Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Profile of NotYourSlave
| |-+  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.

Messages - NotYourSlave

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
31
STOP IMPOSING FINANCIAL LAWS, IT IS NOT A FREE-MARKET APPROACH.

Bernanke makes statement about loosening laws...

WARGLEBARGLE!!

I'd like to see how long a no reserve banking system would last without the FDIC. It is my hope we will get to see how long it will last with it. Droping the requirements now will not do much today as I believe most banks are currently way above the 10%. But this does have distaster written all over it down the road. I'm sure there is a way to make a tremendous amount of money off this new approach up until judgement day.

I think its your basic two-handed approach.  Like when your kid crashes the car drunk.  You don't beat the shit out of him at the police station.  The next day, you don't say much at all.  You get the car fixed.  It comes back from the shop. 

Then when you're handing him the keys back, on a warm Friday evening in early April, you whisper in his ear...  "If you put one scratch on this car drunk again, I'm gonna beat the fuck out of you naked in the holding cell at the police station, and leave you there to rot."

The gov caught a lot of shit bailing out the banks.  "Too big to fail" is now, officially, a dirty word.  He's turning them loose to operate with flexible rules, which they need to operate - as we can all agree.  But they're watching them closely, and still own sizable portions of the banking industry.  If they fuck up again, and start playing fast and loose, the next go-round will not be pretty.  People will go to jail.  Everybody now knows banks can be seized, and it would probably be popular among the population as individual companies are smashed flat for transgressions, as a warning to others who are beginning to relax and tend to forget (as people do) in the coming years. 



They're fucking up now.

32
General / Re: Socialism destroying California
« on: March 17, 2010, 08:47:22 PM »
Thanks for sending your money to the state I live in! We'll take the extra dough.

Like you get any benefit from it..

33
General / Re: The Legal System In A Free Society
« on: March 16, 2010, 01:07:45 PM »
I've been dealing with the "Antis" (those who insist that this or that privatization can't work because it does not currently exist) all my life.

I was told that "gold will never be legal to own, since it will bring about the collapse of the monetary system."

I was told that "the draft can't possible be ended, since no one will willingly join the army."

I was told "homosexuality won't be legalized, since it will bring the ruin of marriage."

I suppose that if private insurance companies didn't exist, and some guy proposed that people pool their risks, the Antis would raise wild objections. "Why, that can't possibly work! Only the rich would benefit! Besides, it hasn't already been done, therefore we KNOW it can't work!"

I have absolutely no idea exactly how private justice would work. Probably much the way private justice systems currently work (mutual arbitration). But, maybe things will work out differently in a free market. In any case, it's doubtful it can be any worse than the current government monopoly, in which 1) all participants (police, judge, defense, prosecutor, jailer) work for the same agency, 2) laws are too complex and numerous for anyone to actually understand, and 3) the government actually has a vested interest in people violating as many laws as possible.

However, to be fair, I am not an anarchist, but a minimalist. I do think that--at least for now--a minimal state is needed; one strictly limited to operating the police (though using private contractors, as is done in some municipalities now), a court system (as back-up to private arbitration), and an all-volunteer military (for purely defensive purposes). This should be paid for through non-coercive means. (Which is the subject for another thread.)

I'm simply discribing the theory for a non-government justice system.

Also:

ďWell, we canít free the slaves:  theyíll never find a job, theyíll commit crimes against us, etc!Ē

Itís the same argument every time.  Too bad freedom and competition is always better than statism and monopolies.

34
General / Re: The Legal System In A Free Society
« on: March 16, 2010, 01:04:23 PM »
If the society were truly free it would mean you'd have to gather up a bunch of vigilantes to stop someone from killing a lot of people. And even then they'd probably make lots of mistakes.

It's the reason why I prefer our current legal system.

That's fine that you prefer it.  But I don't, and therefore, shouldn't be forced to use and pay for it.

Too fucking bad. Here in the "real world" you'd have opposing armies fighting each other for the right to govern if anything like that came into being.

Sort of like in Somalia, the libertarian paradise.

No, not too fíing bad.  That isnít even attempt at a logical justification.  Thatís a punt.  How come you get what you prefer but I donít get what I prefer?  Your logic isnít consistent at all; therefore, itís not valid.  Why am I not free to disagree?

If you think Somalia is an example of libertarianism, you need to study more about Somalia and libertarianism. Thatís an atrocious comparison.


