|
White Coke posted:It's not supposed to make much sense, I didn't spend much time trying to flesh it out or proofread it. I was just trying to come up with a way for "Men with Guns" to be made more palatable to libertarians, but of course there's plenty of ways for them to wriggle out of my line of reasoning, like saying that the government can't actually own land or other property so it wouldn't be theft for them to walk through it. Or whatever. To take a different tangent, what's the libertarian view on stealing from a thief? That depends, which people in the scenario are white?
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 10:17 |
|
|
Mornacale posted:That depends, which people in the scenario are white? What if one of the of the people involved is someone who belongs to an ethnic group that's been considered white only more recently, like an eastern european. YF19pilot posted:The thief stole it first, so it's rightfully his, and his right to defend it with lethal force, even if the person trying to steal it is the original owner who can't provide satisfactory proof that it was in fact, hers; based on the logic of how Native American and African American reparations are supposed to work. I suppose if the original owner had just maintained documentation of everything they owned then the thief wouldn't have gotten away with it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:It's also pretty great at insulating the rich from economic shocks, too. People ignore this too often
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
White Coke posted:What if one of the of the people involved is someone who belongs to an ethnic group that's been considered white only more recently, like an eastern european. Depends on the ethnic preferences of the local
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
Ormi posted:I don't know if Penn Jillette would argue that big business and free markets are strictly incompatible because a free market is necessarily one in which big businesses are expropriated by the workers, but here's an alternative viewpoint for your consideration. I tried reading this, but the problem is that it requires a lack of a state, which is not something that has occurred in human history, or is likely to occur. Given the way that we've seen how people tend to organize themselves, it seems highly unlikely that the innovations that allow for the centralization of manufacturing to occur to not happen. And they're not going to go away, since they're already here. It seems like a folly to try and seriously discuss how the world would be without a state. At that point, you've taken away something fundamental, and you have to reimagine society from the ground up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
White Coke posted:I suppose if the original owner had just maintained documentation of everything they owned then the thief wouldn't have gotten away with it. If someone steals everything you own, you just offer to pay a judge more money to give it back to you than the thief is willing to pay him to let the thief keep it. Duh.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
If he gives it all to his kids first you're out of luck though, no takebacks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:I tried reading this, but the problem is that it requires a lack of a state, which is not something that has occurred in human history, or is likely to occur. Given the way that we've seen how people tend to organize themselves, it seems highly unlikely that the innovations that allow for the centralization of manufacturing to occur to not happen. And they're not going to go away, since they're already here. It's not the innovations themselves, but they way they were used, and continue to be used, to uphold corporate dominance over the market and our daily lives. The point is that "what would stop the mega-corporations" is a flawed way of looking at things, because they aren't being stopped now, and that's largely by design. A world without capitalism does indeed require a bit of an imagination. I think questioning corporate welfare, which in the United States exceeds a trillion dollars in tax breaks, subsidies, and contracting, is an excellent start no matter where you are positioned politically, and I won't scoff at support for it from right-libertarians like Penn Jilette.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 05:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If someone steals everything you own, you just offer to pay a judge more money to give it back to you than the thief is willing to pay him to let the thief keep it. Duh. Ah yes, a thriving market in court systems will do wonders to combat crime. Just make sure you don't get swept into a for profit prison by the local DRO for failing to make your subscription payments.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 07:42
|
|
|
White Coke posted:Ah yes, a thriving market in court systems will do wonders to combat crime. Just make sure you don't get swept into a for profit prison by the local DRO for failing to make your subscription payments. Valhalla DRO has no prisons. All trials are trials by combat. All trials are to the death.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 12:06
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:Valhalla DRO has no prisons. All trials are trials by combat. All trials are to the death. I assume trial opponents are chosen on a sliding scale depending on the severity of the
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 12:12
|
|
|
The only thing your premiums get you is your choice of pre-trial amphetamines. And don't badmouth Chinkilla like that. The man's been litigating for thirty years and still has all his limbs. He's the Thurgood Marshall of cracking people's skulls open with a quarterstaff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 12:19
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If someone steals everything you own, you just offer to pay a judge more money to give it back to you than the thief is willing to pay him to let the thief keep it. Duh. Don't forget you have to prove it was yours in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 12:41
|
|
|
Note that you don't always necessarily fight a human; you might be fighting a lion, or a bear, or maybe a rat-king
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Don't forget you have to prove it was yours in the first place. Compurgation is a feature provided by most DROs. Just make sure your membership hasn't lapsed otherwise no one in good standing can testify to your credit without getting expelled too. QuarkJets posted:Note that you don't always necessarily fight a human; you might be fighting a lion, or a bear, or maybe a rat-king It's amazing how all those endangered animals came back from the brink of extinction after people were allowed to raise them to kill for sport.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Everyone thought Knobby Jacobson was a dead when he was ordered to fight those three bears unarmed over a fraud charge, but he sure showed us. Trial of the loving century.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
I've read the Libertarian thread and Property rights thread, Free Republic thread, and Let's Reads of patriot fiction. I'm waiting for edits back this afternoon and starting in on Eripsa's social networks thread. Yes I am broken. But binge reading this stuff is like a creativity drug that doesn't make me vomit or have insomnia. I am going to need more to read soon, or I need to buy archives. Any recommendations?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
WrenP-Complete posted:I've read the Libertarian thread and Property rights thread, Free Republic thread, and Let's Reads of patriot fiction. I'm waiting for edits back this afternoon and starting in on Eripsa's social networks thread. I'm not sure how I feel about further enabling this level of addiction, but have you checked out the YOSPOS bitcoin thread?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
I have never seen YOSPOS before! I have found my people (bots)! Thank you!
