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.

1

General / Re: "Democrat Dictator" tries to ban me from sidewalk @ GOP debate

« on: January 28, 2012, 10:52:29 AM »

I'd have stopped recording him if only because he's so fucking dull.

2

Guns, Drugs, and Crazy Independence Stuff / Re: Mad Max / Off the Grid tips n' tricks

« on: May 19, 2010, 06:02:25 PM »

I learned that you can't power two space heaters in a travel trailer from a 14ga extension cord.
But, that's not really -off- the grid, is it.

I had a nice fireplace for a few seconds. Fortunately, my Dad made me carry a fire extinguisher with me.

3

General / Re: The Truth About The Civil War and Southern Secession

« on: May 08, 2009, 05:26:00 PM »

I don't think this troll is really out to edumacate his'self

4

General / Re: The Truth About The Civil War and Southern Secession

« on: May 06, 2009, 11:10:45 AM »

Hell, was it worth over 600,000 deaths to keep his little empire together? I don't think so.

It wasn't "his little empire". It was, and is, the United States of America, and he was elected president for the purpose of defeating the traitors who had torn apart the United States of America. Which he did quite handily.

Handily? Hundreds of thousands dead, the place torn all to hell? For what... so everyone could live fat, dumb, and happy under the same rectangle of colorful cloth? Dude, I don't wanna know what's in your Kool-aid.

As for secession and treason never being the answer, I'd bet you think Hitler must have been in the right, or Stalin. I mean, they were in power, so any sort of rebellion against them would be, by your apparent definition, Wrong.

5

General / Re: The Truth About The Civil War and Southern Secession

« on: May 05, 2009, 11:23:20 PM »

Whether a previous claim is cited or not, Lincoln did write in a letter to his buddy Horace Greely (the socialist newspaper guy) that
if he could keep his nation together without freeing a single slave, he would. If your google-fu can't find *that* reference, there's not
a whole lot I can do for ya (directed to anyone who believes that the war was fought over slavery).

I don't think either government would have been anywhere near perfect, though. I just like the idea of being able to opt out without having to fight a war over it. Hell, was it worth over 600,000 deaths to keep his little empire together? I don't think so.

6

General / Re: The Truth About The Civil War and Southern Secession

« on: May 04, 2009, 09:24:49 PM »

Mah Kountry, raght or rong! Worship it!!!


Yeah, you like that, dontcha, bitch!

Sorry, Luke, but the whole "Yay Team" mentality is the realm of low-information voters who'd rather just
take it on faith that their team MUST be right, even when it's wrong. Easy, no thought required, and you
can leave anything other than pre-packaged "morality" in the closet.

Luke=FAIL

7

The Show / Re: Geolibertarianism

« on: April 21, 2009, 11:41:09 AM »

If all land is appropriated [...]

That cannot possibly happen.  There is no end in sight to human ingenuity of using existing resources more efficiently to provide greater value to more people, and there is no end in sight to how huge the universe is and all the resources contained therein.  (If we do reach a cosmic limit a billion years from now, I will adjust my philosophy accordingly.)

So your advice to somebody born without any land, and thus incapable of excercising their rights without violating the rights of others, is to leave Earth?

While I know the purpose of the above response is just a petty, mean snipe at the poster, I think it's actually a good idea.
Large numbers of people leaving Earth has long been a popular idea for getting all our eggs out of one basket, among the more
forward thinking people, anyway.

8

The Show / Re: Geolibertarianism

« on: April 18, 2009, 07:38:16 PM »

What you described is Mutalism, not geoanarchism (or geolibertarianism.)

Mutualism is a form of market socialism under which goods are produced by worker-owned firms and sold on a labour-for-labour basis, using labour notes. The mutualist movement was started by a group of co-operativists in Lyon, where Proudhon discovered them, and took the name for his own position. Modern variants suggest that, instead of using labour notes, "mutual banking" should be instituted that will ensure capital is attainable at zero, or nearabouts, rate of interest, encouraging competition, so that prices fall to their labour cost of production.

I don't see how what I said was geolibertarianism bears any similarity to what to mutualism as described above.

Sounds like a great way to avoid creating wealth, nearly a zero-sum game, with the state-corporate managers raking in the greatest
amount of goodies (all for the public good, of course!)