No, it's a perfectly good comparison.

You are reminding me of socialists who get butthurt about people pointing out that Communism doesn't work because of the example of the Soviet Union. "Oh, but that's not TRUE Communism!" they cry.

Somalia is pretty much as an anarcho-capitalist libertarian area as you can possibly get on Earth. It doesn't work.

Ok, well if itís a perfectly good comparison, please show how Somalia is an anarcho capitalist libertarian society.

35
The Show / Re: Ian and Mark Still Giggling About HAARP?
« on: March 16, 2010, 01:03:00 PM »
I'll throw in a giggle or two over HAARP. Anyone who thinks it can do anything remotely capable of causing earthquakes knows nothing whatsoever about electronic, physics, or radio.

I guess you didn't read the article before commenting... THE FMR. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE WILLIAM COHEN SAYS EARTHQUAKE PRODUCING WEAPONS EXIST...

I GUESS HE JUST PULLED THIS OUT OF HIS ASS????

Well, a government bureaucrat said it, so it must be true!

36
General / Re: The Legal System In A Free Society
« on: March 16, 2010, 10:10:14 AM »
If the society were truly free it would mean you'd have to gather up a bunch of vigilantes to stop someone from killing a lot of people. And even then they'd probably make lots of mistakes.

It's the reason why I prefer our current legal system.

That's fine that you prefer it.  But I don't, and therefore, shouldn't be forced to use and pay for it.

Too fucking bad. Here in the "real world" you'd have opposing armies fighting each other for the right to govern if anything like that came into being.

Sort of like in Somalia, the libertarian paradise.

No, not too fíing bad.  That isnít even attempt at a logical justification.  Thatís a punt.  How come you get what you prefer but I donít get what I prefer?  Your logic isnít consistent at all; therefore, itís not valid.  Why am I not free to disagree?

If you think Somalia is an example of libertarianism, you need to study more about Somalia and libertarianism. Thatís an atrocious comparison.

37
General / Re: The Legal System In A Free Society
« on: March 16, 2010, 07:37:59 AM »
If the society were truly free it would mean you'd have to gather up a bunch of vigilantes to stop someone from killing a lot of people. And even then they'd probably make lots of mistakes.

It's the reason why I prefer our current legal system.

That's fine that you prefer it.  But I don't, and therefore, shouldn't be forced to use and pay for it.

38
General / Re: The Legal System In A Free Society
« on: March 16, 2010, 07:37:15 AM »
I'm not saying its wrong.  I'm saying it probably wouldn't go the way y'all think it will. 

The world is corrupt. 

Which is why you don't institute a monopoly of power and force.

Round and round and round and round. 

Nope, you just skirted the logical conclusion.  If people are corrupt, the last thing you do is give them a monopoly on force.

39
General / Re: The Legal System In A Free Society
« on: March 16, 2010, 12:28:26 AM »
I'm not saying its wrong.  I'm saying it probably wouldn't go the way y'all think it will. 

The world is corrupt. 

Which is why you don't institute a monopoly of power and force.

40
General / Re: The Legal System In A Free Society
« on: March 15, 2010, 11:46:52 PM »
Ya, highly doubtful.  Whether you realize it or not, we (meaning this BBS and its denizens) are the oddballs.  Most of the country is hawkish.  Cheney's companies are very successful.  God, guns and guts give many people priapism.

Really? You'd enter into a deal with a company you knew to be shady? Would you also buy insurance from a company you knew might not pay out when you needed it? To each his own, I suppose.  :?


If I had to choose a company, I'd want one thats juiced and never loses a case. 




Yet, kidnapping is suddenly okay when the government does it?

Look, if a DRO is known to do terrible things, and treat people unfairly, who the HELL is going to deal with them? Cheney's companies are successful because GOVERNMENT deals with them, handing them sweet deals. In an actual free market, where they have to deal with real people in the real world, this isn't going to be the case. "Yeah, I know they're crooked and probably won't hold up their end of the deal. But, you have to weight that against the low price they're offering." If you actually LIKE that sort of deal, then go for it!

