|
Lol his tiny libertarian brain is trying to reconcile the vastness of the cosmos and because he can't understand the difference between people and rocks he comes to the conclusion that letting people starve is a good idea. But sure I'll engage the crazy; Plastics, you failed to notice one thing in your bonkers universal perspective; if one thing can be defined in the universe as having a purpose, life is that thing, and that purpose purpose purpose is the survival and propagation of the species that life belongs too. We've come a long way from just loving to make sure we had more babies than were eaten by wolves, and our social constructions like government, welfare, corporation, individual rights and protections, etc. Are all tools we have derived to help in the goal of the successful continuation and prosperity of the human race, (though obviously with many issues and imperfections in the system). We disagree on the outcomes of your prepositions (you are 100% wrong about what would happen just like JRod was) but the important thing about this is when you said that it would be preferable for the human race to go extinct due to rigid adherence to stated principles rather than change and adapt in order to account for reality. This is deeply hosed up and a sign of a fundamental break with the very root nature of life as we know it. You are an aberration, much like a sociopathic CEO our a fundamentalist zealot is an aberration. This is not the thinking of a healthy mind.
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 12:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 21:04 |
|
|
The purpose of life is to dissipate pockets of low entropy by consuming them. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 12:27
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Caro was a paranoid schizophrenic and he came within like 5 blocks of killing a brutal power mad dictator. Plastics just sucks. What are you referencing here? It sounds glorious.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 12:40
|
|
|
It's kind of sad. One of those schizophrenics who occasionally pops by to post somehow started being a medic in the Syrian civil war despite having no skill. I think he died in a syrian prison, which is a really bad place to be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 13:57
|
|
|
chaos rhames posted:It's kind of sad. One of those schizophrenics who occasionally pops by to post somehow started being a medic in the Syrian civil war despite having no skill. I think he died in a syrian prison, which is a really bad place to be. Libyan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 14:10
|
|
|
There's so many civil wars now they blur together.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 14:19
|
|
|
Dammit. That is a hell of a story to start my day with.  Hey Plastics, please don't get yourself killed in a civil war. Be crazy here, with us, on the internet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 14:34
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:The purpose of life is to dissipate pockets of low entropy by consuming them. You jest, but there's a guy from MIT making waves because he's working on a theory which states that the reason why life is here in the first place at all is that given certain high-energy/low-equilibrium conditions it is bound to happen as a means of dissipating all that extra energy. The purpose of life is heatdeath.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 15:06
|
|
|
Plastics posted:But without the Government interfering those people who have a worse start would be better placed to improve themselves. Without the burden of taxation people could afford more things for themselves and their children while working less and with regulation being reduced and voluntary people could take their own INFORMED risks instead of being constrained by government. Also though I am reminded by a quote which I can not remember perfectly now but it is something like "There has never been so insane a system as one based on the transparent lie that all men are equal." Of course we are not equal! If we were there would be no debates and no differences of opinion. Equality is a false idea that is really the imposition of sameness! Anarchy would free us from this by letting people fall into their natural and appropriate places by the rewards a free society gave them for the things they do and the things they Make *Insert sounds of tires screeching to a stop here*  So, in other words, you have ZERO comprehension of how the poverty cycle works and LITERALLY threw the Bootstraps argument in there. Holy loving poo poo. Also, nice appeal to nature, you rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Sorry, kiddo, but words have meanings. Theft is an unlawful or unwilling seizing of property. But you've already admitted that you are choosing, willingly, to pay your taxes. Thus taxes cannot possibly be theft by your own admission because they are neither unlawful nor are they unwilling. I'm sorry that you don't want to admit this but thems the breaks, sport. Yeah, this. You have chosen, Plastics, to pay your taxes. You have been given a choice, and you have chosen one option ( paying taxes ) over another ( not paying taxes ). By your own admission, and your own ideology as you've "explained" it in this thread, taxation is not theft. The only hypocrisy here is you jumping up and down and insisting that somehow you have not been given a choice ( as you clearly have ) or that this choice is somehow 'immoral' in some sense. By your own stated ideals and beliefs, the choice has been given and by your own free will you have made it. Sic semper ex stultis. Yes, I know my latin sucks. