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

angelofdeath

Members
  • Posts

    3,604
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by angelofdeath

  1. must have a limiter in there.... is it a hunting gun? most states have game laws that limit the amount of rounds that be held inside the gun
  2. 1911's are great if you know how to run them. although i am growing less and less fond of the platform every day
  3. this is why politics are not a viable solution to free people. the very foundation of these united States is the idea of individual liberty. and the majority of americans think it is 'fucking stupid.' they believe in the right to rule others. the rest of the people have this radical notion that other people arent their property.
  4. can you still get the polytech m14 clones in canada easily??? forged receivers but the guts suck
  5. personally, i think its entirely possible. my theory is if he loses the nomination and they dont give him a speaking slot at the republican convention, he'll go third party. he isnt running for congress again. he is 'all in.' to use his words. personally, looking at the history of the sort of conservative based movements....you had goldwater who failed. but those goldwaterites eventually put a not quite as hardcore 'goldwaterite' in the white house (reagan) a few years later. it could even be his son in say 2020 or something. who knows. personally, i dont care. politics offer real no solution to any problems. america wont be saved by electing someone, its just impossible. it would be a step in the right direction though. what ron paul has done has changed the conversation and is bringing more people to the liberty side than anyone else could possibly have done.
  6. the revolution logo was created by ernest hancock of freedomsphoenix.com. he had previously used the logo for a local campaign in arizona. the idea is the revolution is a revolution with love. google around for ernest hancock and the logo and im sure you'll get a bunch of hits.
  7. i think you are slightly off base with what a president can do. a president cant pass laws, but he can do things he has jurisdiction. since RP is only politician to have such consistency and a will to be Dr. No, there is absolutely no reason to assume he wouldnt act on the things he is able to affect. obama said he would shut down gitmo, respect civil liberties, was against the patriot act, bring the troops home, etc etc. these are all things the president has total authority over. he increased government power in all those areas. RP could easily make the patriot act of no force by refusing to enforce it. he WOULD shut down gitmo. he would not be torturing bradley manning or assassinating US citizens. i am definitely not naive enough to think that RP is the savior. the US govt is the biggest most powerful body on earth. and libertarians arent the dictator type. i view his campaign as a huge education effort. its the ron paul speaking tour. anything to get people on the ideas of liberty the better. if RP managed to actually stay alive in office, and even removed executive tyranny, it would be worth him taking office.
  8. Perhaps you don't fully understand the meaning of "theory" Theory is scientific knowledge that can't be disproven by experiment See: http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law
  9. this statement blatantly shows you do not understand what i am espousing. i have 'regard for society' and 'making peoples lives better.' what i am against is you hiring some guys with badges to send them to your neighbor to steal his property to give it the 'down trodden' or to 'society.' please understand that. if you engage in this behavior voluntarily, all the better. if you dont, unlike you, i dont propose throwing these people in jail. its that simple. very easy to understand. theory has yet to be proven. hmmm. do you own yourself? this is just a theory. gravity is a theory. i think both of those examples have something to do with 'real life.' the entire discussion is what should government be doing. that theory is what we are discussing. we dont need to discuss what government is doing. we already know that. you just dont understand that there is a position out there that says government shouldnt be doing most of what it is doing because it is detrimental to life, liberty, property, prosperity, and the advancement of the human race. what is this radical notion that you hate so much? that other people are not your property. what is social justice? it is robbing someone to give to someone else. here is my position on this. theft is wrong. it is a violation of ones rights. do you agree with this? i'd imagine you do. so if it is wrong if me or your steal something, why is it ok if a government does it? the very basis of government is the people supposedly delegated powers they have to the government. if people dont have a right to steal, how can they force government to do it? there is nothing wrong with stroking off a check for your entire income to pay the down trodden's way in life. nothing at all. all im saying is, dont send the cops after someone and throw them in jail if they dont do it. thats all im asking. if you will stop using the government against those that dont comply with your wishes, all is good. thankfully a libertarian is not interested in running ones life. they are interested not in power, but reducing government to restore liberty. while i acknowledge this is fruitless politically, all empires come to an end by their own internal economic problems or from the people refusing to comply. so, what you are saying is, if a gas station