[Ron Paul Revolution!!!!]

so, it makes sense then to appoint these evil and stupid people to rule over us and make them our masters? that dog dont hunt

[Ron Paul Revolution!!!!]

There is that about a college degree: it shows you're capable of completing something and therefor you look more productive, but that's not the only difference between a highschool dropout and a college grad. Highschool dropouts generally have social problems so a college grad also has a level of social adeptness. A highschool drop out would rather work than continue being a part of school. That work is unskilled labor and their skillset is easily replaceable. Most importantly a college graduate is a professional in a field of study and therefor is far more employable than a highschool dropout.

 

i wouldnt go as far as saying that someone who drops out of high school will always remain unskilled.

it used to be high school drop outs (and its still true today) could get a job say, doing something like changing oil in a shop. in a year or two if he works hard and wants to learn, he'll be a full fledged mechanic. in a few more years he'll be making as much as the guy who taught him and it doesnt matter a lick whether he passed algebra 2 or learned 2 foreign languages in high school.

 

im not arguing with you at all that someone with more skills or a higher level of education is tends to have a higher productivity. in fact is reinforces what ive said in many of my previous posts.

 

all im critiquing is the very idea that just by getting a college degree you will be successful.

lets not forget most of the college graduates, just skated through, got 4 years of partying out of the way insulated from the real world and then you get in the real world only to find out you have to go back to school to get more education to do what you really want, or you just go do something that hardly lives up to your education.

 

 

Same with clothes. Pre industrial revolution people had ONE set of clothes. Now we have goodwill for all the shirts we dont wear because we're all too fat (except for me).

 

The overall quality of life for the working man VASTLY improved because of the industrial revolution. There was the largest redistribution wealth in American history. The problem is that we praised the wrong people. We praised and glamourized the entry level blue collar worker, as you see in sculptures and depictions all throughout detroit. We should've been praising and glamourizing those who invented the assembly lines, the adequate power grids, the city planners and engineers who made it all possible because those are the jobs that have survived all these years.

i dont disagree with any that and have said similar things in my past posts, however i dont think 'city planners' had much to do with it.

 

 

I think of it like this: Right now the biggest contributor to market bubbles are the "high beta rich" these are guys who, within a year, start with nothing and make a few million. There's a culture amongst the high beta to buy lots of houses, yachts, planes, lambos, etc even if only a couple years ago they hardly had cab fare. This behavior created an artificial bubble of luxury superyachts with helicopter pads and submarine bays. You're a yacht company. One year you get an order for one superyacht. You prepare for next year and make/sell ten super yachts. Next year you make 40 super yachts but nobody buys any because your customers was really just one customer that went fucking bankrupt. And now you went bankrupt too because you have a bunch of luxury yachts for a market that didnt really exist. That on some level is the state of the world's ENTIRE economy.

this is good.

however, i think what you are leaving out is that the federal reserve which gave us the housing bubble from cheap below market interest rates and cheap credit, fueled the housing bubble which made the average american feel rich and gave them ability to use their house as an ATM. they counted how much their house went up every year as part of their income.

but other than that omission, you are pretty much accurately describing the federal reserve induced bubble economy.

 

I agree with you that kids should by law be allowed to mow their neighbor's lawn, paint their fence, all the shit every kid did when they were growing up, but to allow a kid that age to become a full-time employee at a company is where I draw the line. Can you imagine working a cotton gin while learning your shapes and colors? That's too oldschool for me.

i dont think a kid could run a cotton gin when they cant spell, but i realize you are still trying to make this point about child labor. which you neglect to realize wouldnt happen unless you lived in a card board box behind a grocery store.

 

the problem with all these regualtions is because the bureaucracy that writes them doesnt take into account all the variables and we end up with a case such as you are making, 8 year olds picking cotton after being sold into indentured servitude, being the basis to make it illegal for a neighbor operate a cordless drill on the weekends your farm stead. so we end up making the 'child slavery' illegal which hardly anyone would protest, but we also make it illegal for normal every day things that all parties consent to illegal, like a neighborhood kid sorting corn or watermelons on the weekends in order to fill up his piggy bank.

 

these regulations arent scalable. the pro government person only sees 4 year old slaves and monsanto. they dont see a neighbor's kid that plays with your kid, coming over on the weekend to gather eggs and getting some monetary compensation in return.

 

i think there is a subtle ommission here on your part...

it ultimately boils down that you believe people are either evil or stupid a combination of both. and because of that, we need to create an organization with a monopoly on violence that can force people to do certain things. yet, at the same time, what prevents those same evil and stupid people from taking the helm of the state and governing? if people are stupid and evil, then so is the government. which actually makes the situation worse in my opinion. atleast when you just have stupid or evil people, they have no affect on the rest of the world or anyone elses rights. but you put them in charge of an institution with a monopoly on violence and you have a recipe for disaster.

[Ron Paul Revolution!!!!]

i cant remember the name of the movie/show at present, but it detailed pretty well how the teachers unions and various labor laws protect the bad teachers from being fired. its a pretty shitty system/racket they have going on.

