Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by angelofdeath

  1. thats generally the way 'they' do it. for instance, most of the time you'll see book reviews that criticize stuff in the book, and just present the argument in the book and offer no refutation, but condemn it.
  2. i saw a clip of rand on hannity's show...his story is that no harsh words were exchanged. for some reason, i doubt it
  3. agreed and this is spooners argument. i personally never signed the document. hahaha. you are just hilarious man. 'can do whatever you want....' this is just a sampling of 'freedom' in america: http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2011/06/clarence-dupniks-death-squad.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w30.html http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/department-of-education-swat-raid-for-unpaid-student-loans/ http://www.cato.org/raidmap/
  4. the social contract theory doesnt hold water. why do i say that? because in order for it to be justified, you must have the consent of the people. the US govt is based on the social contract model, yet i do not recall ever having been asked my consent as to whether i want to live under such an arrangement. all the social contract does is makes it convenient for governments to justify their existence. the basic idea behind it is that if government exists, it is legitimate. nothing could be further from the truth, as far as im concerned. it is nothing but naive to say that the state that most people in the US (or UK or europe, they are farther down the road to serfdom than us) are living in some sort of splendid squalor because they get to vote and trash talk their government, whereas the people in libya dont. we are merely talking in terms of degree of tyranny. which is why i was pushing the idea of the 'tales of a slave' narrative, which you really didnt grasp. libya might of been further down the road to tyranny, but the US is nothing but the healthiest patient in the cancer ward. please examine that slogan for what it is because it reveals nothing but reality. the citizens of the US are not just living under 'a few regulations' they are living under out and out tyranny. consider that the police can kill you with little repercussion, the US gov can invade any part of your privacy they wish and trample any civil liberties you have if they by just calling you a terrorist. they can throw you in jail forever if they want to without even charging you. they even have an assassination list that includes the extra judicial killing of american citizens. we have swat teams killing people every day in botched drug raids. couple that stuff with the 'regulations' you like so much that literally forbid children from operating lemonade stands. to say that the US does not live under the biggest and most powerful government on the earth today and that americans are some how 'free' is sort of like saying that if a slave has the right to roam around without shackles but other slaves have to wear shackles that, the slave that is unshackled is 'free' and the slave with shackles is not. the underlying question has ALWAYS been whether these tyrannical bodies have a right to exist and violate peoples liberty. whether you reject the idea of natural rights or not, its universal that murder and theft are wrong. yet these are the very principles that give coercive governments their power. if you consent to living under such an arrangement, that is fine. you just have no right to force other people to do so. that is the entire heart of the matter.
  5. na, actually i think its a good derail, but it is so in depth, it would require its own thread. then again, this thread is absolutely F'd anyway. hahaha
  6. alright alright, i'll play. i'll just start considering you 'greedy' unless you give your house to a drug addict!
  7. a free society, has plenty of 'controls' and order. for instance, property rights are the the biggest regulator known to man. the issue is consent. if one consents to having their property taken, that is their choice. its fine to have this property taken, as long as they consent. otherwise, it is theft. the reason i say that i support a minimal state is because we are no where close to a free society. i basically find myself arguing for early constitutional size government. i really feel that there is no need to argue for privatizing the police dept (although they didnt really exist in america until the early 1900's) because we are no where near that point. i think this debate could take place if a small state was actually achieved. who knows, i might even wind up the statist in the debate and argue for state defense services. the other reason why i dont spend to much time arguing for private courts or the like is because of the free rider problems that are brought up which as far as im concerned arguing for these things is largely fruitless, again because people cant even comprehend the concept of our own constitutional government let alone, something smaller. atleast in arguing for the minimal state, it has basis in american tradition that one can point to. to show that this is not that radical of an idea (limited government) because at one time we had it. when you go about your business during the day, do you really feel that cops are the only thing keeping you from maiming, killing, and stealing? but just to make another point, how on earth can you be concerned about monopolies on force, the most powerful taking control, when you are creating this situation by allowing government to monopolize these services? if you want, start a thread on privatizing police and military and we can go at it till we are blue in the face, but i'll only touch on it as far as i did in this thread, since it is the RP thread. but despite all this, the govt police and military are responsible for inconceivable amounts of violence and mayhem. also, dont forget that govt creates a moral hazard situation where they depend on govt without relying on themselves. i'd imagine if defense services were voluntary, the militia would make a large revival and people would largely become responsible for most of their own security. defense starts at home and the best defense is a firearm.