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Okay so actually I have wondered a lot about how best to institute a fair libertarian system because I do actually agree that the most FAIR system would be one where everyone had a similar starting point. But the problem is that we can not create that situation without imposing Government violence on people by seizing their property when alive or dictating how they dispense with that property in their wills and this is just not something I can support. But I do believe that even without this that the system WOULD allow for a lot more social mobility because it would as I said give people more personal resources to work with and more opportunities because there would be less in their way. And also people would actually enjoy better wages and benefits because they would have more power to negotiate and withhold their labor if they did not like the terms.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Plastics posted:Okay so actually I have wondered a lot about how best to institute a fair libertarian system because I do actually agree that the most FAIR system would be one where everyone had a similar starting point. But the problem is that we can not create that situation without imposing Government violence on people by seizing their property when alive or dictating how they dispense with that property in their wills and this is just not something I can support. A fair system would be THING, but since we can't do THING without an evil government, gently caress it. gently caress you crazy man.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 16:52
|
|
Plastics posted:Okay so actually I have wondered a lot about how best to institute a fair libertarian system because I do actually agree that the most FAIR system would be one where everyone had a similar starting point. But the problem is that we can not create that situation without imposing Government violence on people by seizing their property when alive or dictating how they dispense with that property in their wills and this is just not something I can support. What about with non-governmental violence, such as with an association of private citizens, acting parallel to the state, which took action to expropriate property and ensure it was divided fairly?
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
Plastics posted:Okay so actually I have wondered a lot about how best to institute a fair libertarian system because I do actually agree that the most FAIR system would be one where everyone had a similar starting point. But the problem is that we can not create that situation without imposing Government violence on people by seizing their property when alive or dictating how they dispense with that property in their wills and this is just not something I can support. Libertarians call violence 'Contracts'. You want to be able to do the same thing, but through individuals and 'contracts'. It would be no different, hell, it would be WORSE. Plastics posted:But I do believe that even without this that the system WOULD allow for a lot more social mobility because it would as I said give people more personal resources to work with and more opportunities because there would be less in their way. And also people would actually enjoy better wages and benefits because they would have more power to negotiate and withhold their labor if they did not like the terms.  Gilded Age. We've been there, done that, and it didn't work.Hell, those that DID attempt to negotiate power and holding GOT SHOT BY COMPANY SPONSORED MILITIA. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Aug 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
Plastics posted:Okay so actually I have wondered a lot about how best to institute a fair libertarian system because I do actually agree that the most FAIR system would be one where everyone had a similar starting point. But the problem is that we can not create that situation without imposing Government violence on people by seizing their property when alive or dictating how they dispense with that property in their wills and this is just not something I can support. Here's the thing, though, you are factually and demonstrably wrong. Workers hold little, if any, negotiating power in terms of wages because they need the employer a lot more than the employer needs them. We've tried your system before in the past and we know for certain that it will only lead to feudalism at best and a series of despotic warlords fighting over lands and resources at worst.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