 

i dont think the radical notion of parents having control over their childrens education is that silly.

after all, since the schools are doing such a bad job, it couldnt possibly be any worse at home. but this aside, its a rights perspective. some people do bad things in the eyes of others. you think my beliefs are bad and dangerous. i dont.

why not just have the state take over kids completely and house and school them until they are grown perhaps only giving parents visits on the weekend for an hour or two. do you really think that if you were given freedom to teach your kids, you would teach them 2+2=5? is that why you favor these laws because you might do the wrong thing?

 

after all, parents could keep the kids in a dirty room, make them eat the wrong food, tell them racist things and instill it in them, not give them enough play time, tell them that corporations or evil and they only eat food raised on their land...i mean the list is endless. to think that sending a kid to a school 6 hours a day is going to be the end all be all and correct all the perceived mistakes made by the parents is just silly.

what next, putting a compliance officer in every house to make sure kids arent eating to much salt, HFCS, and to make sure they are brushing their teeth properly? to make sure the kids room is properly cleaned? to make sure the house is OSHA compliant to assure no possible harm could come to the child? regulate how much and what type of TV they can watch? i mean the ideology of ownership you place on everyone in society is appalling and never has a logical end unless its the total state controlling and micromanaging every single aspect of human life. and they are well on their way.

[Occupy Wall Street]

 

I like to differentiate between personal property, which is the property that an individual owns and uses and private property, which is owned by an individual with the intention for other people to use it, such as a large factory, plantation, etc. The only reason why someone would need to own 500 acres of land is if they want to employ other people (who don't own land, why else would they consent to working for someone else to provide a living for themselves?) and extract the surplus value from the products they produce. With pretty much every piece of land in the world owned by either private entities or the state, there isn't much of an option for a little peasant. It's either work for someone else and accept their rules, or starve to death. If you think this is voluntary, you are insane. It would be like arguing that prostitutes aren't exploited by their pimps.

 

so, a peice of property that is in my family for generations, that was worked and maintained by the family is oppressing people? why is the land ownership oppressing people, but if i just have a house somewhere, im not oppressing them by not allowing them in my house?

to me this logic is totally bass ackwards. its sort of like saying that if you have a wife, and she keeps her legs closed, she is oppressing the other men because they cant get at whats in between those legs.

 

if i wanted to make some money and i contracted with a neighbor to work on his car or bale some hay for him, how am i being oppressed if i consent to it or if i am super excited about the opportunity to earn some money?

 

if a prostitute voluntarily contracts with a pimp to manage her business, that is her problem. she consented. if a pimp puts a gun to the prostitutes head and forces her into service or refuses her the right to leave when she wants, that is involuntary. look at it another way. the tyranny of the symphony orchestra. if you play a wind instrument, the conductor literally TELLS YOU WHEN TO BREATH! i mean, even the nazi's didnt do that. but the player voluntarily agreed to this arrangement.

 

Hence, "For a world of ANARCHIES". Not one order, but thousands of different orders based upon consent. You can have your self-sufficient farm with all your assault rifles and Ayn Rand porn, but your business that is based off of extracting the surplus value of a person's labor.... is oppression, sorry.

 

which is why, when you come to tell me or someone i have contracted with, that this arrangement is oppression, you'll end up getting my precious metals, lead first.

 

i still need to know exactly how much land i can have in my 'self sufficient' farm and at what point you are justified in taking the excess from me. seems to me, if property is oppression, all property is oppression, including the very concept of self ownership. if you own yourself, you are oppressing people 'bro'

 

i fail to see how someone willingly coming up to me and offering to fix my roof is oppressing him. by logical deduction you can say that it is in there best interest if they came to me, otherwise they wouldnt do it. trade is mutually beneficial, if it wasnt, the trade wouldnt take place.

what if the roof guy is starving and wants to fix my roof and i tell him...'sorry man, if you give me your surplus labor, im oppressing you. no, i dont care if you are starving and you;ll willingly do the work for a home cooked meal, im still oppressing you. better try some place else to be oppressed. im an anarcho communist real libertarian.'

[Ron Paul Revolution!!!!]

 

Look the statistics are in. Highschool dropouts have a 20% unemployment rate. College graduates have a 2% unemployment rate. The workforces and companies of our parents (Saturn, Kodak, and hundreds of others) are dead and gone. The business models that made them successful are failing. You can't just recommend your children the same career path you took because that career path rarely still exists. Statistically speaking, the best career advice you could give a kid is to stay in school and graduate college.

 

i dont doubt your statistics are right.

but what you are talking about is the productivity of workers. things constantly change. this is life. especially life in the world where we have such a high standard of living compared to life before the industrial revolution when we had hundreds of generations of farmers essentially doing the same thing.

 

if you have a college education, you generally have a higher productivity than someone who dropped out in the 9th grade. this is a given.

 

when the car came out, it put black smiths, farriers and buggy whip makers out of business. it pushed these people to pursue different career paths. the question then becomes are americans better off with the car that everyone can afford, or should we of retarded the advent of the car in favor saving the inefficient jobs of the blacksmith, farrier and buggy whip maker?