  8. we've had this discussion 100000000 times, but look at what is happening in this country. its not really about what i personally 'want' its about having the liberty to do it if i want. every single aspect of our lives is regulated, taxed, coerced. privacy is non existent. government controls every aspect of ones life. govts are even shutting down and arresting people for kids having lemonade stands. they are swat teaming amish farmers who sell raw milk. you cant do anything without getting permission. can i go to the store and buy morphine sulphate? the obama doj just raided gibson guitar company for...wait for it.....using legal imported wood for their fingerboards. they have signed statements from the indian government saying the products are LEGAL and they are still under attack. i think a better question is...'what are people still allowed to do without any government interference?' much shorter list and answer to that, than the one you asked.
  9. i agree that no one is able to live free in the sense i argue for, which is why i keep saying this: 'we are the healthiest patient in the cancer ward.' just think about that for a second...it implies exactly what you said, that everyone is doomed or not free. i can leave the tax jurisdiction, if and only if, i sign up for another tax jurisdiction. did you know that you cant even revoke your US citizenship unless you prove you are resident of another tax jurisdiction? its sort of like..'you can leave this plantation, only if you move to another one.' but the argument you present, is once again circular. for instance, my ancestors were here BEFORE the US government was created. they lived in defiance of the king of england. they were anti federalists. now, if they pre dated the US government, never consented to it, the question is, what gave them the right to exist to impose their will on this group of people? so in reality, this entire argument is based on 'do you consent to such and such policy.' if you do not consent to it, you are being coerced. period.
  10. such is the nature of government. you either take the whole package or you lose. you cant pick and choose, like you can in a market. even voting for a politician, you get a package, not just his position on one issue. i dont seek impose lmited government on you, i merely seek to be left alone and not have your system imposed on me. and the imposing it on others.... is what you are justifying by suggesting that people some how consent to the system, if they are given a right to change their masters by a vote. democracy is nothing but a way of justifying your coercive system. if one cannot opt out of government on whatever level they wish, it is a form of slavery, in the same manner a slave couldnt opt out of the control of his master.
  11. i dont seek to go into a detailed analysis of nozick's tale of the slave, but im merely attempting to point out that there are simply different levels of the tyranny we toil under, but the fact remains we are still living under it even if we are more free than some others. we are all doomed, but im just saying the US and a few other places are nothing but the healthiest patients in the cancer ward.
  12. nothing but the healthiest patients in the cancer ward, friend. thats it. nothing more, nothing less. and i leave you with the tale of the slave to ponder: Consider the following sequence of cases, which we shall call the Tale of the Slave, and imagine it is about you. There is a slave completely at the mercy of his brutal master's whims. He often is cruelly beaten, called out in the middle of the night, and so on. The master is kindlier and beats the slave only for stated infractions of his rules (not fulfilling the work quota, and so on). He gives the slave some free time. The master has a group of slaves, and he decides how things are to be allocated among them on nice grounds, taking into account their needs, merit, and so on. The master allows his slaves four days on their own and requires them to work only three days a week on his land. The rest of the time is their own. The master allows his slaves to go off and work in the city (or anywhere they wish) for wages. He requires only that they send back to him three-sevenths of their wages. He also retains the power to recall them to the plantation if some emergency threatens his land; and to raise or lower the three-sevenths amount required to be turned over to him. He further retains the right to restrict the slaves from participating in certain dangerous activities that threaten his financial return, for example, mountain climbing, cigarette smoking. The master allows all of his 10,000 slaves, except you, to vote, and the joint decision is made by all of them. There is open discussion, and so forth, among them, and they have the power to determine to what uses to put whatever percentage of your (and their) earnings they decide to take; what activities legitimately may be forbidden to you, and so on. Let us pause in this sequence of cases to take stock. If the master contracts this transfer of power so that he cannot withdraw it, you have a change of master. You now have 10,000 masters instead of just one; rather you have one 10,000-headed master. Perhaps the 10,000 even will be kindlier than the benevolent master in case 2. Still, they are your master. However, still more can be done. A kindly single master (as in case 2) might allow his slave(s) to speak up and try to persuade him to make a certain decision. The 10,000-headed monster can do this also. Though still not having the vote, you are at liberty (and are given the right) to enter into the discussions of the 10,000, to try to persuade them to adopt various policies and to treat you and themselves in a certain way. They then go off to vote to decide upon policies covering the vast range of their powers. In appreciation of your useful contributions to discussion, the 10,000 allow you to vote if they are deadlocked; they commit themselves to this procedure. After the discussion you mark your vote on a slip of paper, and they go off and vote. In the eventuality that they divide evenly on some issue, 5,000 for and 5,000 against, they look at your ballot and count it in. This has never yet happened; they have never yet had occasion to open your ballot. (A single master also might commit himself to letting his slave decide any issue concerning him about which he, the master, was absolutely indifferent.) They throw your vote in with theirs. If they are exactly tied your vote carries the issue. Otherwise it makes no difference to the electoral outcome. The question is: which transition from case 1 to case 9 made it no longer the tale of a slave?