Plastics posted:Okay so actually I have wondered a lot about how best to institute a fair libertarian system because I do actually agree that the most FAIR system would be one where everyone had a similar starting point. But the problem is that we can not create that situation without imposing Government violence on people by seizing their property when alive or dictating how they dispense with that property in their wills and this is just not something I can support. Also, why should someone who values fairness ever be a libertarian?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Plastics posted:Okay so actually I have wondered a lot about how best to institute a fair libertarian system because I do actually agree that the most FAIR system would be one where everyone had a similar starting point. But the problem is that we can not create that situation without imposing Government violence on people by seizing their property when alive or dictating how they dispense with that property in their wills and this is just not something I can support. Except you can and do! As long as people are given a free choice between two or more outcomes, it's fine. Plastics posted:But I do believe that even without this that the system WOULD allow for a lot more social mobility because it would as I said give people more personal resources to work with and more opportunities because there would be less in their way. And also people would actually enjoy better wages and benefits because they would have more power to negotiate and withhold their labor if they did not like the terms. Bullshit. Heaping, thorough, utter mounds of bullshit. Once again as others have pointed out, we have tried it your way. We have tried to let businesses police their own ranks. We have tried to let them set safety-standards. We have tried to let them handle labour-disputes. We have tried to let them set wages. It. Has. Never. Worked. Like I tried to hammer home to JRod (pbuh), the reason governments exist is that throughout history, every society has at one point or another, decided that a certain issue is simply too big for an individual to handle. And so we've made governments and laws to deal with these problems. It most likely began as a council of elders of a tribe, the oldest and wisest who knew where the best game was, or which weirs were particularly good for fishing. Then tribes settled down and became agricultural, and with settlement came new needs. So now the lawmakers became hereditary positions, held by a particular family, who also got the responsibility and duty to defend the fields and villages they made laws for. That meant they needed specialists, so they assembled a court. Experts in accounting and, yes, fighting. Because if you didn't have soldiers, those bastards from the next valley over would come and steal all your food and you and your family would starve to loving death. And on and on and on. Each new innovation bringing a new challenge, that was met by human society in the same way: Making a new law and refining our political system, inch by painful inch, over the millennia. Our entire history as a species and as a civilization, Plastics, has been driven by the active need to get away from your supposed utopia. Why do you think that is?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
I still love how Libertarians completely ignore the Gilded Age, where their timeless claims were already tested and found to be bunk
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I still love how Libertarians completely ignore the Gilded Age, where their timeless claims were already tested and found to be bunk Or argue that the development of the iPad (Or whichever 21st century invention you prefer) means that we can bring back the Gilded Age without any of its associated problems.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I still love how Libertarians completely ignore the Gilded Age, where their timeless claims were already tested and found to be bunk It was even better back when libertarian poster and prostitute aficionado Qualnor argued that the Gilded Age was actually something to aspire to because Americans in the post-Civil War 19th century were overwhelmingly comfortably middle class. But seriously, I still can't get over Plastics' embrace of the TobleroneTriangular image. It's more beautiful than I could have ever hoped for.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
Yeah but they didn't have Yelp Plastics posted:But I do believe that even without this that the system WOULD allow for a lot more social mobility because it would as I said give people more personal resources to work with and more opportunities because there would be less in their way. And also people would actually enjoy better wages and benefits because they would have more power to negotiate and withhold their labor if they did not like the terms. Hey Plastics, Caros addressed this thoroughly [emphasis mine, except the emphasis that was his], you should acknowledge his point and rebut it specifically rather than just repeating the same thing: Caros posted:You do realize that in the absence of taxation every single thing that people pay for now would have to be paid for on the individual level or not at all. This means that programs like social security, medicare/caid/SNAP would go the way of the dinosaur, all of which are programs which are most helpful to those with low incomes. It isn't like people stop needing police, or fire, or food inspection, or water safety, or highway infrastructure or basically any of a nearly infinite number of things that you take for granted. At best the loss of the 'burden' of taxation would be replaced with the burden of paying for these agencies at a 1:1 or slightly less ratio in your favor. At worst, and more likely, many of these things would vastly increase in cost. We know for example that medical care in the UK costs less than half of what it does in the US because of effective bargaining and the benefits of a single insurerer among other things. What reason do we have to believe that policing costs, or highways or any number of other programs won't increase in cost as a result of their privatization?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:But seriously, I still can't get over Plastics' embrace of the TobleroneTriangular image. It's more beautiful than I could have ever hoped for. I think this is his way of saying, "I am a gimmick playing the role of someone crazier than a shithouse rat." Seriously, he advocated the extinction of mankind because Principles.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:I think this is his way of saying, "I am a gimmick playing the role of someone crazier than a shithouse rat." Seriously, he advocated the extinction of mankind because Principles. Let me believe just a little longer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