 

I agree that kids need direction and chores and jobs but theres a difference between working for your family and working to support your family at age 12 or even 16. That responsibility shouldnt be handed to a kid and a kid should never be forced to take care of their deadbeat parents. That's one instance of wellfare that I think is crucial to give kids a chance at having a normal childhood and become positive and productive members of society.

 

the double edged sword of that belief is that it is illegal for a neighbor kid, if you actually follow the law, to go next door and work at a neighbors back yard business. even if they want to.

 

i dont think you'll find to many people who are in favor of forcing a 12 year old to bring home the families bacon. but as i pointed out a while back, child labor existed because we didnt have a high standard of living in the days when it took place. most of time children worked. children worked the farms until the family was well off enough to just have the father go to a job in town to pay the bills. before this, having children was viewed as a way of getting more workers. this was because the whole family had to work 12-16 hours a day, the whole family, just to put food on the table. whereas with a higher living standard, investment in capital goods and labor saving equipment, people are able to work much less and enjoy more leisure. before the government started heavily taxing and regulating the average blue collar worker in the last half to quarter of the 20th century

the man was able to saddle the entire house hold's bills.

 

What 60 year old do you know is still in the blue collar workforce? Most 60 year olds who worked their whole lives have happily retired by now because they grew up in a good time for blue collar labor.

 

i dont know THAT many 60 year olds, but all that i do know, that arent govt workers who retired at age 50, are still working.

 

 

Now in the 70's you have families falling apart because Dad's plan of working in a factory isnt something Junior can emulate because all the jobs are disappearing, including dad's. Junior's parents are also of the antisocial blue collar breed so Junior has two needs: One, he seeks a job. And two, he seeks a healthy family relationship elsewhere. Blue collar areas look down on education because historically people have been moderately successful without it. Plus college is expensive and seen as some poncy white collar b.s. The only other option for youth in Oakland is Gangs or pimps and prostitution because they provide both money and a very tight sense of family.

 

And in the 70's that what you saw in Oakland, more pimps and prostitutes than anywhere else in the country. Also a whole lot of crime, civil rights groups fighting for social change and so on... all spurred on by unemployment and an economic downturn.

 

i'd say there are plenty of jobs available to blue collar workers, but i dont view machinery and labor saving devices as a detriment. if we just want jobs, we could just shut down all the tractor trailers and put back packs on people and have them walk the goods to where they need to go. we dont want jobs just for jobs sake, we want productivity. i like to use the example of digging a house foundation with tea spoons as opposed to back hoes. or the buggy whip makers vs cars.

 

i'd go out on a limb and say that the areas of 'crime' are largey centered around things prohibited by government. prostitution, drugs, etc. all these areas would not be the lucrative areas of employment that they currently are if they were legalized.

 

 

I know the farmer you're talking about (think I saw him on food inc) but not the details surrounding the incident you're reffering to. In either case. Those are state laws. http://www.labor.ny.gov/workerprotection/laborstandards/workprot/hrswork.shtm

 

hey, i dont care if its a state, city, town, county commission or federal government making up these stupid laws, they are horrible.

 

That kid could get a farm work permit in New York and many other states. I think that kid that is banging on their neighbor's door is running away from some other issues at home as well. There's a lot of ways for kids to make money. A ten year old became half a millionaire for jailbreaking the first iphone. A kid in my hometown made a million dollars on some torpedo pool toy. Those free thinking and generally considered "white collar" jobs are perfect to inspire kids to do great things.

 

i still dont see why you feel the need to decide for kids, and their families what is gainful employment or what should be done to pass leisure. look, i used to go next door and work on my neighbors little farmette. he would pay me. he also ran an electrician business off the property. a business owned the land, what i was doing was illegal. it seems very high and mighty to sit back and feel that you have a right to decide what is best for others, their families and tell someone what they can and cant do.

 

most kids dont have the brains to be child prodigy's. but most kids who want some extra cash to supplement their allowance, can rake leaves or cut grass. in my circle of friends work was anathema. i was the only kid that i knew of that actually did work for their allowance. be it cutting grass, helping with various house projects, etc. all the other kids got their allowances handed to them. they thought i was the 'weird' one when i spent my saturdays at my grandfathers or my neighbors doing various projects to get a little extra money.

 

to take it even further, the same farmer im talking about (yes the guy from food inc) refused to just give his kids allowances. his farm is a huge business. they do well into the millions of dollars in revenue every year. he made his kids start their own side business. at an early age, they tended their own rabbits which then later turned into a fairly decent business for the entire company. they tended their own chickens and sold the eggs to people at church. since after all, this is on property owned and operated by polyface inc, and since the animals are all owned technically by polyface inc, they are probably breaking the law and breaking child labor laws.

 

you would have me believe that the stories of this guys son at age 8 running a 60 hp tractor while his dad picked up hay on the back of the wagon as the kid drove by is detrimental because he is working for a 'corporation' and getting paid very little if anything.