  13. its pretty much the same as the US i think... except you dont have to go in as far as i know, i just think you can call in or register on line for your next check. everyone makes up the 'looking for work' logs anyway, as well the traveling thing is pretty common here with the train punk/hipster crowd
  14. this is exactly the problem people are simply conditioned through 100 years of dependency. which makes the problem 100 times worse than it would of been. for instance on a related note, when the great depression hit, govt welfare was in its infancy. people were more self sufficient (because there wasnt a 'safety net' for the most part) and more independent. if a great depression hit now, due to 100 years of relying on the government the suffering would = total societal collapse. we are a different people. americans are no longer the rugged individualists, many are tax consumers. so if we had a societal collapse today, the pro gov types would be saying...'see we need government! ' (even though its going to collapse anyway as well) but completely ignore the fact that 100% of dependency exacerbated the entire thing 10 fold. that is my issue with the opposing position in this debate. they only want to talk about what is directly seen. taking money from the 'rich' and giving to someone who doesnt have a job. they completely ignore what is not directly unseen over a period of time. like the deterioration of the family, the dependency, etc etc. all of which make poverty worse or atleast make it so it doesnt improve.
  15. on its surface, your case sounds plausible. when its put into action though, you realize that the 'safety net' creates a moral hazard situation. for instance, if you have unemployment insurance and get laid off, you get payments for 2 years. its settled fact that no matter the term of the payouts is, people nearly ALWAYS get jobs within the last 1/4 of their payout period. why? because thats when the money stops flowing. everyone i've ever encountered on unemployment insurance always waits to right before its dont paying out till they find work. they hold out for the highest paying job, and then when the time crunch starts, they have to just take a job because the gov cheese is about to end. i know a whole bunch of people who use peoples addresses, draw unemployment and plan entire traveling trips based around the unemployment term! now imagine if the moral hazard of the unemployment insurance didnt exist or was severely curtailed. instead of sitting around for 2 years waiting for the highest paying job, you'd have to take what work you could at a market wage and wouldnt be able to go traveling for a year abroad while collecting benefits. incentives steer people into certain behavior patterns.
  16. as to fema.... the biggest distortion they create is a moral hazard situation with regards to housing in risky areas. the make it possible for people to build houses in flood plains, on ocean coasts, etc. private companies wont insure the stuff, so fema does. if a private company doesnt, it means to TO RISKY, so dont build there. its funny though, the US government manages a levy system keeping water out of a city that is below sea level, their levees fail, and everyone says...'see without the government, you'd all dead!' when in fact that city should of been abandoned. its the old 'govt is good at breaking your leg, handing you a crutch and then saying..'see, if it werent for us, you wouldnt be able to walk!' phenomenon.
  17. im merely saying various governments, (particularly the US) interventions across the world, rigging elections, installing dictators, wars, bombings, 'police actions,' and the like have all been a major factor in fueling anti american hatred. people dont hate the US because we are 'free' as some have argued, that is for sure. and i would also agree that the WOT is a abysmal waste of tax payer money. im not disagreeing with all that you have said, but again, whats the reason for seeking the drugs? a huge factor in this, due to govt policy is the war on drugs. if we didnt have it, i doubt we'd have meth or similar drugs in such high usage. people will always want something, whether its legal or not. if they want it, they will get it. something being cheap or expensive isnt the end all be all, as it doesnt matter to me whether crack is .1 cent a day for a habit or 1000$, im not doing it. doesnt matter if beer is .1 cent a glass or 1000, im not drinking it. so the discussion is really limited to those who want the stuff to begin with. the general underlying theme of the potency factor is that if people are going to risk getting caught possessing controlled substances, they might as well go after the most bang for their buck. its what they did during alcohol prohibition. and its essentially what has given us such widespread hard drug usage. im sure if cocaine were able to bought at the grocery store, i dont think people would be going as nuts over crack. just like most alcohol consumers drink beer or wine...very few drink bottles of 140% liquor every day.
  18. aw cmon now. that is a little bit of a lazy analysis. i've have yet to hear habitual thieves that steal to finance a beer habit. the reason why people have to steal for drug addiction, isnt because just of the addiction, its because of the price. whats a real heroin habit cost? an ass load of money. whats a real beer habit cost? 50 bucks a week? tops? there are many addictions that people do not engage in the typical crack head type behavior to engage in. but the real crimes isnt the theft to finance it, its the shootings and disputes between drug dealers. if drugs were legalized, you'd immediately put all those people out of business. you are limiting yourself with the amsterdam example. im sure there are more meth heads in the US than in amsterdam. sure, humans strive to 'go further' but it is pretty much undeniable in various prohibition situations potency of drugs sky rockets. really? hundreds of thousands of dead civilians doesnt have any affect on producing more pissed off people? hmmm...wonder if DC carpet bombed london if there will be any unintended consequences or anti american hatred or if it would just be the same.