I'm frankly astonished he's made it this long without getting redtexted with that line about the extinction of humanity. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
Nolanar posted:What are you referencing here? It sounds glorious. Everyone else sort of got it right. Caro was a crazy man who thought the FBI was shooting green radiation at his house to make him gently caress Jena Bush. At some point during the conflict in Libya, he decided he wanted to go over there and be a "journalist" (he did post a bunch of videos on line which Brown Moses ended up using, iirc). Then, after watching some Youtube videos of medical procedures, decided he would help out the militias fighting Gadaffi as a medic. One militia, desperate enough for people to help and probably not realizing Caro is nuts, agreed to this. A few weeks later he was shooting at people with a sniper rifle. Eventually, he participated in the rebel siege of Sirte, which featured brutal block by block fighting. Towards the end of this fighting Gaddaffi and a bunch of his inner-circle was killed/captured, and Caro was reportedly not to far from where they actually captured Gaddaffi. Meaning we came like this close to having a (former, he'd been permabanned by this point) goon kill a dictator. Later, Caro would try to enter Syria to try and participate in the conflict there. I know he was stopped by the Turkish police at least once and deported back home, but he eventually entered the country. He was then, at our best guess, captured by government forces, tortured, killed, and probably rolled into a mass grave somewhere. And so it goes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Article on a new Libertarian state in the times: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/magazine/the-making-of-a-president.html?_r=0 "" posted:We, the members of the Preparatory Committee of the State of the Free Republic of Liberland, issue this proclamation:
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Everyone else sort of got it right. Caro was a crazy man who thought the FBI was shooting green radiation at his house to make him gently caress Jena Bush. At some point during the conflict in Libya, he decided he wanted to go over there and be a "journalist" (he did post a bunch of videos on line which Brown Moses ended up using, iirc). Then, after watching some Youtube videos of medical procedures, decided he would help out the militias fighting Gadaffi as a medic. One militia, desperate enough for people to help and probably not realizing Caro is nuts, agreed to this. A few weeks later he was shooting at people with a sniper rifle. Eventually, he participated in the rebel siege of Sirte, which featured brutal block by block fighting. Towards the end of this fighting Gaddaffi and a bunch of his inner-circle was killed/captured, and Caro was reportedly not to far from where they actually captured Gaddaffi. Meaning we came like this close to having a (former, he'd been permabanned by this point) goon kill a dictator. I think Brown Moses has obliquely confirmed Caro's likely fate, or at least strongly hinted he's seen evidence to support the sad end you mentioned. BrandorKP posted:Article on a new Libertarian state in the times: Oh boy, if I remember right some of these guys got arrested already by either Serb or Croat police for various shady activities, and the would-be president has tried to find a way to hire mercenaries online with bitcoins.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Article on a new Libertarian state in the times: Liberland? Really? Don't they know they aren't supposed to use the joke names people made up for it?  Edit: Oh this quote is just priceless. quote:By May 8, though, which Jedlicka had planned as Liberation Day, his initial command of the situation had begun to erode. Domestically, the legitimacy of his administration was being challenged by a group that called itself the Liberland Settlement Association. The L.S.A., led by a Danish Bitcoin trader living in Switzerland, took at face value the President’s initial declaration of Liberland as a radical libertarian experiment: They moved quickly to settle Liberland themselves, on the premise that it was as much theirs as anyone’s. On the foreign-policy front, meanwhile, the Croatians lost their patience with the increasingly aggressive and populous homesteaders and were denying entry to Liberland. Croatian police apprehended all Liberlanders who attempted to enter. Jedlicka was arrested and thrown in jail twice. Caros fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Aug 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Article on a new Libertarian state in the times: We, the members of the Preparatory Committee of the State of the Free Republic of Liberland, issue this proclamation: That looks like Government to me....