 

i dont think anyone is running away from anything. why do i feel this way? because at one time i was one of those kids and i wasnt running away from anything. i wanted to do actual work and i wanted actual money.

 

there is a guy who lives a few houses down that has a produce stand. i watched his son who was 10 bug the living hell out of him for months trying to get him to run the register. one day i stopped by and his son was operating the register and he was boxing up peoples food. i found out later on that a state food 'police man' gave him a visit, told him he cant have his son doing any work on that stand or at his farm and the neighbor kid that used to come over and sort fruit and beans from their farm couldnt do that either. yet it was what these kids wanted. they wanted to be like the dad. yet you are trying to tell me this is justified state intervention.

from what i gather, the guy told the regulator to fuck off, and went on about his business.

soon enough, he got in trouble for some 'code' violation and was fined. all because of the ideology that says people have a right to rule others and tell them what is best.

 

 

Also considering farming is rarely profitable anymore, and most American farmers do farming on the side, how responsible is it to assimilate a child into farming? Unless that child becomes a chicken savant chances are he too will be hurting for money his whole life without a college degree.

 

personally, i dont know and i dont care. im not in the business of giving advice or telling people what is best for them, im merely pointing out that govt has no right to tell people what to do. if they want to be farmers, that is their choice.

 

 

Considering homeschooling is legal in most states (california requires a teaching credential) and public educations are optional I dont know how you could assume the state owns children or parents.

?

 

really, you cant see this?

if a child is part of a family, and a family has a natural and universal right to educate their child, why do you have to ask the permission from the government to do so? why do they need a school exemption? if the state didnt own the kids, you would not have to ask permission to educate them how you see fit. you know it wasnt to long ago home schooling was frowned upon if not full out illegal in many states. there was even some cases, like the wacky fundamentalist guy in utah who took his kids out of public school to home school them. he ended up shot and killed at his mail box...for home schooling his kids. who owns who? if you dont pay a property tax, they take your house. who really owns it? if you own your house, it cannot be legally stolen by someone else. they claim ultimate domain over your property. just like they claim ultimate domain over your children. if you fail to report that you have school age children that are being home schooled, you dont follow the states arbitrary guidelines and requirements, dont get a permit to do so, the state has the legal right to take your kids and send them to school and/or throw your ass in jail. who has ultimate authority over who? from my limited knowledge on the subject the state with the best home schooling legal framework is idaho. you dont have a state bureaucrat over your shoulder and you can basically do what you want.

 

And college education is the exact opposite of worthless. It's just becoming more popular so many industries are becoming more competitive. If you get an undergrad in biotech you're looking at a guaranteed 80k salary, and well into 6 figures by halfway through your career. If you get a degree in building sandcastles the job market is probably going to be a lot tougher.

 

hey, some degrees are good no doubt. some others arent worth the paper they are written on. which is why you have these holier than thou kids coming out of college with no experience, having to move back in their parents basement because they cant get those 80K a year jobs they were promised. i heard a lawyer on a radio show say that she graduated college with 200K in student debt, and cant find a job. for 2 years the mythical high paid job she was promised is non existent. she waits tables. is she better off for going to college or could she of not incurred the 200K in debt and just went right to waiting tables?

 

And I dont know if it's in people's interest to work hard. Tenured teachers rarely work hard, but that doesnt mean public schools suck. I've had overpaid private school teachers slack on their jobs just as much. And there are as many dumb harvard grads as there are dumb UC grads, so students dont necessarily like to work hard either. It's all about monetizing incentivizing an optimal workflow, which is a lot harder to do than just say "free market capitalism" or "state capitalism" works the best. There's social and cultural influences on how people work. The chinese will work in factories until the bones in their hands disintegrate, and THEN maybe complain. Americans no so much. There's a reason why state capitalism works so well in china and why there's no fucking way we could emulate a chinese economy here in america, even when we too are state capitalists.

 

some tenured college professors at state funded schools make roughly 1100$ per hour. i cant really say if this is a market wage because it is a wage determined by government.

sure, there are good teachers, bad teachers at both institutions. the problem with governemtn teachers if you cant get rid of them no matter how bad they are. in most places the union rules, labor laws and bureaucratic malaise make it impossible to get rid of a bad teacher.

 

i think the facts bear it out though, public schools trail well behind private methods of education.

 

people have become lazy because they have the bureaucratic mindset. people such as yourself and government tell people they should work less. look at the govt's retirement program. they retire people at age 50 making 50-80% of their highest salary for the next 40 years of their life till they croak. they then start their new business at age 50 and are making serious money. this is very common in the fire fighter and police world. look at the govt's retirement program with social security. they incentivize people to retire at age 62.5 or 65, stop being productive, sit at home and watch tv and rot away. then they spend the rest of their lives rusting and rotting out because they dont get any physical or mental activity. there full time job is going to the doctors. what a way to go out. society has been some so wealthy that they can afford to do this BS. they can literally get something for nothing, so they just do nothing. nothing really wrong with this, but when it transfers to people with low skills or productivity...you get people who dont want to even do the hard work necessary to make ends meet.