No, kidnapping is not okay when the cops do it.  How am I saying its okay?  But the fact remains, they are held to a public standard.  Its called transparency.  Does that mean all arrests are executed properly?  No.  But you rarely end up in Guantanamo-style conditions when cops take you.  And you can't guarantee that wouldn't happen with rogue agencies.  It doesn't matter if "most" people would transact with them - bounty hunters are an excellent example.  They often take cops who can't get cop jobs, and I think we both know a cop who can't get a cop-job is probably pretty fucking dangerous. 

I think the people who believe this crap will work properly are operating in a total fantasy world.  They are not acknowledging the less civilized aspects that are bound to flourish. 

Private security is totally hardcore and operates at whatever level their clients pay for.  Force is a atmosphere of escalation and one-upmanship.  It never becomes "less forceful".  Ignoring that fact is to ignore the nature of man.  And to that end, I would hire the most ruthless bunch of motherfuckers in the biz - if I hired any at all.  A DRO would have an enforcement branch and a legal branch.  Its pretty unlikely it would be just a legal service.  If you just wanted legal dispute representation, you'd hire it as needed, just like you do now - they're called lawyers. 

Any fear you have should be one more strike against a monopolized system - since there is no competition.

Maybe you should stop thinking I am "pro-system" and start thinking I am anti-fantasy. 

Anyone who wants to sit around and talk fantasy is free to do so.  But when you're sitting there discussing Batman Vs. Superman, just realize how ridiculous it sounds.  I may participate in the discussion for fun, but I exist in reality.  Reality is the thing that effects my real life.  I'm more interested in preserving and protecting that, especially since none of this fantasy stuff will ever become reality - and thats probably a good thing, because I suspect it would be a clusterfuck.

I'm not all fired up or anything.  Just saying, its a mental exercise. 


Where did I ever even suggest it would become reality?  My point is that competition is always better.  Just because most people can't wrap their head around it doesn't mean it's not true. 

Ever heard of the law of unintended consequences? 

So competition is only wrong in this case?

41
General / Re: The Legal System In A Free Society
« on: March 15, 2010, 11:10:30 PM »
Ya, highly doubtful.  Whether you realize it or not, we (meaning this BBS and its denizens) are the oddballs.  Most of the country is hawkish.  Cheney's companies are very successful.  God, guns and guts give many people priapism.

Really? You'd enter into a deal with a company you knew to be shady? Would you also buy insurance from a company you knew might not pay out when you needed it? To each his own, I suppose.  :?


If I had to choose a company, I'd want one thats juiced and never loses a case. 




Yet, kidnapping is suddenly okay when the government does it?

Look, if a DRO is known to do terrible things, and treat people unfairly, who the HELL is going to deal with them? Cheney's companies are successful because GOVERNMENT deals with them, handing them sweet deals. In an actual free market, where they have to deal with real people in the real world, this isn't going to be the case. "Yeah, I know they're crooked and probably won't hold up their end of the deal. But, you have to weight that against the low price they're offering." If you actually LIKE that sort of deal, then go for it!

No, kidnapping is not okay when the cops do it.  How am I saying its okay?  But the fact remains, they are held to a public standard.  Its called transparency.  Does that mean all arrests are executed properly?  No.  But you rarely end up in Guantanamo-style conditions when cops take you.  And you can't guarantee that wouldn't happen with rogue agencies.  It doesn't matter if "most" people would transact with them - bounty hunters are an excellent example.  They often take cops who can't get cop jobs, and I think we both know a cop who can't get a cop-job is probably pretty fucking dangerous. 

I think the people who believe this crap will work properly are operating in a total fantasy world.  They are not acknowledging the less civilized aspects that are bound to flourish. 

Private security is totally hardcore and operates at whatever level their clients pay for.  Force is a atmosphere of escalation and one-upmanship.  It never becomes "less forceful".  Ignoring that fact is to ignore the nature of man.  And to that end, I would hire the most ruthless bunch of motherfuckers in the biz - if I hired any at all.  A DRO would have an enforcement branch and a legal branch.  Its pretty unlikely it would be just a legal service.  If you just wanted legal dispute representation, you'd hire it as needed, just like you do now - they're called lawyers. 

Any fear you have should be one more strike against a monopolized system - since there is no competition.

Maybe you should stop thinking I am "pro-system" and start thinking I am anti-fantasy. 

Anyone who wants to sit around and talk fantasy is free to do so.  But when you're sitting there discussing Batman Vs. Superman, just realize how ridiculous it sounds.  I may participate in the discussion for fun, but I exist in reality.  Reality is the thing that effects my real life.  I'm more interested in preserving and protecting that, especially since none of this fantasy stuff will ever become reality - and thats probably a good thing, because I suspect it would be a clusterfuck.

