 
|
This board is closed to new users and new posts. Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years. Details here.
|
|
The Free Talk Live BBS
Profile of Kevin Freeheart
Show Posts Messages
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
151
The Polling Pit / Re: Jerk
« on: October 01, 2008, 12:45:26 AM »Quote
Is Ian being a jerk by not standing for the judge?
Did the judge stand for Ian? If so, then I'd say it's rude, similar to not offering your hand if someone went to shake it. If not, then no. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"
152
The Polling Pit / Re: The Definitive "Sex With Dead Animals" Thread!
« on: October 01, 2008, 12:44:15 AM »Quote
Even in this unpopular poll on this free-minded forum, [four] people already voted for ostracism and two for government intervention (i.e. jail).
I'm not sure I'd hold ostracism against people. The whole "dead" aspect gives me the willies and if someone I knew were engaging in sex with dead animals (defined by me as sexual activity with a carcass for the purpose of sexual pleasure) I'd be a bit reluctant to spend time with them. Perhaps not full social pariah to the "shoot for simple tresspass" level of "no services rendered" I'd offer someone who harmed my wife intentionally, but "We should go out and have beers" would probably be off the table.
I'm a bit too logical to assume "incidental" use of dead animals for sexual purposes (such as lamb condoms) would freak me out, but then, I'm not sure why my friend would feel the need to divulge the kind of condoms he uses unless there's the unintentional implication of "I'm allergic to latex". Then again, there are non-animal non-latex condoms, so there's no excuse for telling me that either.
Quote
Perhaps those people can tell me where they draw the line between lamb condoms, ivory dildos, hot dogs, supermarket meats, and/or roadkill.
A lot of people are irrational. Many people who eat meat are mortified of the idea of a slaughterhouse tour. I know that beer is sugar water infused hop tea with yeast farts and shits, and I love beer. My co-worker is mortified by the process of fermentation once she recognized what it really is. The hot dogs kind of give me the creeps, not because they're dead animals but because they're low-quality dead animals. High quality sausages are perhaps a different story. Not sure what the "supermarket meats" entails, I think it's too vague to really give a solid opinion on. The roadkill thing, again, for being and (i'm assuming) unprocessed puts it in that "low-quality" meats section.
153
The Polling Pit / Re: Who has the best "Jerk" thread?
« on: October 01, 2008, 12:30:42 AM »
Yes?
154
The Polling Pit / Re: Ian vs Mark - who's being the jerk?
« on: October 01, 2008, 12:30:14 AM »Quote
I guess I'm going to have to wait until after listening to the podcast.
This.
155
The Polling Pit / Re: If you had to choose-
« on: October 01, 2008, 12:29:07 AM »
If Obama becomes the President, I know my life will get worse. I'll have less of the money I work hard for and more people telling me why I have an "obligation" to give it to them.
If McCain wins, he'll go around killing more people and people will want to kill me for it.
I'd personally say that McCain would impact my life LESS yet knowing that's because he's killing people really brings me close to the edge of vomiting. Then again, Obama's not that far ahead.
If my life depended on it, I'd flip a coin, sob like a bitch, cast my vote and then puke. Heads I lose, tails, they win.
If McCain wins, he'll go around killing more people and people will want to kill me for it.
I'd personally say that McCain would impact my life LESS yet knowing that's because he's killing people really brings me close to the edge of vomiting. Then again, Obama's not that far ahead.
If my life depended on it, I'd flip a coin, sob like a bitch, cast my vote and then puke. Heads I lose, tails, they win.
157
The Polling Pit / Re: The Definitive "Sex With Dead Animals" Thread!
« on: September 27, 2008, 12:10:25 PM »
I am not amazed that a sex with dead animals thread turned to voting discussion.
158
The Polling Pit / Re: Libman
« on: September 24, 2008, 10:39:12 AM »Quote
After the whole Bob Barr fiasco he seems to have lost alot of what made Libman Libman
This.
Recently, I've found that he's actually being quite rational and I enjoy reading what he writes.
159
The Polling Pit / Re: Assets
« on: September 24, 2008, 10:33:17 AM »
Home and cars aren't assets typically since they're so volatile. People typically put more money into upkeep of both than they gain.