[Occupy Wall Street]

Now for those videos that you mention, I don't know of all the people you mentioned, but if Peter Shiff made videos against occupy for being "STATIST", I would guess it's because he has an agenda. He wants to discredit a movement that he identifies as being against the class system.

 

he went to wall street with an 'i am the 1%, lets talk' sign.

he essentially went to point the fingers at the government and say the protesters should be occupying the federal reserve. he engaged in a few conversations basically between himself and people telling him to pay more taxes and that a few more regulations can fix all the problems.

 

Now as far as you having to "violently defend your life and private property" from my friends and I (Holy shit, talk about hyperbole), unless you are a wage-slave driver in a sweatshop or factory, a police officer or a CEO of a multi-national corporation that uses the state in order to enforce land theft from the indigenous, I don't think you have to worry about your life and means to produce a life for yourself.

im curious as to where you draw the line to determine whether someone is a 'wage slave.' is a wage slave someone who voluntarily comes to me to contract to work? and i a slave driver if i pay the guy what he wants and what we mutually agree upon, even if you dont agree with the wage?

 

If you mind your own business and want to be left alone to subsist off the land away from communal society, so be it. As you probably already know (you have studied anthropology, the history of civilization, yes?), land was once held in common. It wasn't until greedy fucks came around and used the state to dispossess communities from their right to the land, did we have such a thing as private property. I don't see what's wrong with folks taking back vast acreage of land "owned" by major, multinational agribusiness.

well, i definitely an advocate of private property. so this is where i see the problems. if i am on a farm my family owns for instance, lets say its 500 acres. we work this land and run a business on it. what is keeping you from coming to take my property for being a 'greedy fuck?' i dont understand where you guys draw the line. you are apparently ok with people owning a house, but where does the line get drawn from 'me producing a life for myself' and me 'exploiting the proletariat?' how big of a house? can i own multiple vehicles? how much land can i own and homestead? without an theory of property rights, there is no way to both properly allocate resources and determine what constitutes a crime and an infringement on liberty. since i believe in self ownership, property is nothing but an extension of this. if i have a right to my body, i have a right to my labor and if i mix my labor with property, i therefore own it and control it

 

Also, your Individualism doesn't have to be in conflict with Communalism as long as you as an individual don't try to deny others of their ability to have self-determination and live in economic democracy.

this is where i like what you say. you guys can have all the commmunal living you want. my only provision is to not be forced to join your commune. i would wish you well, i just think we'd have serious problems coming to terms what exactly constitutes 'oppressing' people by living in freedom and what yall would 'allow' me to hold as property. for instance, i think the major problem would come if say i owned a 500 acre farm and ran a business off of it, you'd come to take this from me. to which, you would meet massive deadly force in resistance.

 

 

but what i'd really like to see is you take on the more liberal minded people such as decy or soup on issues where you disagree. because you seem to always be in agreement with the statist liberals, i want to hear where the anti state liberals diverge.

[Ron Paul Revolution!!!!]

 

 

*Note; I am speaking specifically about migrating through national borders.

 

indeed...

i think people not taking this into account skews the discussion on many levels.

[Ron Paul Revolution!!!!]

Why don't you address the content of the post, AD HOMINEN ONER.

 

This shit just popped up on my Facebook News Feed an hour ago from a homie and it's relevant to this thread, I'm not posting it because I'm "running out of ammunition".

 

If you can't critique the information presented by Anonymous, you obviously aren't comfortable in your position. SORRY BROH, BUT UR HERO'S A BIGOT RACIST FUCK.

 

Not to mention, a militarized border is a barrier to the Free Market. Using the state to prevent owners from purchasing cheaper labor violates your economic theory. True Libertarians (like myself) are not against immigration.... This is nationalism, folks.

 

 

well, first off, RP isnt my hero, nor is he a totally free market advocate. he is a constitutionalist, not an anarchist.

 

there have been tons of people who have spent the time to critique the various conspiracy theories about why RP is a racist, but i have better things to do with my time. usually people of your thinking think any white person with more than 5$ in their pockets are racists, so its really a moot point.

'racist' carries little to no descriptive value these days. its sort of like 'constitutionalist' i mean obama claims to be a constitutionalist yet also claims the right to assassinate americans without a trial.

 

i agree with you that a militarized border is not indicative of a free market.

however, in a society with property rights, there is no such thing as a right to 'immigrate' only a right to 'emigrate.' the right to say immigrate to your neighbors property means you must have permission to enter said property. essentially saying that there is a right to immigrate is basically the same as forced integration.

hoppe makes a very compelling case on this issue.

[Occupy Wall Street]

Not true whatsoever. In my experience, (and most of the people I have talked to in Cities where Occupy has really taken off) it has taken a largely anti-authoritarian narrative. No one, besides retarded liberals, are begging for more government.

 

I mean come on, consensus? Direct Democracy? No political party endorsement despite a huge co-opt attempt by moveon.org and other libtards, bureaucratic labor leaders, etc.. They even got rid of a lot of the crypto-fascist Ron Paulites.