  19. you are completely ignoring the unintended consequences. did you see heroin junkies nodding out in 1950 like you see them now in urban areas? no. why? drug prohibition which has a side effect called the 'potency' effect. when something is outlawed, it steers people to seek more powerful substances. for instance when they banned alcohol in the US, people were not trafficking in beer and wine, they were trafficking in liquor. everyone wanted whiskey, not beer. when drugs were less potent before the war on drugs, we didnt have people doing heroin or meth. these are products of the under ground drug trade reacting to the 'potency' factor. the war on drug has also resulted in crime that never would of taken place. people are not robbing people in order to get beer money, they are robbing people to get crack money. disputes would be settled in court, instead of street corners. innocent bystanders or 'mushrooms' wouldnt be getting killed. just like how gangsters were using thompson machine guns on each other during prohibition. when prohibition was ended, this ended. you dont see beer truck drivers shooting each other over turf or over other disputes. further more on a related note, economics 101 teaches us that when you subsidize something, you get more of it. undeniable truth. the small number of terrorists have multiplied exponentially since we invaded 'stan and iraq. every innocent killed in those countries has now made fanatic 'insurgents' out of all their surviving family members and community members. yes, its safe to say, more anti US terrorists exist because of our actions than previously existed. this doesnt just apply to the WOT, it applies to all foreign interventions. for instance, the CIA installed iranian dictator put in for the interest of oil in 1952, resulted in the blow back in the late 70's and early 80's.
  20. !@#$%, are you seriously trying to say that when the govt declared war on drugs and war on terror that it did not create more 'terror' and more drug use?
  21. TODAY, 12:52 PM This message is hidden because CILONE/SK is on your ignore list.
  22. actually, it seems that since the government has subsidized the poor, the sick, etc, and declared war on poverty, they have created more violent criminals. by keeping people dependent, it has kept them 'down' therefore an unintended consequence of this action is crime. same goes for the war on drugs. whenever they declare war on something, they get more of it, which has unintended consequences. government has increased the number of 'needy' people. (leaving aside the obvious fudging of the numbers, standards and constant raising of the bar that defines poverty. but to be fair, this is common with nearly all statistics.)
  23. by non violent drug offenders i mean someone who is arrested for selling or possessing a controlled substance and harmed no one. for non violent gun offenders i mean someone who failed to follow an arbitrary firearms law such as the guy who recently had a malfunctioning ar15 that after 3 hours of tampering and modifications and torture by the ATF, they managed to get this weapon to fire 1, full auto burst and was sent to jail for several years. or the guy in NJ who moved back to the state with 2 handguns, who after talking with police on how to lawfully transport them and was told to carry them disassembled in his trunk with ammunition separately, who was sentenced to 7 years when he was caught with those guns in that state. obviously people who stole weapons or are in possession of a stolen weapon have violated someones rights by theft, they are nothing more than a common thief. given the completely arbitrary nature of firearms law, nearly every gun owner has broken a firearm law at least a few times over in their gun owning life. imagine this: you can own a shotgun that has an 18" barrel. if it is 1/32" of a inch less, you are in felony possession of a firearm. completely silly. the only reason it doesnt 'work' in todays world is because people dont want freedom. they'd rather have government.
  24. i tend to think of ron paul as currently on a speaking tour of the US. he is responsible for creating more liberty minded people than anyone else i can think of. anything to keep this going is good as far as im concerned. he is responsible for bringing some very important issues to the table. 5 years ago, no one was talking about monetary policy, or any of the many other issues he is making part of the debate these days. i dont really think its an issue of whether he could be elected, its more of an issue of what could the guy do if he was elected. a few things pop right to mind. he could essentially rescind all previous executive orders. he could singlehandedly stop the drug war and could even pardon all nonviolent drug offenders, as well as gun offenders, or whoever else is in federal prison for no good reason. he could close down gitmo, the black sites, and the like and begin reversing the empire. he could essentially declare the patriot act, MCA06, etc null and void by non enforcement. but to me, this is all a moot point. i do not believe voting will ever change anything as far as repealing the leviathan state, as much as i like to wish it could. the only thing that is going to do this is mass non compliance and withdrawal of consent.
  25. only thing that makes sense is putting dude on ignore. arguing with him is like arguing with a zombie. no progress can be made, keeps repeating the same propaganda lines in response to detailed arguments, etc. ignore list is great.
  • Create New...