I'm somewhere in the mix of all the options. I'm essentially broke but I've got some very small investments, the biggest probably being a portfolio of mutual funds and ETFs. I've also got a "savings account" payable in silver that is always physically accessable to me with the exception of massive scale quarantine or nuclear strikes with me being at ground zero.
Then there's my labor. It's probably the biggest single source of wealth for me right now, but it depresses me that I'm so reliant on it as my most prominent source of income.
I'm working on fixing that though.
I'm somewhere in the mix of all the options. I'm essentially broke but I've got some very small investments, the biggest probably being a portfolio of mutual funds and ETFs. I've also got a "savings account" payable in silver that is always physically accessable to me with the exception of massive scale quarantine or nuclear strikes with me being at ground zero.
Then there's my labor. It's probably the biggest single source of wealth for me right now, but it depresses me that I'm so reliant on it as my most prominent source of income.
I'm working on fixing that though.
160
General / Re: Bye, bye to masquerading as a libertarian
« on: September 19, 2008, 02:00:44 PM »Quote
Just because a given country has a handful of the things that the ideology proposes doesn't mean the nation itself is socialist/libertarian.
It's a semantics issue, but at the heart of it is why I essentially reject the idea of government at all. There are no such things as "nations". There are people who consider themselves part of a nation, but each person in that group has their own ideas and values. No nation can ever be described in terms of BELIEF system since there will never be only one. Even "libertarian" as a label is grossly inaccurate since it is an umbrella for so many vantage points. Nations don't exist, therefore there can be no socialist nations or libertarian nations.
161
The Polling Pit / Re: The Definitive "Sex With Dead Animals" Thread!
« on: September 19, 2008, 10:28:24 AM »Quote
Q1 uses orgasm to define whether sex is taking place.
Ah, in that case then only with the human animal and never dead.
162
The Polling Pit / Re: The Definitive "Sex With Dead Animals" Thread!
« on: September 18, 2008, 07:16:04 PM »
Every now and then I'm blown away by Alex Libman's posts. I forget where it was, it was off this forum but he was defending anarcho-capitalism to statists and doing it fairly well. Well enough that I wondered if it weren't really a coincidence that the two accounts had the same handle...
Here's another...
As to the question, I don't think I've ever had sex with a dead animal.
Unless you wanna get REALLY abstract... One could classify the act of chewing a steak as "S&M oral on a bovine".
Here's another...
Quote
Oh, take a chill pill. I am a hard-working heroic fighter for legitimizing ever-greater human degradation, and I will have to work extra hard to top this poll someday. But I will. Watch me, Jew boy. I am your worst nightmare - a decent human being who isn't decent out of naive sheltered ignorance. I make people like you look like freaks.
As to the question, I don't think I've ever had sex with a dead animal.
Unless you wanna get REALLY abstract... One could classify the act of chewing a steak as "S&M oral on a bovine".
163
General / Re: Bye, bye to masquerading as a libertarian
« on: September 18, 2008, 10:51:24 AM »
From hearing Ziggy call the show all the time, I've always assumed that "libertarian" in the UK simply meant "Moderate Democrat" in Yank. I never felt the need to call him on it just like he doesn't go around telling people that Oreo is a biscuit, not a cookie, and the peace has been kept.
Oh yes, I know. You were advocating that the European Union was a good thing because it removed certain bureaucracy like crossing the border. It was QUITE clear to me at that point you "didn't get it". Here's the test to see if you're a libertarian. "Do you believe it is acceptable to use force or a substitute for force, like fraud, to attain political or social ends?" If you say "No" then you're a libertarian. Knowing that there is not 100% consent to the government and that government uses violence to stay around, advocating government is advocating violence. Even "small government" minarchist types accept this, they just admit that they think a certain amount of violence is needed to preserve massive scale acts of violence (of course, there's all kinds of cognative dissonance there but the point still stands).
Show me some evidence that me pointing a gun in your face and demanding your money is "doing good". Show me evidence that your mother or sister being raped can "do good". I think you're using heavy handed doublethink to justify that arguement to yourself. Being black is a physical characteristic, being a government thug or bureaucrat is a choice. Saying "government is bad" is a fallacy because government doesn't exist. It's merely people calling themselves government and those people continue to choose to be violent and continue to choose to defraud people. The value judgement, at least on my behalf, is based on a behavior, nothing more. People who choose to harm people are bad.
