Messages

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.

106

Photoshops / Re: FTL Wallpaper

« on: February 23, 2006, 03:49:35 PM »

Is the FTL logo available in a vector format? I'd be happy to put some polished looking wallpapers together if it's available. If not, I can always rebuild the logo from the site

107

Photoshops / Old Photoshops, and Hello!!

« on: February 23, 2006, 03:42:24 PM »

Hi everyone.. I've been a forum member for a while now, but have only recently gone active. I dabble with Photoshop, so I thought I should share an old item from Fark.



Hopefully I'll find the time to participate in photoshops here.. enjoy

108

Photoshops / Re: Patriarchy, 'Lego' the church

« on: February 23, 2006, 03:22:54 PM »

Seen it.. very much a thing of beauty.



Lego Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster:

http://www.reasonablyclever.com/lego/fsm/

109

The Polling Pit / Re: The 6 types of Libertarians, which are you?

« on: February 22, 2006, 03:01:02 PM »

Haha, you know that was my weakest arguement! 

My definition of national defense would be something akin to rent-a-tank. There would be military equipment and vehicles stored on a lot, much like the National Guard, but given to individuals or militia during times of war or emergency with rated experience/simulation hours as recognized by whichever private organizations were keeping track.

I understand that the decentralization of government into an Anarchy makes for a less appealing target to foreign and domestic agressors, and that the private sector could take over the military equipment aspect. In the case of large scale invasions, I think the government is something that should be fallen back upon, but it wouldn't look anything like the one we have today. Again, I think it should be voluntarily funded. I agree with you, but I'm falling short of letting go of the government body as the superstructure recognizing national territory.

110

The Polling Pit / Re: The 6 types of Libertarians, which are you?

« on: February 22, 2006, 11:34:59 AM »

I don't see Anarchism as being against organization. In my mind Anarchism is simply against legitimizing of force. If you wanted to form a gated community, commune, mini government inside an anarcho-capitalist society there would be absolutely no problem there as long as each of the members enter into your contract voluntarily and they can leave even if it breaks the contract (because an individual cannot contract themselves into slavery). Basically the only thing the contract could do is dictate how they behave in your little society and if they don't abide by the contract you can kick them out, but you cannot force them to stay using the contract (at least in theory).

I tend to get confused with matters of anarchism as it applies to claim. It is nice to know you believe Anarchy can work by resisting the legitimizing of force, though I don't see everyone following along with that sentiment in the application of an Anarchic society. I agree with some of what you are saying though. Is there a difference between the legitimizing of force versus force applied itself? As they say, might makes right...

Again, you seem to be thinking of Anarchy as the mean stream definition which leads to chaos and what not. When in fact there is probably more order in an Anarchist society than in our current society, for one simple reason: In Anarchy you are required to be more responsible and cautious in life, while in statism you can rely on government to get you out of trouble if you screw up by forcing banks to forgive your debts and giving you money if you loose your job, etc.

Yes... I agree with the ideal of anarchism but it's different in practice. Order or perhaps efficiency in an Anarchy may be better than current society since there is no need to adhere to a relatively static system of law and governing which brings about economic/moral/etc deficits with those who take advantage of the power positions created through the bureaucracy. Hard pressed to disagree with what you are saying here... I don't see a reason why a government needs to bail people out for their mistakes, and would rather the government be funded voluntarily. That said, the question becomes 'what do we really need government for anyways?'. I certainly won't say roads, judges, police, or a postal service... while I can see private solutions for some of these, I'd say certain global tolerance threshold issues (WMDs, maybe some pollution issues) or a complementary national defense might be something I would consider, given the current state of the world and the likelihood of Libertarianism or Anarchism's fruition.

Government protects you from slavery by enslaving you itself. You should have realized this by now. You work so that you can pay your taxes, if you stop working men with guns will come and take your property because you couldn't pay the property taxes. That is slavery.

No doubt. The majority of people are captive to trade, so debting is an unavoidable state for some in the ebb and flow of the economy, but on top of that we have an increasing band of thugs taking a slice for themselves and playing on this ebb and flow.

Thanks for the reading material. Gone through some of it.

111

The Polling Pit / Re: The 6 types of Libertarians, which are you?

« on: February 21, 2006, 06:55:36 AM »

I chose Self-Defense Libertarian, given the choices, and not knowing exactly what 'other' choice I would pick.

Heh, I think there are basically two categories. You can either be an anarchist or a statist. Anything inbetween is indecisive.

This is a valid argument in the light of questioning the existence of rights. If rights do exist, some form of state would be assumed, as would conceptualizing that people would, by default, be in agreement with those rights. If a Libertarian government wished to maintain a 'naturalist' governing structure, then why not dissolve into an anarcho-capitalist state, since the two would be very close to the same? One important difference would be in recognizing a synthesized version of natural law (statist), versus not requiring such a prerequisite (anarchist).

I don't find myself siding with Anarchism or Anarcho-Capitalism, as well meaning an ideal it is. Within either framework, mini governments, which would be perceived as private entities, could come into power: The Libertarian side of things would embrace such systems, hopefully up to and before they committed to acts of force (depending on crime/reparations law nuances) or attempted to overthrow the current system forcefully, while the anarchist philosophy would be inclined to (??) reject to such conglomeration as it would institute a 'state' of chaos. I just find Libertarianism to be more likely to succeed.

Ability being infinitely diverse: You may not have the ability to exercise all of your rights, but you may have the ability to infringe on the rights of others. Enforcing rights is a problem. Although I may be giving some lip service to the Anarcho-Capitalists, I find that there's always some level of recognition of the 'state' of the environment, whether a government is present or not, through the recognition of contract.

The root matter is individual sovereignty. I like the idea of a system that recognizes the individual in terms of defense against slavery, and ultimately coercion (even though such a system is not perfect and I don't totally agree with it philosophically, it appears to be a best-fit). For all other 'rights', it's simply a matter of 'fighting' for your rights, or engaging in the 'right', or should I say ability (?) to contract, which I think the Anarcho-Capitalists would be more inclined to side with. Private groups would be free to compete so the government not be the first group to address all problems.

Because Ian's currently in the Anarcho-Capitalism camp, Manwich is looking much more credible lately.