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
out of curiosity what is ron paul's opinion on interracial marriage (or as he'd likely say, miscegenation)
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
I was debating a vulgar libertarian on instant messaging the other night, and I was struck by the vulgar libertarians' seeming abhorrence and loathing for any sort of political ideology, perhaps even the very idea of politics itself (hey, wait a minute.... He energetically disavowed Rothbard, Mises, Triple H, and several other libertarian thinkers I brought up (with a healthy dose of #NotAllLibertarians when I asked why he would associate with such people), and was consistently evasive when I tried to pin down what, exactly, he stood for, to the point where he seemed to deliberately avoid standing for things except for guns, nice-sounding platitudes, guns, weed, and guns. He called his stance "Republicans with bongs and Democrats with guns" (while also expressing disgust for both parties, but spent more time complaining about Democrats for some reason), and disparaged the entire discipline of political philosophy. How vacuous must your thinking be to consider even having a coherent ideological vision of how society should work to be dangerous? He also didn't have an answer how a bunch of stoned, privilege-blind gun nuts with gaping holes where their ideology should be would muscle the Rothbards and Hoppes of the world and their legions of jrodefeldian syncophants aside and make the Libertarians a viable replacement for the Republican Party. My favorite moment was that he basically admitted that Gary Johnson's economic policies were garbage, but "some work" could transform them into low-effort milquetoast centrism without compromising the entire idea of libertarianism. For gently caress's sake, the economics are the important part, weed and guns are just red meat for young white bros who aren't comfortable with outright voting for Trump.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:out of curiosity what is ron paul's opinion on interracial marriage (or as he'd likely say, miscegenation) I am 99% percent sure the man will disgust you, but all I can find is poo poo about him being crappy with his views on Gay marriage. Wouldn't be surprised if he called it miscegenation http://www.ronpaul.com/2015-06-29/ron-paul-can-there-be-a-right-to-gay-marriage/
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
Twerkteam Pizza posted:I am 99% percent sure the man will disgust you, but all I can find is poo poo about him being crappy with his views on Gay marriage. Wouldn't be surprised if he called it miscegenation I actually got really pissed at one of my friend's for talking about Ron Paul. He showed us the clip of Paul saying "We don't need the federal government to tell us to not do heroin." I was livid. One of my friends had become a heroin junky. I hadn't seen him for a few years since we went our separate ways and our interests just didn't align anymore. One day, I ran into him, and it was loving dire. He was physically and mentally shot. He had the memory of a gold-fish. He kept forgetting that he had just literally seen me a few minutes ago. In the article, his whole licensing thing gets me as well. Why do we license plumbers? I don't know, I guess somebody hooking up pipes that bring water and take sewage away from your house is just someone you should trust on their reputation. No need to worry about all the things that can go wrong with plumbing. The guy is an all around shithead, and people treat him like a messiah because he gives simple answers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
The biggest problem with Ron Paul is that what he says on the surface sounds pretty fantastic. End the wars, end the drug war, lower taxes, smarter spending, don't get the federal government involved in marriage, etc. But once you dig down a bit he actually means "let states disenfranchise black people again" and the like. He's in favor of just letting businesses do whatever they want and rely on reputation like that; let's just ignore that business currently, right now, do everything they can do hide poo poo people won't like rather than actually, you know, not suck. Plus his boner for financial deregulation doesn't jive well with what happened around 8 years ago thanks to that. If you look at his voting record he's among the furthest right politicians that have ever existed. A lot of the time it's a flimsy, plastic wrapper of fake freedom wrapped around really nasty things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The biggest problem with Ron Paul is that what he says on the surface sounds pretty fantastic. End the wars, end the drug war, lower taxes, smarter spending, don't get the federal government involved in marriage, etc. But once you dig down a bit he actually means "let states disenfranchise black people again" and the like. He's in favor of just letting businesses do whatever they want and rely on reputation like that; let's just ignore that business currently, right now, do everything they can do hide poo poo people won't like rather than actually, you know, not suck. Plus his boner for financial deregulation doesn't jive well with what happened around 8 years ago thanks to that. Ron Paul is like the personification of mainstream libertarianism. Preach about all of the liberal bits, say a bunch of horrific poo poo under your breath, and then when it comes time for action just do the same thing as all of the other Republicans. Assholes like jrod are fringe libertarians who have all of their own problems. Guys like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are basically just two-faced conservative conmen
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Ron Paul is like the personification of mainstream libertarianism. Preach about all of the liberal bits, say a bunch of horrific poo poo under your breath, and then when it comes time for action just do the same thing as all of the other Republicans. anyone have that poo poo that he said about "druglords" and how BLM should be protesting that?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 06:57
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:out of curiosity what is ron paul's opinion on interracial marriage (or as he'd likely say, miscegenation) Giving 95% odds you'll find an article from a Ron Paul supporter about how "while Ron Paul disapproves of interracial marriage personally, he believes in the right of american citizens to make that choice if they so choose,"
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 10:22
|
|
|
"...and the rights of the states to stop them."
