 
|
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 Manuel_OKelly
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.
136
General / Re: James Randi Research Foundation (JREF) Forum - Socialist Mods Don't Play Nic
« on: March 29, 2009, 08:37:58 PM »
The mod is power tripping. You should have just made a new thread and continue the conversation. Now that you've openly defied him he'll think he has to ban you. You don't always have to seek confrontation. You seem to think your being repressed, I don't think you are.
137
General / Re: ATTN: Star Wars fans - Twi'lek Real Doll for sale.
« on: March 23, 2009, 09:55:19 AM »
Yeah I have a feeling that is the next Real Doll can of worms. Real dolls that look like celebrities.
138
General / Re: Family who are 'too fat to work' say £22,000 worth of benefits is not enough
« on: March 19, 2009, 08:34:36 AM »
Wow the socialists are going to crucify them for being parasites. A lot of people have predicted that England is just a stones throw away (NPI) from having an unhealthy person tax holocaust.
139
The Rubber Room - Not Safe for Work / Re: Magic Blue Pills: W
« on: February 24, 2009, 08:54:16 PM »
Yeah, but it's still spam. He's making money by advertising. We are this close to having advert-post-ments. Shit, I guess it was just a matter of time before they evolved!
140
General / Re: Another "Holy Shit" Woot.
« on: January 29, 2009, 03:07:31 PM »
I've been burned before beware of shitty product clearing.
Paying attention to brand names would be a good idea.
Paying attention to brand names would be a good idea.
141
General / Re: Whisky- enjoyment, reviews, prohibition, anything.
« on: December 02, 2008, 09:51:31 PM »
I am brewing some beer right now. I have enjoyed brewing for about two years now, and I am looking forward to the day when I can turn out a good enough mash to make it worth distilling. That is when I get the proper permits 
Really I imagine this whole history goes back one way or another to the whiskey rebellion.
Really I imagine this whole history goes back one way or another to the whiskey rebellion.
142
General / Re: James Randi Research Foundation (JREF) Forum - Socialist Mods Don't Play Nic
« on: September 05, 2008, 01:29:05 AM »
Yeah, you didn't explain how it wouldn't devolve into a plutocracy. Instead you supported their argument. You should have pointed out that we already have a plutocracy. How many Clinton's and Bush's do we have to have before people will realize this. Instead you might as well have told them that Hitler could rise up in a anarcho-capatalist society and so long as he's rich he can kill all the damn Jews he wants (technically true when you think about the information you've given them).
The only caveat that you mention is that rich people will be bound by the non-aggression principle, but by what? A religious man would say God, An honest man would say ostracism, an objectivist would say self-interest, but you failed to take into account what an Atheist would say. Atheists generally understand natural law so this is your common ground that you need to focus on until they might find the same logic that Ayn Rand found in her philosophy of objectivism.
It needs to be pointed out that a society in equilibrium where no force is used can remain so only if violence or fraud is not tolerated by any member. So in fact there is another premise that you must mention in your argument, that so long as no one tolerates the initiation of force by themselves or others, everyone wins.
"Anarchy in the sense of no government just ain't gonna happen -- not unless everyone becomes a hermit. A group of people will always want a system of making decisions. Even if they don't elect/designate a leader/decider. "
This poster obviously knows that people like to have rules. I would certainly not disagree. Ethically speaking, it is better to have rules that everyone agrees on. Anarchy would thus have groups that create their own rules, the members of which could be bound by contract. Be sure to mention this as well as the concept of voluntarism.
Finally the largest critique of anarchism is that it is unstable. However, I could just as easily say that any system is unstable. After all how many democracies, monarchies, and communes have fallen into anarchy over the course of human history? Thus I would propose that what we mean by stability we really mean personal security. Literally the absence of violence and fraud. However, I've already mentioned what will make an anarchist society stable, that is an absolute aversion to force, fraud, or coercion. I would posit that any society whatever you might call it would be very stable if this stability were achieved.
The only caveat that you mention is that rich people will be bound by the non-aggression principle, but by what? A religious man would say God, An honest man would say ostracism, an objectivist would say self-interest, but you failed to take into account what an Atheist would say. Atheists generally understand natural law so this is your common ground that you need to focus on until they might find the same logic that Ayn Rand found in her philosophy of objectivism.
