 18:53
|
|