I'm not all fired up or anything.  Just saying, its a mental exercise. 


Where did I ever even suggest it would become reality?  My point is that competition is always better.  Just because most people can't wrap their head around it doesn't mean it's not true. 

42
General / Re: The Legal System In A Free Society
« on: March 15, 2010, 10:16:51 PM »
Ya, highly doubtful.  Whether you realize it or not, we (meaning this BBS and its denizens) are the oddballs.  Most of the country is hawkish.  Cheney's companies are very successful.  God, guns and guts give many people priapism.

Really? You'd enter into a deal with a company you knew to be shady? Would you also buy insurance from a company you knew might not pay out when you needed it? To each his own, I suppose.  :?


If I had to choose a company, I'd want one thats juiced and never loses a case. 




Yet, kidnapping is suddenly okay when the government does it?

Look, if a DRO is known to do terrible things, and treat people unfairly, who the HELL is going to deal with them? Cheney's companies are successful because GOVERNMENT deals with them, handing them sweet deals. In an actual free market, where they have to deal with real people in the real world, this isn't going to be the case. "Yeah, I know they're crooked and probably won't hold up their end of the deal. But, you have to weight that against the low price they're offering." If you actually LIKE that sort of deal, then go for it!

No, kidnapping is not okay when the cops do it.  How am I saying its okay?  But the fact remains, they are held to a public standard.  Its called transparency.  Does that mean all arrests are executed properly?  No.  But you rarely end up in Guantanamo-style conditions when cops take you.  And you can't guarantee that wouldn't happen with rogue agencies.  It doesn't matter if "most" people would transact with them - bounty hunters are an excellent example.  They often take cops who can't get cop jobs, and I think we both know a cop who can't get a cop-job is probably pretty fucking dangerous. 

I think the people who believe this crap will work properly are operating in a total fantasy world.  They are not acknowledging the less civilized aspects that are bound to flourish. 

Private security is totally hardcore and operates at whatever level their clients pay for.  Force is a atmosphere of escalation and one-upmanship.  It never becomes "less forceful".  Ignoring that fact is to ignore the nature of man.  And to that end, I would hire the most ruthless bunch of motherfuckers in the biz - if I hired any at all.  A DRO would have an enforcement branch and a legal branch.  Its pretty unlikely it would be just a legal service.  If you just wanted legal dispute representation, you'd hire it as needed, just like you do now - they're called lawyers. 

Any fear you have should be one more strike against a monopolized system - since there is no competition.

43


That's the single biggest argument against socialized healthcare-- when individual health is a social responsibility, then society has an interest in forcing individuals to be "healthy," whether they want to be or not.  

I'd rather have government healthcare than occupy Iraq, or maintain a ridiculous war on recreational drugs, but.....that's the bottom line, and I don't know any way to avoid it. 

Did I read you right?

You rather have the government directly intrude into your life than the lives of others? Government healthcare would affect you more than a war in a foreign country.

You believe its okay to intrude on sovereign governments?  If so, my first vote goes toward crafting Israeli diplomatic relations with its neighbors. 

No, but if its between tyranny here or there I vote for there.

Tyranny over there is much less moral, though.

44
General / Re: Underemployed with MBA's
« on: March 08, 2010, 11:02:38 PM »
Who decides if you're underemployed or not?  You?

45
General / Re: Underemployed with MBA's
« on: March 05, 2010, 12:11:10 AM »
Protip: never hire anyone who can't figure out the quote box.


You put an extra "n" in "tiny" Hot Stuff. I think that's my first goof with the quotes too.

"What's the alternative?" - I have no idea. I'm not even satisfied with my outlook on thinking being underbid is unfair. The trouble is it seems that the low bidders who get the work end up dragging down the average wage.. but then that's a signal that whatever service is being offered is no longer a specialty.. so to stay on top I guess that leaves convincing (conning?) the buyer that you have something better to offer than the others, or find a new line of work.

The point is, it's our job to find our own alternatives and that the government is not a legitimate one.  If prices are lower, it's because the value is lower.  That's not fair or unfair -- it just is.  Is it unfair that it's cold out?  No, it just is.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5

Page created in 0.032 seconds with 31 queries.