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 12:42
|
|
|
Whenever you hear "Gotta vote for 'D' so 'R' doesn't win" or vice versa, the person telling you this is either paid by the politicians, by the campaigns, or by the political parties to convince you of the futility of choices. Or it may be someone on "Team D" or "Team R" that is unpaid but has been drinking their Team's propaganda Kool-aid for years. Don't listen to them either. They WANT you to vote against the "greater of two evils" candidate by holding your nose and voting for the "lesser of two evils" candidate. (Notice, this candidate is still evil, just a little bit less.) Or, if you can't vote for any amount of evil, to at least feel the futility and stay home. You may think that the worst thing you could do would be to vote for the supposed "greater evil" candidate. Not in the eyes of the political parties. In their eyes, the worst thing you can do is vote for a 3rd party candidate. Why? Because it weakens the power of their political duopoly (a monopoly made up of 2 parties having control instead of only 1). Voting for Gary Johnson weaken both duopoly parties and sends a message that they have failed you in providing acceptable candidates. And that's without knowing Gary Johnson, his experience, or his values. This is reason #1 to vote for Gary Johnson: to send that message that the duopoly has to earn your vote by offering better quality candidates. You won't be sucked into their "vote against one by voting for the other" tactic. This is not a 2 horse race like the media likes to promote. Nor is it a mere coin flip decision. D or R? No, thanks. I'll take L (for Libertarian and Liberty). 2) Gary Johnson is on the ballot in all 50 states, like the D&R's candidates will be. No one other candidate is on the ballot in even 20 states. 3) Gary Johnson is the only one of the three top candidates (assuming Hillary and Trump are the other two) that has executive government experience as the governor of New Mexico for 8 years. Hillary has tons of government experience, none of it executive. Trump, lots of executive experience, none in a governmental capacity. 4) Because of his experience, only Gary Johnson has worked successfully with both Democrats and Republicans to enact legislation. This experience could be useful in working with Congress. 5) Gary Johnson may be the best Libertarian candidate to run in this contest of the "most-dislikeds." There are plenty of Libertarians that consider him less of a "pure" Libertarian, making him more of a "crossover" candidate. A moderate Libertarian, if you will. 6) People will "advise" you to not waste your vote on a candidate outside the duopoly. They say your single vote won't make a difference. Then, they will immediately turn around and say your single vote IS important...but ONLY in breaking "a tie" between the Democrat and Republican. Your vote is important, in the aggregate. But your single vote will not change the course of a national election, one way or the other. 7) Your vote is important in another way...besides determining the officeholder. Ballot access. Because of the way the Democratic/Republican duopoly have structured access to the ballots, just BEING on the ballot with a different party name is a struggle. This is designed to prevent or at least reduce competition to the duopoly. It's much easier to run against one opponent than two or more. The ballot access requirements vary by state. But many states look at the number of votes cast for Libertarians as the indicator that the Libertarian Party is "worthy" to be on the ballot. In Michigan, for example, if the votes exceed an arbitrary 1% of the total cast for the highest office on the ballot, President in this November's election, then the Libertarian Party's candidates will be on the next ballot in 2018. If not, then the Libertarian Party will have to spend money to petition for the privilege to be on the ballot in 2018. This is an extra cost that puts the Libertarian Party and other non-duopoly parties at a disadvantage. Ballot access is difficult and expensive. This is why the Libertarian Party is the party on the ballot in all 50 states. No other party is included on even 20 states. Keeping ballot access by voting for the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson, is planting the seed that having the next election will offer better candidates. The LP will be able to focus its money on getting closer to winning elections for governors, senators, representatives, and state and local offices. Better than having to spend extra money just to appear on the ballot! Even if you don't know about Gary Johnson yet, but do know you don't like Hillary or Trump, maintaining ballot access for the Libertarians in your state by voting for Gary Johnson is valid. It's like encouraging political competition for better ideas and better candidates in the future. 8) Here's some peace of mind you will gain by voting for Gary Johnson. "Everyone" knows he won't win. Just like "everyone" knew in high school that the pretty girl already had a date to the prom while she sat at home crying. "Everyone" was wrong then and hasn't gotten any smarter. So...don't listen to "everyone." 