offered gas for sale for 1 million dollars per gallon, they also come to your house, put a gun to your head and force you to buy it? or do you just say...'eh, man, that clown is a rip off!' and dont buy it? do you also consider yourself a slave to a battery manufacturer because you HAVE to buy batteries for your wireless keyboard produced for you by greedy capitalists? your underlying assumption is that the gas station owes you fuel or that you have a right to it. the price is determined not by dickering, but by whether people come in or not. its sort of like this. you put a for sale sign on your car. you want 3500 and nothing less. some people wont even call you about it. some people want the car, but since you will not lower the price, you are tyrannizing them because, hey, they have a right to that car. they have a right to dicker over the price for YOUR car, whether you want to or not. do you see what im saying here? that they are claiming a right to your car, and you guys are just dickering over the details. that is what you are advocating by implying that you should some how be able to go into a gas station, and dicker with them on the price, when they dont want to. you are going on their property, trying to buy their gas. if they dont want to dicker with you, they dont have to. just like you dont have to dicker with the guy buying your car. most people dont want dicker over gas price because commodities markets are highly regulated and so much goes into determining a price its either all or nothing. take it or leave it. i;ll say it again. if its really true that gas station owners can charge whatever they want because you are forced to buy it, why arent they charging 100$ a gallon? a person has a right to ask whatever they want and in the majority of states in the US, it is totally legal. its funny cause when i worked at a gas station as a mechanic, i would watch what went on with gas prices. and they were constantly lowering them to compete with the other stations to the point of them not even making enough money to pay the cashiers. so much for your theory that they can charge what they want. i think your theory on these matters is much to influenced by a life of being indoctrinated in state worship. you can literally not be selling any gas at a gas station because your price per gallon is 1 penny to high. seen it all the time. ALL the time. and you are trying to tell me that gas stations can charge whatever they want because people 'need' to buy it? would they buy it at 5000$ per gallon? i think the question answers its self. prices are nothing but signals. they are to the economy, what road maps are to the geography. this is another area you are wrong on. a home and a business are both private property. property rights uber alles. you can govern your house or your business however the fuck you want to. both examples of entering into a house and a business are nothing but requirements by the property owner. read again, the OWNER. assuming otherwise, implies that you still believe you have a right to a job or a right to tell other people what to do in general. i think its true. arguing with a statist is arguing with the witless. i guess i've had my fill for a while and will go onto other things. haha
  10. 'exploited' is entirely subjective. a marxist will say that if someone pays the market rate for a gallon of gasoline they are being exploited. a free market guy will say if both parties consent to ANY arrangement, the deal is legit. in effect, if you consider yourself being exploited, you terminate the association. that is the mechanism to stop 'exploitation.' illustrate this more simply. you have a perfect right to put forth a requirement that only single women age 21 can come through your front door and when they do they have to be naked. if someone does it, fine. you just cant force them to do it. same goes for both sides of an employee/employer relationship. the employer is the the homeowner (you) and the employee is the naked 21 year old chick. if either side doesnt like the deal, they can refuse to let the deal take place.
  11. i think you are just getting hung up on the complexity of a 'contract' i believe in implicit contract. for instance, if i walk into a fast food joint, order a hamburger, im not expecting them to tell me its 500$. a contract can be as simple as i described above. even simpler. every time you trade or buy something, you are entering into a contract. you give them money, they give you the stuff and vice versa. perhaps its just as simple as you havent had the experience of working in a more free, less regulated, or blue collar type working situation and are hung up on the contract one might fill out working for a financial institution. there is much more to the real world than the corporate world. im speaking in abstract terms, not in the employment arrangements of someone working for morgan stanley or something. im talking fundamentals to illustrate a point. the whole point is anyone has a right to cease an association, obviously barring any contractual obligations. we agree on the second part, you just seem to think every business deal should have the utopian anti capitalist 'workers united' oriented stuff tacked on to every employment arrangement. for 'social justice' purposes. its just an extension of being a statist.
  12. atleast you acknowledge the principle i am espousing. the same reason that a person worth 1$ per hour cannot get paid 10$ an hour (minimum wage in this example)or the company loses money, is the same reason why china cant raise the minimum wage to 50$ an hour and create prosperity. its just a level of degree.