It needs to be pointed out that a society in equilibrium where no force is used can remain so only if violence or fraud is not tolerated by any member. So in fact there is another premise that you must mention in your argument, that so long as no one tolerates the initiation of force by themselves or others, everyone wins.
"Anarchy in the sense of no government just ain't gonna happen -- not unless everyone becomes a hermit. A group of people will always want a system of making decisions. Even if they don't elect/designate a leader/decider. "
This poster obviously knows that people like to have rules. I would certainly not disagree. Ethically speaking, it is better to have rules that everyone agrees on. Anarchy would thus have groups that create their own rules, the members of which could be bound by contract. Be sure to mention this as well as the concept of voluntarism.
Finally the largest critique of anarchism is that it is unstable. However, I could just as easily say that any system is unstable. After all how many democracies, monarchies, and communes have fallen into anarchy over the course of human history? Thus I would propose that what we mean by stability we really mean personal security. Literally the absence of violence and fraud. However, I've already mentioned what will make an anarchist society stable, that is an absolute aversion to force, fraud, or coercion. I would posit that any society whatever you might call it would be very stable if this stability were achieved.
143
General / Re: Costa Rica and its free marketness
« on: July 14, 2008, 07:52:56 AM »
Man, thanks to people like you, whatever communist dictator will legalize weed first will take over the world!
Vote Obama in 2008!
Oh, and I don't know if I would trust the ease of doing business numbers from the world bank. The numbers are a little subjective depending on who analyzed them.
144
The Polling Pit / Re: The Death of New Year's Resolutions
« on: February 22, 2008, 10:37:43 PM »
My tenacity to see my new years resolution through is so great it would take a delicious wedding cake to stop it.
Running 3 miles every other day, 10k on sundays helps too.
I succeed by making resolutions on or about my birthday, and I make them for a year. Generally after a year, I am so used to my resolution I stick to it, only only slightly modify it. Also I fear the stink of failure. Last year I decided to be a vegetarian, I am only one week away from achieving my goal.
Running 3 miles every other day, 10k on sundays helps too.
I succeed by making resolutions on or about my birthday, and I make them for a year. Generally after a year, I am so used to my resolution I stick to it, only only slightly modify it. Also I fear the stink of failure. Last year I decided to be a vegetarian, I am only one week away from achieving my goal.
145
The Polling Pit / Re: Shrine Baby Ban?
« on: February 22, 2008, 10:34:40 PM »
Also an advantage of having a babies.freetalklive.com shrine would be that Mark gets to post pictures of Jack, and you can show that you have a family demographic as well.
146
The Polling Pit / Re: Shrine Baby Ban?
« on: February 22, 2008, 10:01:30 PM »
Just make another shrine called, Babies.Freetalklive.com
147
The Polling Pit / Re: If you had to be evil....
« on: January 12, 2008, 08:17:09 PM »
World Banker option please.
I think all the conspiracy theorists are just jealous that they can't be world bankers.
I think all the conspiracy theorists are just jealous that they can't be world bankers.
148
The Polling Pit / Re: ron paul a racist??
« on: January 12, 2008, 08:16:35 PM »
My sister was called racist for asking an Asian kid whether he liked to read, get on the internet, or watch anime.
Those are her interests, she was trying to establish a friendship with him.
Those are her interests, she was trying to establish a friendship with him.
149
The Polling Pit / Re: Why do fuckwit libertarians continue to push forward this "natural rights" t
« on: January 12, 2008, 08:10:06 PM »
: I demand a logical philosophical proof that natural rights exist! Your assholes, now go away or I will insult you a second time!
: Okay, here is a logical philosophy that uses it's Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Ethics to support the politics of Natural rights.
: That's just one man's opinion.
: your point? You got what you asked for.150
The Polling Pit / Re: A Masters Degree in Austrian Economics
« on: January 11, 2008, 10:17:51 AM »
I would love to do this, however I just left my Mathematics degree for business. However, I would love to support the creation of both BA and Masters in economics with a focus in Austrian economics. Especially if it's online.