I didn't know that the UK abolished minimum wage laws! Holy hell! I swear there were minimum wages set in the UK, preventing unskilled workers, typically VERY poor unskilled workers, from providing enough benefit to employers to hire them and give them money to buy food and shelter. Damn.
Additionally, what good is food and shelter if you've now got a theft epidemic? "The poor" in most western nations have greater access to quality food, medicine, technology and shelter than kings did 500 years ago. That whole "steal stuff from one person and give it to someone else" is a slippery slope that will end when there's nothing left to steal because all the people who produce stop because they don't like being robbed. Then you and your benevolent government paradigm can solve the hunger problem by feeding "the rich" to the poor and hungry. It is the natural progression of things. </tongue-in-cheek>
Seriously though, I used to be a "liberal". The "plight of the poor man" rests on my heart greatly. I haven't abandoned those principles in relying on the free market. Indeed, I've found that the free market is the ONLY way to ensure that people are given the ability to produce sustainable wealth for themselves. You can give someone money, but you can't give them job experience, skills, networks and references and ALL of these things CAN be obtained by unskilled workers who are able to work for lower wages or even for free to build those things as stepping stones for better opportunities down the road.
If "the poor" is why you feel that libertarianism is inconsistant, I'd speculate you really didn't understand the concepts well enough. May I suggest Mary Ruwart's "Healing Our World In An Age Of Aggression" and in specific Chapter 3: Destroying Jobs.
I suppose it could have been worse. You could have moved to New Hampshire before making that realization, I suppose.
Actually, I'd question the liberty credentials of anyone who said there IS an obligation. Liberty is about personal responsibility and someone who understand that knows that no person things for another person and since thoughts lead to actions, no person can act for another person. Because of that, no person is responsible for another person unless they agree to be (in say, the case of children). Granted, there's an ethical calling for most people to help out. Nobody likes knowing people are hungry or sick or lacking. There's a HUGE difference between a common moral agreement that a thing is bad and should be eliminated and a MORAL OBLIGATION so great that not meeting it justifies HAVING VIOLENCE ENACTED AGAINST YOU. Big difference.
There's something REALLY REALLY fucked up about your world view if the ONLY way to help the sick and vulnerable is to pay taxes. There's a ton of charities in the USA that have upwards of 85% conversion (that is, of every dollar that goes to that charity, $0.85 go towards the cause the charity exists to assist with) and manage to do amazing things entirely on a voluntary basis. Maybe the UK government is that damn efficient, I don't know. Maybe the charities in the UK just suck ass. I know that the money I contribute to private causes does MUCH more to help the sick and vulnerable than tax dollars do. I know those just go to paying bureaucrats who do far to little and get paid far too much. And that's ignoring the whole "taxes are theft" thing which is a REALLY big thing to ignore.
There is only ONE criteria for being libertarian in my book. You believe that initiating violence and committing fraud against people is ALWAYS wrong. You can't "stray" from that. It's not a platform, it's a core principal. You either believe initiating violence has it's place and are not libertarian, or you believe initiation of violence is wrong, and you are.
Unless that individual disagrees with the idea that he should pay taxes. Then he should be beaten up and threatened with time in a cage, because you've already labeled him a "sociopath". Hrm, I love the logical consistency there.
Ancient statist arguement is ancient. How, good sir, is mob rule avoided by a process in which a majority of people, in most cases quite willing to use violence and hoping to be lost "in the crowd" to escape punishment? I'd say it sounds like you're cutting off your nose to spite your face, but that's even a bit more sane than what you're arguing here. A mob is needed to prevent a mob. Huh.
I say this constructivly... It REALLY sound to me as if you've got an identity issue. You can't let someone else dictate your ideology. The times you call up to FTL and this post and some others ones, every time you've complained it tends to revolve around the idea of some group rejecting you for having a different ideology. Tough. Fucking. Cookies (as Mark would and has said). Nobody else thinks the same way you do. Nobody will have the same stance on all of the issues that matter to you. If you require the agreement of a group in order to feel sane and rational in your beliefs, you're always going to be an outcase.