9

The Show / Re: Geolibertarianism

« on: April 18, 2009, 08:26:30 AM »

Again, this has all been hashed through before. You aren't adding anything new, and I have nothing more to contribute to this
thread.
Good luck with your utopia, though. Hope it works out for you.

Well, as I said at the beginning of the thread, I am not a geolibertarian, I only think that Ziggy's account on the show was not accurate.

Understood.

10

The Show / Re: Geolibertarianism

« on: April 17, 2009, 02:57:48 PM »

Firstly, I don't see why a government would be needed to do this. Secondly, though, so what?

Government literally means control, which means force.

Nonsense. Government is force, but tyhat doesn't mean force is government. Not everything that uses force is a government. A girl protecting herself from rape is not a government, even though she uses force against a rapist.

If you don't have a way to force people to pay, there's no problem.
Then I just wouldn't pay.
You'd also need a fuckin' assload of bureaucrats to keep track of who owes whom and how much.

Not really. All you need is some way for people to prove that they have given what they owe, and so that they are entitled to protection against anybody that may force them to give more.

And the "so what?" part? Well, you're entitled to your opinion, and if you like this government, then bully for you, because
we all have to live with it. Not a problem for you though, so long as your "team" is in power, right?

"This government?" Which government?

Again, this has all been hashed through before. You aren't adding anything new, and I have nothing more to contribute to this
thread.
Good luck with your utopia, though. Hope it works out for you.

11

The Show / Re: Geolibertarianism

« on: April 17, 2009, 10:17:54 AM »

Property tax is restitution?!?!?

No, a tax is revenue for a government. This theory is saying that those who appropriate a more than equal share of land should be forced to pay restitution to those who thus have a less than equal share.

Of course, you'll need a large, powerful government to enforce this scheme. Oh, wait. We're there already!

Firstly, I don't see why a government would be needed to do this. Secondly, though, so what?
[/quote]

Government literally means control, which means force. If you don't have a way to force people to pay, there's no problem.
Then I just wouldn't pay.
You'd also need a fuckin' assload of bureaucrats to keep track of who owes whom and how much.

And the "so what?" part? Well, you're entitled to your opinion, and if you like this government, then bully for you, because
we all have to live with it. Not a problem for you though, so long as your "team" is in power, right?

12

The Show / Re: Geolibertarianism

« on: April 16, 2009, 02:39:04 PM »

Property tax is restitution?!?!?

No, a tax is revenue for a government. This theory is saying that those who appropriate a more than equal share of land should be forced to pay restitution to those who thus have a less than equal share.
[/quote]

Of course, you'll need a large, powerful government to enforce this scheme. Oh, wait. We're there already!

13

The Show / Re: Geolibertarianism

« on: April 15, 2009, 03:24:18 PM »

I think I read a few threads about this. First question would be...

Who gets to go around collecting this tax? And are they going to use violence to do it?
Don't bother responding if you haven't used the search function. It'd be pretty redundant
as this has been discussed in depth. Look for BenTucker.

I'll bite.  Since I recently got an objectivist to admit you don't own property the same way you own your pocket it must be meant to be.

Yes, they would use violence if necessary, however, if it is stipulated that:

if people appropriate so much land themselves that there is not enough left for an equal share to others, then they violate the rights of those others, and those others are entitled to compensation, this compensation being an equal share of the value of the land.

than it is not an initiation of force but defensive force against the guy who had initiated force against all those people he is depriving of equal use of land.

..which, as I mentioned, has all been discussed ad nauseum here.

14

The Show / Re: Geolibertarianism

« on: April 15, 2009, 11:17:24 AM »

I think I read a few threads about this. First question would be...

Who gets to go around collecting this tax? And are they going to use violence to do it?
Don't bother responding if you haven't used the search function. It'd be pretty redundant
as this has been discussed in depth. Look for BenTucker.

15

General / Re: There are three cards left to stop Socialism/Communisim

« on: March 27, 2009, 12:56:08 PM »

Government can only derive it's powers through the people and IAW the Constitution.

Of course, all the heavy armament helps, especially when their goals no longer parallel those of The People.