9) Voting for Gary Johnson will give you the satisfaction of being able to say "I told you so" to your family and friends for 4 years! Hillary starts another war, "Hey, I didn't vote for her!" Your friend complains when Trump says something wacky, shake your head sadly and remind them for the 500th time, "You should have voted for President Johnson!" They will get sick of complaining to you because you are immune to their whining. No one will ever bother you about politics again until 2019. Then, you can tell them, no one has ever had to apologize or make excuses for their candidate when they voted Libertarian! 10) Finally, if you want to see how your values match up with the candidates and the Parties this time around, find out. You may be a Libertarian and not even know it due to the duopoly's control of the media and the media's favoritism of the duopoly's establishment elite. Go to i Side With dot com at this link How Republican vs Democrat are you? and fill out the 60 or so multiple choice questions. I would suggest for each question you click on "Other Stances" before clicking "Yes" or "No" to see the reasons behind the choices. If, while you think about reasons, you notice how the current government policies all mean well for one group, but usually result in unintended consequences for another group, you will be ready to weigh the multiple choices for each question. Government is like the grandparent that gives ice cream to a child so that the child feels good. But the grandparent forgets that the child is lactose-intolerant, while leaving the diaper for the parents to clean up. Consider the inevitable results of the government's policies that end up in that diaper or worse while you go through the multiple choices on i Side With. Answering the i Side With questions may take 30 or even 45 minutes. But look at it this way, it is a tool that will save you hours of pursuing this trivial points in the day-to-day horse race the media calls political news. It will also save you from going to vote and not knowing if you have picked the right candidate for you. This relatively tiny time investment will serve you well over the next 4 years! Highly recommended!
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 13:08
|
|
|
Source your quotes
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 13:11
|
|
|
Google Ron Paul
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 13:58
|
|
|
I'm voting Cthulhu. Why settle for the greater evil? Go for the greatest.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 13:58
|
|
|
You are not Lottery of Babylon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 14:26
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:You are not Lottery of Babylon. Not even trying to be. Just straight up too lazy to type out the quote codes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
Can Isidewith.com tell that I care about dropping private prisons and giving everybody health care more than I care about raising the speed limit? ...or making it legal to run a red light if you can totally tell that nobody's there, which is a federal law i am sure because all bad laws are federal Stinky_Pete fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Aug 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:I'm voting Cthulhu. Azathoth/Yog-Sothoth 2020 Your vote matters, unlike the entirety of human existence
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:3) Gary Johnson is the only one of the three top candidates (assuming Hillary and Trump are the other two) that has executive government experience as the governor of New Mexico for 8 years. Hillary has tons of government experience, none of it executive. Trump, lots of executive experience, none in a governmental capacity. Okay that's technically true, continue... quote:4) Because of his experience, only Gary Johnson has worked successfully with both Democrats and Republicans to enact legislation. This experience could be useful in working with Congress. lol so the author of this knew that Clinton was in some sort of legislative office but doesn't think that she's ever worked with Republicans to enact legislation quote:9) Voting for Gary Johnson will give you the satisfaction of being able to say "I told you so" to your family and friends for 4 years! Hillary starts another war, "Hey, I didn't vote for her!" Your friend complains when Trump says something wacky, shake your head sadly and remind them for the 500th time, "You should have voted for President Johnson!" They will get sick of complaining to you because you are immune to their whining. No one will ever bother you about politics again until 2019. Then, you can tell them, no one has ever had to apologize or make excuses for their candidate when they voted Libertarian! "Vote for Johnson, it'll annoy your friends and family! You hate them!" Also cue all of the libertarians making excuses for Ron Paul's racist-as-hell newsletters and countless other philosophical atrocities
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Okay that's technically true, continue... I don't think that this is even technically true, unless being the Secretary of State isn't an executive position all of a sudden.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
I think it implicitly mean "chief executive."
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 10:17 |
|
|
I can't tell what's real anymore.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 21:31
|
|