John Stewart Mill is not a libertarian. Nicholas Capaldi claimed he was, but he himself was a liberal utilitarian. They're composed of some of the same letters, but they're not the same thing. The phrase "the ends justify the means" alone is enough to raise hackles with principled libertarians since it's usually a precursor to something that violates the NAP.
I used to be liberal. I don't think there's any misunderstanding at all. I STILL want that - I just recognize now that it doesn't happen through violence. Commonplace theft and violence cause neighborhoods to decay. A violent spouse causes the goodwill and safety in a home to vanish. Crime on a wide scale in a city causes the city to get less valuable and less desired. Ironically, the exact same thing is true of national and regional interaction. Going around hurting people, stealing their property and destroying their assets does NOT result in more people having opportunity. ONLY leaving people free to make their own decisions about their bodies, their lives and their money will enable them to succeed. It's not a matter of liberal vs libertarian GOALS, it's a difference of violent vs non-violent MEANS.
I think whomever said that was a moron simply trying to discredit libertarianism. Some people really hate the idea that they are responsible for their actions of lack of it. Some people actually find it easier to encourage everyone else to do for them rather than actually doing it themselves. No wonder that person would rather convince you to pull him up from the well rather than take a few moments of caution and using the well safely and not falling in.
Yes, and once you're done with that, you really should begin working on regulating pencils. You know, because pencils misspell words. Pencils aren't tools. They're not in control of the people who own pencils. Without all these unregulated pencils, we'll have tons and tons of misspelled words! Think of the children!
You're really not helping your case. That "willingness to use the system" is the problem. The system does EVERYTHING it does with violence or the threat of violence. If you're okay doing that, fine. I couldn't and I advocate that people refrain from hurting other people. If "the system" weren't violent, this would be a different issue but it IS inherently violent. If you disagree, explain how you'd fund your welfare programs without violence, threats of violence or fraud. I'd happily support a system that effectively helped people and didn't go around being violent.
As you said, what does "imagination" have to do with this. You believe government can do good. Good is "not hurting people". Government as exists can't do anything without hurting people. Believe all you want, imagination doesn't make a thing true. Just ask George Lucas.
Statist means "believes the existance of a state is moral or needed and believes that such an entity can solve problems". You're a statist. You're pretty clear about it, you believe a state is needed and you beleive that it can solve problems. It's a statement of fact, not a statment of value. If you like to attach negativity to the term and feel insulted, fine. But you ARE a statist because you advocate a state and think it can solve problems.
When you say "betterment of environmentalism" do you mean "threaten to shoot people if they don't meet the environmental guidelines you think are proper"? Yeah, I'd say that's a pretty unlibertarian thing to do. If by "betterment of environmentalism" you mean spending a TON of money at your company to replace energy inefficient computer equipment, run your systems from renewable solar and wind energy when feasible, avoid funding companies that pollute wantonly, buying products from companies that are working on solutions to REMOVE pollution, advocating technologies like plasmgasification over landfilling, trying to convince others not to litter, removing it from areas when feasible and reducing waste when possible than I think you're wrong. Libertarians on average (and surely I'm generalizing, I'm sure there are some libertarians that would be quite happy in a toxic wasteland) simply want to do these things without being violent. I have to admit though, I do contribute to pollution indirectly. See, my wife files taxes under my name, so I'm actually funding this organization that sends a TON of crap into space, ravages the materials from around the world, uses them to DESTROY buildings, people and nature. But see, now I have a conflict. Do I fund government, which you claim is good and needed or do I preserve the environment by refusing to fund the most BLATANT and DESTRUCTIVE polluter on the planet? Hrm...