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Your more common breed of Libertarian will agree that some amount of government is necessary. They simply feel the powers/scope/role of said government should be sharply limited.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Hey Plastics If the point of what you farcically call "Anarchy" is to make sure everybody gets sorted into where they belong- a place appropriate to their quality- then how do you justify allowing children to have upbringings which vary vastly in their economic circumstances? Shouldn't children be raised identically to make sure that outside forces irrelevant to their quality as people, such as their parents' wealth and childrearing skills, don't give them an unfair advantage or disadvantage?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Your more common breed of Libertarian will agree that some amount of government is necessary. They simply feel the powers/scope/role of said government should be sharply limited. Pretty much this. Jrod gives a sort of skewed view on libertarians because your typical real world libertarian is a minarchist or a constitutional libertarian etc. AnCaps are actually few and far between in reality, even if they are the most vocal libtards on the internet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:Hey Plastics We shall call them 'Upper Class' and 'Lower Class' and they shall never be allowed to interact, lest the lower class dirty the clean and white hands of the upper class.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Also rather than permit the injustice of some people being born to better genetics than others, we're going to have to standardize on a particular genome for all children to make sure that they don't end up in a better or worse position than they deserve due to unfair genetic advantages or hindrances.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
theshim posted:I'm frankly astonished he's made it this long without getting redtexted with that line about the extinction of humanity. No one cares enough about this thread. This is a zoo for for spergs and shut-ins to be distracted and kept away from serious topics. Oh and sometimes a libertarian drops by and hangs out with us :iamafag: Topically enough, this happened: Frances Oldham Kelsey, Who Saved U.S. Babies From Thalidomide, Dies at 101 quote:Merrell stood to make millions and was anxious to get moving. It had tons of Kevadon in warehouses, ready for marketing, and 1,000 American doctors had already been given samples for “investigational” research. The company supplied more data, but also mounted a campaign to pressure Dr. Kelsey. Letters, calls and visits from Merrell executives ensued. She was called a fussy, stubborn, unreasonable bureaucrat.  Goddamn fussy, stubborn, unreasonable bureaucrats initiating force on me and the company trying to sell me a healthful sleep aid!
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 19:42
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No one cares enough about this thread. This is a zoo for for spergs and shut-ins to be distracted and kept away from serious topics. Oh and sometimes a libertarian drops by and hangs out with us :iamafag:
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Plastics posted:But I do believe that even without this that the system WOULD allow for a lot more social mobility because it would as I said give people more personal resources to work with and more opportunities because there would be less in their way. And also people would actually enjoy better wages and benefits because they would have more power to negotiate and withhold their labor if they did not like the terms. Believing something doesn't make it so. Also why would people enjoy better wages and benefits? What's going to make business owners not just pocket the difference? I'm not necessarily going to start paying you a higher wage just because the government isn't taking taxes from me anymore. I might re-invest but more likely to use that money to pay for water purification and to hire a doctor to provide me medical advice on what medications are safe to take. I may have to rent time on the privatized highway system now to transport my goods around the region. If anything I'm more likely to collude with other business owners to cut wages to make sure I don't have to worry about the bottom falling out or being assaulted by a larger more powerful business with resources to buy out my local DRO.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:Also rather than permit the injustice of some people being born to better genetics than others, we're going to have to standardize on a particular genome for all children to make sure that they don't end up in a better or worse position than they deserve due to unfair genetic advantages or hindrances. Silly statist, in Liberland private charity will offset all disadvantages people with mental or physical illness might face. Think back to the glorious Gilded Age which I'm sure was a bastion of high living standards for people with mental/physical issues, or at least I hope it was because if it wasn't that might make my just world fallacy seem really naive! "Yes Mr Pullman, I'm with the Americans with Disabilities Society, and I'd like to talk to you about reversing you 'no cripples/half-men/degenerates' hiring policy -- ow, why is your Pinkerton hitting me?