  13. because you dont want to 'exploit' anyone. the same absurdity it is to pay someone 1000$ an hour for an ebay shop is the same principle that makes paying someone 20$ an hour when their productivity is 10$ economically inefficient and will make you go out of business. security in exchange for the animating contest of freedom. you stated that it is against the law in your country for someone to fire you without proper cause. whereas on a rights basis, anyone has the right to terminate any association they want to according to natural law. by siding with the law, and supporting what it says, you are supporting the law and the morality of the law. you are tied up on technicalities. my position is either party can cease any association, (barring contractual obligations) when they wish. whether its a job, marriage, economic transaction, etc. to support the alternative is to support slavery.
  14. cool. something we finally agree on. we shouldnt rob the poor people in the US or the UK to send to a rich person in a 3rd world country.
  15. it is totally relevant to the discussion and defeated your argument so that is the only reason you dont want to talk about it. economic theory is universal. the reason why third world countries apply to the victorian example is because the US and the UK were those third world countries 100 years ago. they didnt have capital. but through capitalism and free enterprise, they were able to increase the living standard of everyone. would you rather be poor in a third world country or poor in a semi capitalist country? you think a law can create prosperity. this is best illustrated at the extremes that it is a falsehood. if you think raising the minimum wage to a living wage will work, say from 8 to 25$ per hour, why are you being so stingy? why not 50$ per hour? 100? 1000? 5000? reason being, whenever the minimum wage is raised, it outlaws jobs.
  16. so you own a small business. you and your wife work the business and have one employee. you sell widgets on ebay. because you were paying this employee 1000$ per hour in order not to 'exploit' them, you have gone out of business. you have closed your ebay store. but this employee now claims they have a right to still work. you must still pay him 1000$ an hour, he must come to your basement everyday to package up widgets. he has a right to do this and ceasing the 'contract' he signed is a threat of violence against him. you can either keep paying him or you can give him this severance package. the government says 1 million should do. your yearly gross revenues for the 1 year you were in business was 15,000$. who is getting the shaft in this deal? we are discussing the ultimate fact that EITHER PARTY OF THE EMPLOYEE AND EMPLOYER RELATIONSHIP ULTIMATELY HAS THE RIGHT TO LEAVE/CEASE THE AGREEMENT. TO SAY OTHERWISE IS TO ENSLAVE EACH OTHER TO THE AGREEMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i worked for a small business for 10 years. it had a few employees. one day the owner sold the business. they dis-incorporated and moved there stuff out. no severance packages. just a simple, we are out of business thanks everyone for working for us. this is life dude, not everyone works for goldman sachs. i could care less what a law says and whether one has a leg to stand on if faced with charges brought by said law enforcers. im talking purely in theory. the law also said slavery was legal. the law also said blacks had to sit at the back of the bus. the law, unless it punishes mala in se, is illegitimate.
  17. im curious to hear what issues you arent a commie on......:D
  18. bad working conditions and low wages sort of like in 3rd world countries? the reason working conditions and wages were considered awful by todays standards is because society wasnt as rich as it is today. we didnt have capital equipment. think of it like this: you have to dig the foundation for a 60,000 sq ft building. its 1875. this was all done by hand by lots of laborers. wages were low. days were long. because society wasnt as rich and didnt have a high living standard, all work was manual. people had to work those long days just to put food in their mouths. fast forward. same 60,000 sq ft building foundation. year 2012. earth moving equipment. foundation is done 2 days and it took months in 1875. why? we have a higher living standard and capital equipment. the same job that paid nothing back in 1875 pays 30$ an hour to the guy driving the back hoe. on that 30$ an hour he can afford to take off on the weekends, go on vacations, buy flat screens and buy a new car. working conditions were poor in those days for those reasons, not because there wasnt sufficient legislation. if this is the case, why cant we just pass a law in china, raise the minimum wage to 500$ per hour? if this happened, no one would have a job. if passing a law could create prosperity, why hasnt it? why cant we just raise the minimum wage to 5 million per house, give everyone 365 vacation days a year and we'll all be living in utopia? why not just print a bunch of money and we can be like zimbabwe?