By "champion labor rights" do you mean "threaten people doing business with violence if they dont' pay X amount for X units of time"? Last I checked, every time minimum wages went up, so did unemployment. My math might be fuzzy, but I'm pretty sure that "poorly paid" workers make more money that "unemployed persons". Also last time I checked, food and rent and clothing had actual costs. I'd really think that "making a little money" makes people better able to meet their needs than making no money. As noted, minimum wages destroy jobs. I advocate ending licensing regulations that prevent people from using their skills to build wealth voluntarily. I advocate ending mandatory minimum wages so that people who would rather work and get paid less can do so. Not everyone takes a job for money. Unskilled workers in a free market can say "I'll work for free for a month if you give me a chance" in order to make the risk of hiring someone less risky. Without this ability, the unskilled worker will be passed up by someone with minimal skills nearly every time (I mean, if you've GOT to pay them $7 an hour either way, why NOT get the one with more experience?). Minimum wage laws prevent people from building experience, reputations and credentials needed to get HIGHER paying jobs later. The ultimate irony of that? The unskilled worker is more likely the one who absolutely NEEDS those wages to survive. By advocating and end to those institutions you advocating allowing more people to build wealth and provide for themselves peacefully. I do champion labor rights.
Are the people of Britain so sick and depraved that the ONLY way you can have your needs taken care of it to rob people at the point of a gun? I'm really sorry you live in a place like that. Here, there are all kinds of people and organizations who will call people and ask them to give money to help people in need. In 2006, even with the government people stealing a lot of money, Americans gave $295.02 billion dollars in charity of their own free will. That doesn't cover the man-hours volunteered at places like Habitat For Humanity or real goods like canned food that go to food banks. Yeah, when people are so selfish and sick that the only way a disabled person can get his needs met is by violence, I don't exactly blame you for thinking violence is a good thing, but my experiences show me otherwise. People are generous, moral, giving and ethical and that doesn't require a threat of jail over here. It blows my mind to think how much good would be done if people had 100% of their income to potentially give to charity.
Best of luck to you on that! Please turn the lights off if you're the last to leave.
Quote
On the issues I probably do agree with libertarians to some extent or other but I’m not one who’s for automatic hatred of government not matter what
Oh yes, I know. You were advocating that the European Union was a good thing because it removed certain bureaucracy like crossing the border. It was QUITE clear to me at that point you "didn't get it". Here's the test to see if you're a libertarian. "Do you believe it is acceptable to use force or a substitute for force, like fraud, to attain political or social ends?" If you say "No" then you're a libertarian. Knowing that there is not 100% consent to the government and that government uses violence to stay around, advocating government is advocating violence. Even "small government" minarchist types accept this, they just admit that they think a certain amount of violence is needed to preserve massive scale acts of violence (of course, there's all kinds of cognative dissonance there but the point still stands).
Quote
Its just the same with many a libertarian no matter what evidence they’re shown government can do good they’ll never agree & carry on hating.
Show me some evidence that me pointing a gun in your face and demanding your money is "doing good". Show me evidence that your mother or sister being raped can "do good". I think you're using heavy handed doublethink to justify that arguement to yourself. Being black is a physical characteristic, being a government thug or bureaucrat is a choice. Saying "government is bad" is a fallacy because government doesn't exist. It's merely people calling themselves government and those people continue to choose to be violent and continue to choose to defraud people. The value judgement, at least on my behalf, is based on a behavior, nothing more. People who choose to harm people are bad.
Quote
Sure government isn’t perfect when it comes to implementation but at least government recognizes that food & shelter as a human right.
I didn't know that the UK abolished minimum wage laws! Holy hell! I swear there were minimum wages set in the UK, preventing unskilled workers, typically VERY poor unskilled workers, from providing enough benefit to employers to hire them and give them money to buy food and shelter. Damn.
Additionally, what good is food and shelter if you've now got a theft epidemic? "The poor" in most western nations have greater access to quality food, medicine, technology and shelter than kings did 500 years ago. That whole "steal stuff from one person and give it to someone else" is a slippery slope that will end when there's nothing left to steal because all the people who produce stop because they don't like being robbed. Then you and your benevolent government paradigm can solve the hunger problem by feeding "the rich" to the poor and hungry. It is the natural progression of things. </tongue-in-cheek>
Seriously though, I used to be a "liberal". The "plight of the poor man" rests on my heart greatly. I haven't abandoned those principles in relying on the free market. Indeed, I've found that the free market is the ONLY way to ensure that people are given the ability to produce sustainable wealth for themselves. You can give someone money, but you can't give them job experience, skills, networks and references and ALL of these things CAN be obtained by unskilled workers who are able to work for lower wages or even for free to build those things as stepping stones for better opportunities down the road.