 

Social Democratic Liberals (like Michael Moore), Marxist-Leninists and Maoists have definitely been a problem for some cities (see the bureaucratic bullshit of Chicago) for bringing a pro-state, reformist "tax the rich" agenda, but look to Oakland, Olympia, Seattle, Minneapolis, St Louis, etc... Plenty of anarchists- whether they self-identify or not- have been able to push this shit into an anti-authoritarian, anti-state, anti-capitalist direction. Instead of using more government to "tax the rich", we say, change the economic/political structures that produce economic inequality: SMASH CAPITALISM AND THE STATE THAT PROTECTS IT.

 

Anyone who thinks they have the right to make the decisions that affect other peoples lives (whether that be a politician or a boss) has no fucking basis for making these decisions. FOR A WORLD WITHOUT BOSSES.

 

FOR A WORLD OF ANARCHIES, brotha!

 

i guess all these videos of adam kokesh, peter schiff, etc interviewing and interacting with the various occupation movements arent representative of the actual movement then, cause all im hearing is a bunch of marxist statist rhetoric. more taxes, more government, more regulation, more 'fairness,' etc.

 

you know, i thought it would be cool to have an alliance with some commie anarchist types, but the only problem for me is you guys hate capitalism more than you hate the state. another issue would be if the state was actually abolished, i'd have to violently defend my life and property from you and your friends when you seek to rob it from me to put it into the hands of 'the workers.' this might be a problem.

 

just sayin

[Ron Paul Revolution!!!!]

no I dont think he is Hitler AOD haha then again not every racist is hitler, that is just going to extremes. I am just saying hypocrasy and politicians isn't something new.

 

I don't believe someone should be able to terminate a pregnancy at 9 months it is too far gone the baby has developed at that point, but through medicine we know how a fetus develops and have set standards for abortion, I completely believe it is the mothers choice.

 

 

as i said, i consider abortion a non issue, especially in presidential politics. but i would like to point out, in some states, new jersey i know for a fact unless it was recently banned, its totally legal to abort the baby while the mother is in labor. no joke. abortion is an area of contention in the liberty movement, both sides make compelling cases and i dont think taking either side makes anyone a lesser advocate of liberty or a hypocrite.

 

you are right hypocrisy and politicians go hand and hand, however, i think every now again there is an exception. RP is that exception...i dont think having some shady supporters means the candidate is a racist. im sure some black racists supported obama, does that mean obama is a black racist? i'd say no.

[Ron Paul Revolution!!!!]

wouldnt be the first hypocritical politician AOD!!

 

so you honestly believe RP is hitler?

haha, really?

jeez, its worse than i thought. i thought you had at least an ounce of gray matter up stairs.

[Ron Paul Revolution!!!!]

that is something I dont get about liberty arguements, if people are completely free why have anything like immigration, surely that is infringing on someones freedom by not allowing them to move freely where they want.

 

I didn't know RP was anti abortion etc that is just completely hypocritical (as is the racism etc)

 

to me, abortion is a non issue.

but i'll make his pro life case.

the government was supposed to exist to protect life and liberty in the first place. it has decided that certain humans arent humans are capable of being murdered without prosecution. in the same manner the govt decided blacks were sub human and could be enslaved.

 

now, if you want to talk about what to do about someone who cant pay for their kids education when they lose a job, i want you to justify how a person can be murdered up until 1 second before they are born, as is legal in the sate of new jersey.

 

i have an entirely different theory on abortion than RP. my position is that it is legal to evict the fetus, but you just cant kill it. the basis for abortion theory of hte pro choice variety is that the womb is private property and the fetus is a trespasser. i'll buy that even though the person necessarily invited the fetus in there, but forget that. i'm going to go out on a limb and say that in a couple hundred years if not sooner, it will be medically possible to evict the fetus, yet not kill it.

[Ron Paul Revolution!!!!]

perfect timing cunt!

as soon as a certain faction runs out of ammunition in a debate, its time to pull the race card and put forth some gigantic conspiracy theory about how your opponent is a closet klansmen, descended from aryan jew burning christian separatist holocaust denying nazi worshipers.

 

sorry dude, you just lost all credibility. to think that the guy who gets in front of the nation and says that the drug war is evil perpetrated on minorities and has stated that 'racism is nothing but an ugly form of collectivism' is some how a neo nazi....cmon now.

[Ron Paul Revolution!!!!]

a monopoly is a monopoly whether done privately or government sanctioned

 

government doesnt say there can only be 1 power company, I can think of 5 or 6 off th etop of my head I can choose from. If one of them raises the prices then the others all follow suit. Even though those price increases are more than any increase they have in production.

 

if these private monopolies are in existence, please point them out to me, i havent been able to find any. even the so called monopoly of standard oil was never above 25% of the market and the guy kept bringing prices DOWN. we must not confuse large market share with monopoly. if someone has a large market share in a totally free market it just means they are best at what they do and people are voluntarily trading with this company for their goods and services. you can logically deduce this.

 

all govt granted monopolies exist in sectors like power, gas, cable, telephone, etc. these markets are locked up tight if they havent just given one company sole monopoly privileges.