  19. i guess our societies are just different. as i stated previously, no blue collar jobs are like this. there isnt some 30 page contract one has to sign to be a mechanic for instance unless its for some huge company. basically you drop your tools off, start working and you get paid. the only 'contracts' are implicit verbal contracts, not 50 page documents. the contract arrangement of which you speak of decy is pretty foreign to many jobs in the US. and these blue collar jobs arent 'cash' jobs, they are taxes with held legitimate jobs. a 'contract' doesnt have to be intricate, it can be as simple as: "i'll pay you 30$ hour, you get paid every friday, we work 8-6." "deal"
  20. amen to this. just wanted to single this out, especially the first line. this is the part decy cant seem to wrap his head around.
  21. whether playing devils advocate occasionally or not, i know full well, since all your economic arguments are that of a statist....on all issues economic, you are definitely leftist/intellectually marxist.
  22. i know there is a difference and said so. i said that he could of just as easily said 'saturdays or you are gone' and that is within his rights. if i didnt want to work saturdays, even though this was against the original contract implicit verbal 'contract,' he still has a right to tell me to take a hike. then to be logically consistent, if you believe you have a right to be chained to your employer, you must ALSO BELIEVE HE CAN FORCE YOU TO WORK FOR HIM. its that simple, brother. if one person can use force, why cant another? ok, so then what you are saying is you have a right to a job no matter what so long as you dont engage in 'gross misconduct.' why dont you support suing employers if they are downsizing, laying off workers or going out of business? after all, you have a 'right' to work there. you are gravely mistaken if you think following an arbitrary government 'law' is some how morally justified
  23. i guess in the US there isnt this police state governing employer and employee relationships. in all blue collar jobs in america, basically you can leave whenever you want and the employer can fire you whenever you want. there are plenty of laws regulating all these, mostly in favor of the employee, but the reality is as i said it was. sure you have to have a 'valid' reason for terminating someone, which all employers have on EVERY employee. then comes that one day when they get rubbed the wrong way and the employee is shit canned. having seen the hiring and firing various employees over the years and being highly involved in the process... you make it sound like a free exchange between 2 people is a bad thing. the logic that says you must force yourself on an employer, also must mean it is legitimate that an employer can force you into an association with him. i dont know what you call that in the UK, but in the US its called slavery. you simply refuse to acknowledge a basic concept of rights and associations. you claim you have a right to work at someone business, on their property and that you can enslave the employer to you. i say this is just as illegitimate as if the employer enslaved you to the company. both parties must be free to leave. if you arent free to leave/terminate the relationship, you are a slave, on either end, employee or employer. by your logic, if you hire someone to fix your plumbing, you cannot tell them to get out of your house if they piss you off. according to you they have a right to stay in your house and work whether you like it or not. and heaven forbid if there 'contract' says they are to work 9-5 and they screw everything up and dont finish they just call it quitting time and go to the bar and get drunk and come back in on monday to finish it up, all the while reserving the right to sue you if you hire someone else to finish the job. many times i've had an implicit contract where my hours were say 8-6. m-f. then the boss man says...'hey look, i really need you to start working saturdays.' i did it. i could of left if i wanted to. he could of said, alright well, i need someone to work 6 days a week and told me to take a hike. you see, despite what the leftists and hollywood movies portray, an employee/employer relationship is mutually beneficial. how can we deduce this? because if it wasnt beneficial, the employee wouldnt of taken the job, and the employer wouldnt of hired the employee.
  24. i think you are just reading more into it. if a contract is broken, yes. absent this contract, if an employer asks you to work more hours for more money, you can. if dont want to and he says you are fired, you are forgetting that he can cease the relationship for whatever reason he wants, just like you can cease the relationship for whatever you want. what if an employer fires you because you screw something up? what if you quit because you dont like the color shirt your employer wears? all are just examples of ceasing the relationship. what if your contract says you are to be paid X amount of money, but you demand more and say you are going to quit if you dont get it? why is that ok, but if an employer wants you to work more, and says he'll fire you, isnt? we are just talking about technical aspects of voluntary associations. you are also refusing not to accept that the employer owns the company, owns the property and voluntarily contracted with you to work at this business. the association is totally voluntary. you can leave, he can fire you. its that simple. for whatever reason. what if we inverted your logic and said that employers have a right to force you to work at their business whether you want to or not? if an employer cannot voluntarily terminate a relationship, he is just as enslaved as a worker who is forced to work at a business is. it might be a 'threat' but it is not a threat that is considered coercion or initiated aggression or a violation of NAP because you have a right to leave.
×
×
  • Create New...