If "the poor" is why you feel that libertarianism is inconsistant, I'd speculate you really didn't understand the concepts well enough. May I suggest Mary Ruwart's "Healing Our World In An Age Of Aggression" and in specific Chapter 3: Destroying Jobs.
Quote
Oh no Ziggy has crossed the threshold into positive liberty & become a hardcore socialist.
I suppose it could have been worse. You could have moved to New Hampshire before making that realization, I suppose.
Quote
I actually know libertarians who think that the expectation to care for their fellow man is socialistic
Actually, I'd question the liberty credentials of anyone who said there IS an obligation. Liberty is about personal responsibility and someone who understand that knows that no person things for another person and since thoughts lead to actions, no person can act for another person. Because of that, no person is responsible for another person unless they agree to be (in say, the case of children). Granted, there's an ethical calling for most people to help out. Nobody likes knowing people are hungry or sick or lacking. There's a HUGE difference between a common moral agreement that a thing is bad and should be eliminated and a MORAL OBLIGATION so great that not meeting it justifies HAVING VIOLENCE ENACTED AGAINST YOU. Big difference.
Quote
Yeah I’m grateful people do pay taxes to fund help for those who are sick & vulnerable. I’m sorry if you don’t think you should care in some way about your fellow man then you’re a fucking sociopath.
There's something REALLY REALLY fucked up about your world view if the ONLY way to help the sick and vulnerable is to pay taxes. There's a ton of charities in the USA that have upwards of 85% conversion (that is, of every dollar that goes to that charity, $0.85 go towards the cause the charity exists to assist with) and manage to do amazing things entirely on a voluntary basis. Maybe the UK government is that damn efficient, I don't know. Maybe the charities in the UK just suck ass. I know that the money I contribute to private causes does MUCH more to help the sick and vulnerable than tax dollars do. I know those just go to paying bureaucrats who do far to little and get paid far too much. And that's ignoring the whole "taxes are theft" thing which is a REALLY big thing to ignore.
Quote
Sociopathic, stroppy are they apt descriptions to describe libertarians, well not all libertarians but good percentage I’ve encountered. Another apt description would be dogmatic & when I’ve banged on libertarian philosophy it’s been fair accusation of me. Problem is if you attempt to deviate from libertarian philosophy then you’ll get whole load of crap from libertarians you’re not libertarian
There is only ONE criteria for being libertarian in my book. You believe that initiating violence and committing fraud against people is ALWAYS wrong. You can't "stray" from that. It's not a platform, it's a core principal. You either believe initiating violence has it's place and are not libertarian, or you believe initiation of violence is wrong, and you are.
Quote
I don’t believe that the group have the right to beat up upon them to conform.
Unless that individual disagrees with the idea that he should pay taxes. Then he should be beaten up and threatened with time in a cage, because you've already labeled him a "sociopath". Hrm, I love the logical consistency there.
Quote
But how to ensure mob rule, tyranny of the majority etc, well having thought about that dilemma the only way to ensure mob rule or the tyranny of the majority is by the means of governance.
Ancient statist arguement is ancient. How, good sir, is mob rule avoided by a process in which a majority of people, in most cases quite willing to use violence and hoping to be lost "in the crowd" to escape punishment? I'd say it sounds like you're cutting off your nose to spite your face, but that's even a bit more sane than what you're arguing here. A mob is needed to prevent a mob. Huh.
Quote
Worth remembering my hero JS Mill though argued in favour individual rights & against the tyranny of the majority. But its also argued that Mill argued in favour of state invention in one’s life if required.
I say this constructivly... It REALLY sound to me as if you've got an identity issue. You can't let someone else dictate your ideology. The times you call up to FTL and this post and some others ones, every time you've complained it tends to revolve around the idea of some group rejecting you for having a different ideology. Tough. Fucking. Cookies (as Mark would and has said). Nobody else thinks the same way you do. Nobody will have the same stance on all of the issues that matter to you. If you require the agreement of a group in order to feel sane and rational in your beliefs, you're always going to be an outcase.