 

monopolies cannot exist in a free market where there is free competition and free entry. all areas are different with power, but suffice it to say its not a fairly free market like there is in electronics. if not given full out monopoly privileges, the barriers to entry and restrictions and regulations make competition non existent. and once they get in power they use their money they acquire from being able to charge higher than market level rates to further influence the government in their favor.

 

and then you get to get on forum on a computer that you bought from a capitalist company that exploited a chinese guy out of his labor (something you are against) and say that 'see, look at that 'private' company, they are doing horrible bad things!' all the while ignoring the frame work of government around it that allowed, encouraged and forced the situations to happen.

 

you see, regulations benefit the big companies, they dont benefit the small companies.

food is the perfect example. nearly all food regulations are written hand and hand with the USDA/FDA and existing big businesses. they seek largely to limit competition. who benefits more from a regulation that says you need a 150$K USDA approved cheese making kitchen to sell a pound of cheese to your neighbor? a company that has 25% of the cheese market share or a company that has .000025% of the cheese market share? if you are just trying to sell some cheese to your local community and you have no start up capital, when are you going to start your cheese business? this is merely an example of how regulations hurt 'the little guy.'

[Ron Paul Revolution!!!!]

they are private companies, it was better when they were nationalised.

 

And you think that if these companies were allowed to do whatever they wanted they wouldnt monoplise the market further? that is just naive

 

yes, privately owned but given privileges they dont have in a free market by the state.

how is this a free market?

the government uses its power to give them privileges. this the very basis of moussilini style fascism/corporatism.

 

they are only allowed to 'monopolized' the market because THE GOD DAMNED GOVERNMENT USED THEIR POWER TO DO IT. THEY GAVE THE COMPANIES THE LEGAL ABILITY TO HOLD A MONOPOLY.

 

do you see a difference?

government says there can only be 1 power company, any other people offering these services go to jail. you are saying this is a market situation.

yet it is totally legal for walmart to seek a monopoly by opening up as many stores as they can and 'running the others out of business.' they havent been able to do this. all the targets and other stores are in competition with them.

 

and you think your government schooling education is beneficial? you cant even understand the difference between a government sanctioned monopoly and a free market.

[Ron Paul Revolution!!!!]

No my next question would be, with the cost of living so high nowadays with fuel, energy costs etc always rising above inflation, and with wages being stagnant with no real increases in wages in years and years how is someone supposed to save when their whole income is being accounted for in basic living needs like heat food and shelter?

 

I ask you legitimate real world questions and you come back with nonsensical crap

 

i would say, lets get the government out of those sectors, because if you take off your class warfare goggles, you'll see that it is the sectors with the most government, energy, housing, etc that have the highest rising prices. so if you separate them, you'll once again see falling prices. if you look at sectors where there is relatively little intervention, you see falling prices. electronics, clothing, etc. its no coincidence. if you got rid of the central bank, you would eliminate inflation. in fact, gas in the US has almost remained constant since the great depression, if not cheaper. ..if you price gas in constitutional money, silver. if you average it out, a gallon of gas in 1930 was about 10 cents a gallon, back when we had silver dimes. how its 3.50 a gallon which is about what a silver dime is worth.

 

i find it odd that you raise these sorts of questions. because you act as though people are not in debt up to their eye balls, going on vacations, buying new cars, etc. these same people who 'cant make ends meet' are usually much better off than you pretend. if someone is truly that bad off, i want to go in their house and i want to NOT see a couple of things. i dont want to see a flat screen tv, i dont want to a computer, receipts for dinners out, a cable bill, netflix, iphones, vacation plans, new cars in the drive way, fancy new clothes with the holes already cut in them, expensive junk food or 15$ a pound microwaveable bacon or any toys out back like motorcycles, jet skis or quads.

 

if people want to save, they can do it. if members of my family can earn meager salaries for their entire lives and accumulate a decent amount of capital, anyone can. fact is people want to spend, they want ht ebiggest house they can get by with, the baddest car and the most stuff they can get their hands on. it just baffles my mind to think that you cant see this.

 

you mentioned schooling earlier...i think if the average family cut out all their vacations, iphones, cable bills, new cars every 3 years and stuck to the basics, and also were allowed to keep all of their earnings, giving them a 15-30-50-60% raise automatically, they would be in money up to their arm pits and could give all the money they wanted to voluntary charities and pay for schooling that would be fractions of the cost of public schooling and twice as good. and since the incentives and moral hazard of the welfare state was gone, the people seeking welfare type services would shrink exponentially as most people on the system are capable of providing for themselves, they just choose to take the easy route because its easily available. why work for 8$ an hour when you have no skills, when you could work the system a bit and make more than that just staying home sulking and feeling sorry for yourself and having to listen to everyone tell you how bad you have it?

[Ron Paul Revolution!!!!]

I dont own any apple products, yes I paid for my phone, however I pay for my electric and gas through a company that decides to hike its prices higher than the increases it costs them to buy the electric/gas. This gas company is part of a larger corporation that also owns supermarkets so yea I would have no problem in stealing from them because they steal from me, I dont have a choice in the matter because all the energy companies increase their prices at the same time, they manipulate the market as PRIVATE companies and they remove the choice to go to someone cheaper service because they ALL increase their prices.