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:What about with non-governmental violence, such as with an association of private citizens, acting parallel to the state, which took action to expropriate property and ensure it was divided fairly? No, that would be the initiation of Force, how would that be Just? Force is defensible when it is retaliatory (though whether that means it must be proportionate I have not yet come to a personal conclusion on) but not otherwise. Who What Now posted:Here's the thing, though, you are factually and demonstrably wrong. Workers hold little, if any, negotiating power in terms of wages because they need the employer a lot more than the employer needs them. We've tried your system before in the past and we know for certain that it will only lead to feudalism at best and a series of despotic warlords fighting over lands and resources at worst. Okay so the thing a lot of Statists seem to not recognize is that if they take on those contracts because they need to then it is by definition fair. If they need the employer more than the reverse and that gives the employer power then that is perfectly fair and reasonable. How could it not be? Getting a job is something we do to afford things we need or want. If my only skills command a low wage then why should I get a higher wage? How could anyone even begin to argue that it is fair or rational to pay people more than what the market decides is the value of their labor? And saying the Gilded Age was bad is pretty crazy. The fastest growth of the economy in US history which INCLUDED wages in real terms. The creation of the industrial economy and building great cities filled with gleaming skyscrapers and works projects as vast as transcontinental railroads and so on and so on. Plus of course people who are opposed to capitalism like to pretend this was some great era of poverty and exploitation by cruel robber barons but in fact those people often donated tremendous amounts of their wealth to things social causes and institutions such as museums and universities. It is latter day propaganda that makes it sound like some kind of horrific DIckensian nightmare whilst actually the poor were mostly recent immigrants who managed to improve their situations once they found work and learned the language. TLM3101 posted:Except you can and do! As long as people are given a free choice between two or more outcomes, it's fine. Okay this is actually pretty easy to answer but people do not LIKE the answer because they feel insulted by it. The answer is that some people like power and some people like having decisions made for them and the second group gives power to the first group (usually thinking this will be a beneficial arrangement because it will give them Security or wealth or equality) and over time this goes from listening to your wise tribal elder because he has proven he is wise to building huge pyramids for the pharoah. Or I suppose you could be saying that the end goal of 'moving away' from my "utopia" is the imposition of completely totalitarian control over everyone because that is what it looks like to me. We did not start out as pure and Moral beings we started out as cavemen so of course as I have said previously a Society which EVOLVES towards anarchist libertarianism is going to look different from one which arrives at anarchy in another way. VitalSigns posted:Hey Plastics, Caros addressed this thoroughly [emphasis mine, except the emphasis that was his], you should acknowledge his point and rebut it specifically rather than just repeating the same thing: Okay but half the time you all are saying that costs would go up hugely because of unspecified reasons but the other half of the time you are saying these systems would all be less Efficient because there would be so many competing people providing them. If you can settle on which one it is I might be able to answer! StandardVC10 posted:I think this is his way of saying, "I am a gimmick playing the role of someone crazier than a shithouse rat." Seriously, he advocated the extinction of mankind because Principles. If you are not willing to pay a Price for your Principles then you do not HAVE Principles. You are saying that a Jew who could have saved himself from the Holocaust by betraying his comrades but Chose not to do so is crazy. Principles are only Principles if you hold on to them even when they cost you or have a downside. Pope Guilty posted:Hey Plastics I already ex[plained this! It would be more fair to create that kind of system but doing so would ALSO require Coercion so it is not acceptable! I suppose ideally you could say that people would voluntarily bequeath some or all of their estates to organizations that work to give everyone an equal starting place (and lots of very rich people have given vast sums to causes) but at the same time wanting to give your children a better and easier and more comfortable life than you had is Human Nature. I do not fail to sympahize with people who try to use Government for that and it is a lot better than MOST uses of Government but if these kinds of things are so important than why would they not be voluntarily created in my system and even more pressingly why have they not been well implemented in the EXISTING system of oppressive and powerful Governments? You are all saying these Governments were deliberately set up by people who wanted something done (transparently and demonstrably false and you can see this within a few pages of literally any history book) but they are failing to provide even these vitally important things that are central to your justifications for Government. Or could it be that actually Governments do not exists by or for the People and have always been and will always be the tools of the very elite you fear in my system? Except in my system they have no formal powers and can only do what they earn the ability to do rather than forcing everyone to bow down to their laws?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 21:04 |
|
|
Plastics posted:If you are not willing to pay a Price for your Principles then you do not HAVE Principles. You are saying that a Jew who could have saved himself from the Holocaust by betraying his comrades but Chose not to do so is crazy. Principles are only Principles if you hold on to them even when they cost you or have a downside. And you are too much of a coward to do that, therefore you do not actually hold the Principals you claim that you do. And I take it that you concede that taxation isn't theft?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2015 02:54
|
|