John Stewart Mill is not a libertarian. Nicholas Capaldi claimed he was, but he himself was a liberal utilitarian. They're composed of some of the same letters, but they're not the same thing. The phrase "the ends justify the means" alone is enough to raise hackles with principled libertarians since it's usually a precursor to something that violates the NAP.
Quote
Too most libertarians what I’m saying right now is socialistic puke but libertarians misunderstand liberals. Liberals aren’t trying to restrain people from succeeding like socialists they’re trying create an environment so that individuals have the opportunity to succeed.
I used to be liberal. I don't think there's any misunderstanding at all. I STILL want that - I just recognize now that it doesn't happen through violence. Commonplace theft and violence cause neighborhoods to decay. A violent spouse causes the goodwill and safety in a home to vanish. Crime on a wide scale in a city causes the city to get less valuable and less desired. Ironically, the exact same thing is true of national and regional interaction. Going around hurting people, stealing their property and destroying their assets does NOT result in more people having opportunity. ONLY leaving people free to make their own decisions about their bodies, their lives and their money will enable them to succeed. It's not a matter of liberal vs libertarian GOALS, it's a difference of violent vs non-violent MEANS.
Quote
Somebody once said a libertarian views a man down a well as still able to have free move just they need make more effort, a liberal thinks that’s ridiculous & gives the man a helping hand.
I think whomever said that was a moron simply trying to discredit libertarianism. Some people really hate the idea that they are responsible for their actions of lack of it. Some people actually find it easier to encourage everyone else to do for them rather than actually doing it themselves. No wonder that person would rather convince you to pull him up from the well rather than take a few moments of caution and using the well safely and not falling in.
Quote
Typically libertarian would legalize all guns & that’s it where as a liberal in favour of liberalizing gun ownership will probably think its best to have some form of regulation.
Yes, and once you're done with that, you really should begin working on regulating pencils. You know, because pencils misspell words. Pencils aren't tools. They're not in control of the people who own pencils. Without all these unregulated pencils, we'll have tons and tons of misspelled words! Think of the children!
Quote
Liberals are prepared to use the system or adapt the system to achieve their aims but many a libertarian just want to destroy the system & nothing short is a sell out.
You're really not helping your case. That "willingness to use the system" is the problem. The system does EVERYTHING it does with violence or the threat of violence. If you're okay doing that, fine. I couldn't and I advocate that people refrain from hurting other people. If "the system" weren't violent, this would be a different issue but it IS inherently violent. If you disagree, explain how you'd fund your welfare programs without violence, threats of violence or fraud. I'd happily support a system that effectively helped people and didn't go around being violent.
Quote
because secondly I believe government can do good
As you said, what does "imagination" have to do with this. You believe government can do good. Good is "not hurting people". Government as exists can't do anything without hurting people. Believe all you want, imagination doesn't make a thing true. Just ask George Lucas.
Quote
Yeah libertarians utopian daydreamers who if you don’t agree with their vision then you’re a statist, a fascist or mentally ill.
Statist means "believes the existance of a state is moral or needed and believes that such an entity can solve problems". You're a statist. You're pretty clear about it, you believe a state is needed and you beleive that it can solve problems. It's a statement of fact, not a statment of value. If you like to attach negativity to the term and feel insulted, fine. But you ARE a statist because you advocate a state and think it can solve problems.
Quote
I was never really a libertarian as my website illustrates as libertarians don’t generally campaign for betterment of environmentalism nor champion labor rights
When you say "betterment of environmentalism" do you mean "threaten to shoot people if they don't meet the environmental guidelines you think are proper"? Yeah, I'd say that's a pretty unlibertarian thing to do. If by "betterment of environmentalism" you mean spending a TON of money at your company to replace energy inefficient computer equipment, run your systems from renewable solar and wind energy when feasible, avoid funding companies that pollute wantonly, buying products from companies that are working on solutions to REMOVE pollution, advocating technologies like plasmgasification over landfilling, trying to convince others not to litter, removing it from areas when feasible and reducing waste when possible than I think you're wrong. Libertarians on average (and surely I'm generalizing, I'm sure there are some libertarians that would be quite happy in a toxic wasteland) simply want to do these things without being violent. I have to admit though, I do contribute to pollution indirectly. See, my wife files taxes under my name, so I'm actually funding this organization that sends a TON of crap into space, ravages the materials from around the world, uses them to DESTROY buildings, people and nature. But see, now I have a conflict. Do I fund government, which you claim is good and needed or do I preserve the environment by refusing to fund the most BLATANT and DESTRUCTIVE polluter on the planet? Hrm...