 

nothing to do with government, infact the UK government hass stepped in before to stop them increasing prices like this before.

 

i think you'll find that these 'private' companies are in fact government granted monopolies. nearly all governments have decided its in our best interest to limit who can provide power and water to us mundanes to 1 or 2 companies, therefore creating a classic monopoly situation in which the government has manipulated the market to allow them to over charge/go above market rates.

its not really a free market if the government restricts competition and tells them everything they can and cant do.

this the very thing the US left england for....mercantilism.

[Ron Paul Revolution!!!!]

and that is great that you are AOD, however as previously mentioned when I worked for a bank, the vast majority of people dont care about charity and do not give to charity, therefore there would be a need for welfare.

 

as i stated previously, the first lesson of economics is to look at the unseen not just the seen.

you only see a state handing out money. but what if people suddenly were able to keep 30-50% of their incomes? perhaps maybe people such as yourself, do gooder types who say we need government welfare would just kick out 10-15% of their new raise from not paying taxes to a much more efficient private charity.

 

it is estimated taht 70% of govt welfare programs revenue is consumed in just administration and bureaucracy. imagine if we had a private industry funded by all the former government welfare lovers, im sure even a bunch of socialists, even while paying their administrators exuberant un market based salaries could do a much better job than that and get more money to the people who need it, not just the govt workers.

[Ron Paul Revolution!!!!]

has nothing to do with the scenario I proposed so I will just assume you have no answer to that

 

i think it has everything to do with the discussion at hand....its just a crazy off the wall made up scenario to try to veer the discussion off course. my question is just as relevant as you.

 

i mean, what happens if anyone loses a job? what happens if someone cuts off their fingers eating a steak?

 

if you lose a job, you should have savings to fall back on. just like any other normal person who relies on themselves and not anyone else.

 

whats your next question? 'what does the one legged, wheel chair bound, homosexual, buggy whip maker do that works 70 hours a week when the automobile comes along if we dont have a central government with the power to assassinate citizens without a trial?'

[Ron Paul Revolution!!!!]

because that is me, not everybody. If I thought I would get away with it I would have no problem robbing a supermarket blind, ok I wouldnt break into peoples homes but big businesses then yea I will take everything I can because I know they do the same to me with every chance they get.

 

but the question is how is order kept without the government, correct?

if you break into my house or you try to push carts out of super markets without paying, there is generally some sort of private security mechanism, be it an armed home owner or an armed security guard.

 

 

ps. i love how you equate your yearning for actual theft from someone to the exact same as you voluntarily giving your money to apple for your iphone. in your view, apple stole your money. so did you rape your first girlfriend on the first date or did you persuade her get in the sack with you? after all, no difference.

[Ron Paul Revolution!!!!]

also in your family idea where mum is homeschooling the kids and dad is out working 70 hours a wekk to provide, what happens to them once his company decides they can get cheaper labour in china? They say to him you can keep your job but take a 50% pay cut or you will be fired. What happens then? Where does he get help from when he is unable to find another job? This is where your idea always falls down for me because they have to rely on the charity of others (which will not happen) you need a welfare state to help in these circumstances.

 

what happens if the family on government welfare gets hit by a car on a government road by a state worker? huh huh huh huh huh ?

[Ron Paul Revolution!!!!]

a free market only runs on the premise that everyone is only interested in self interest, this means that chairty and help to people in need would not be there because it isnt in their self interest.

 

this is just ridiculous.

people give to charity because its makes them feel good. because they feel good, it is their own self interest that makes them give. why do private soup kitchens, the red cross and other voluntary charities exist today? is government forcing people to fund them?

im a radical liberty advocate yet i believe 100% in voluntary charity.

[Ron Paul Revolution!!!!]

so you believe its wrong... and your morals tell you this and property rights back it up....yet you are trying to say that in an anarchist society there is no order.

[Ron Paul Revolution!!!!]

so now democracy isnt good enough, jesus christ, I said move if you don't like the rules that much.

 

But democracy and government are better than complete anarchy, which is what you want, even though you think there would be some kind of order there.

 

i'll take it you concede the point to me, because my argument obviously smashes yours.

 

even if was talking anarchy....

what keeps you from entering your neighbors house when ever you want? is it really the police force or is it the non permission of the owner and their property rights?

[Ron Paul Revolution!!!!]

Can you cite something that backs this up?

 

I agree that most public school systems leave something to be desired but I'm not sure that warrants home schooling being undeniably the best route for everyone.

 

i thought it was pretty common knowledge home school students typically score 15-30%+ above public schools.

 

that being said, in no way am i attempting to say homeschooling is 'for everyone.' i apologize if i said or implied that. im merely pointing out a cheap alternative to produce a top quality student that solves a few of the problems others have thrown at me. that is the beauty of a free society, there is no central plan. each individual plans for themselves and decides what is best.