By "champion labor rights" do you mean "threaten people doing business with violence if they dont' pay X amount for X units of time"? Last I checked, every time minimum wages went up, so did unemployment. My math might be fuzzy, but I'm pretty sure that "poorly paid" workers make more money that "unemployed persons". Also last time I checked, food and rent and clothing had actual costs. I'd really think that "making a little money" makes people better able to meet their needs than making no money. As noted, minimum wages destroy jobs. I advocate ending licensing regulations that prevent people from using their skills to build wealth voluntarily. I advocate ending mandatory minimum wages so that people who would rather work and get paid less can do so. Not everyone takes a job for money. Unskilled workers in a free market can say "I'll work for free for a month if you give me a chance" in order to make the risk of hiring someone less risky. Without this ability, the unskilled worker will be passed up by someone with minimal skills nearly every time (I mean, if you've GOT to pay them $7 an hour either way, why NOT get the one with more experience?). Minimum wage laws prevent people from building experience, reputations and credentials needed to get HIGHER paying jobs later. The ultimate irony of that? The unskilled worker is more likely the one who absolutely NEEDS those wages to survive. By advocating and end to those institutions you advocating allowing more people to build wealth and provide for themselves peacefully. I do champion labor rights.
Quote
One of the truisms people kept pointing out to me was that being as I’m disabled & considering other problems I’ve suffered in my life if were not for the welfare state then I’d be dead.
Are the people of Britain so sick and depraved that the ONLY way you can have your needs taken care of it to rob people at the point of a gun? I'm really sorry you live in a place like that. Here, there are all kinds of people and organizations who will call people and ask them to give money to help people in need. In 2006, even with the government people stealing a lot of money, Americans gave $295.02 billion dollars in charity of their own free will. That doesn't cover the man-hours volunteered at places like Habitat For Humanity or real goods like canned food that go to food banks. Yeah, when people are so selfish and sick that the only way a disabled person can get his needs met is by violence, I don't exactly blame you for thinking violence is a good thing, but my experiences show me otherwise. People are generous, moral, giving and ethical and that doesn't require a threat of jail over here. It blows my mind to think how much good would be done if people had 100% of their income to potentially give to charity.
Quote
I really am rejecting libertarianism & waving goodbye too many a libertarians, embracing social-liberalism & liberals.
Best of luck to you on that! Please turn the lights off if you're the last to leave.
164
The Polling Pit / Re: Jessica Biel vs. Megan Fox?
« on: September 17, 2008, 01:35:09 AM »
Megan vs Jessica = Jessica.
All three in the poll, the two Jessicas tie.
All things considered, none of the above. While I think they're all attractive in different ways, none of them spark anything particular for me. I'm all into schizophrenic telepaths. They turn me on.
All three in the poll, the two Jessicas tie.
All things considered, none of the above. While I think they're all attractive in different ways, none of them spark anything particular for me. I'm all into schizophrenic telepaths. They turn me on.
165
The Polling Pit / Re: Hypothetical: Violence has come... the revolution is coming... what do you do?
« on: September 17, 2008, 01:27:51 AM »
Option #1 probably though there are logistical issues with anything. It would depend on how much I trusted those people, where the violence was happening, why and how it started and all that.
I think having a militia or small group of armed buddies would be needed to stave off would-be political "saviors" who restore order as government but "militia" sometimes draws a bit more... proactive... violence. I'm not interested in that. I don't care what people did, as long as they stop!
I think having a militia or small group of armed buddies would be needed to stave off would-be political "saviors" who restore order as government but "militia" sometimes draws a bit more... proactive... violence. I'm not interested in that. I don't care what people did, as long as they stop!