angelofdeath
-
Posts
3,604 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by angelofdeath
-
-
its an m2
-
1911's are great if you know how to run them.
although i am growing less and less fond of the platform every day
-
bottom line before i read anything though, libertarianism is fucking stupid.
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.
-
can you still get the polytech m14 clones in canada easily??? forged receivers but the guts suck
-
I wonder if L. Ron Paul will run 3rd party. One of his campaign staff said it wouldn't happen. But who knows. He may do it to make a "statement."
L. Ron Paul has done well thus far, but he has no chance of getting the Republican nomination. The establishment wouldn't allow it.
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.
-
Someone explain to me the meaning of 'EVOL' picked out of the word Revolution and what that's got to do with anything? Is it like a word search game? If so, I see 'VOL' which can stand for volume in cook books... do I get points for that?
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.
-
^ I never mentioned his military cuts. That aspect of his campaign I do agree with. That clip did not refer to any of the other things he plans to cut/privatize/etc.
If he were elected, four years from now there'd be just as much, if not more, grumbling as there currently is about Obama from people who bought into a candidate with a few good ideas and strong rhetoric who didn't come through on half the shit he talked about. Maybe I'm cynical, but thinking that all of these policies of his would work smoothly (or even be enacted in the first place) is foolish.
Whatever. No one is going to change anyone else's mind here.
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.
-
I gave up at Gravity is just a theory
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
-
I would rather be a statist or a commie rather than someone that has no regard for society or trying to make everyones life better, all I ever get from you is that as long as the person at the top is winning and making money then that is fine, to hell with the people who get downtrodden to that ends, they have no right to moan because they are having a few crumbs thrown at them for all their hard work.
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.
You constantly disregard the actual real world and talk theory, theory doesnt count for shit, it is just theory it hasnt been proven in reality.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.
Why shouldnt there be social justice? why should the poor be left to rot?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.
I am glad that the libertarian view will never make it into the real world via a politician actually being elected to a true position of power because that would just make the rich richer and the poor poorer.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.
you dont have a negotiation to buy fuel, if you have a car you HAVE to buy fuel, I cannot go into a petrol station and barter for a reduction in the cost of the fuel. I know you will say well you could not have a car, but people need to be able to move betweeen places for work.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.
entering into someones home and entering into a position of employment are 2 seperate things, your points are always to such an extreme they are almost laughable and do nothing for your arguements.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
-
sorry maybe I should have put I have a right to not be exploited, you are right, I do not have a right to a job.
'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.
-
my point exactly where I live you do not enter employment without that contract, which will show the terms of which you can cease the association, I already said that without that contractual obligation then people can do what they want
completely unrelated I think my space bar might be breaking
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$.
a contract can be as simple as i described above. even simpler.
every time you trade or buy something, you are entering into a contract. you give them money, they give you the stuff and vice versa. perhaps its just as simple as you havent had the experience of working in a more free, less regulated, or blue collar type working situation and are hung up on the contract one might fill out working for a financial institution.
there is much more to the real world than the corporate world.
im speaking in abstract terms, not in the employment arrangements of someone working for morgan stanley or something. im talking fundamentals to illustrate a point.
the whole point is anyone has a right to cease an association, obviously barring any contractual obligations. we agree on the second part, you just seem to think every business deal should have the utopian anti capitalist 'workers united' oriented stuff tacked on to every employment arrangement. for 'social justice' purposes.
its just an extension of being a statist.
-
minimum wage in theUK is about £6.08 an hour, that is what is deemedliveable,doI think it is, no I dont. But that is what hassbeen agreed on, if people agreed on £50an hour then yea that would cause major problems because it is stupid and most businesses could afford that. It is a balance between allowing business to exist and also for the lowest paid workers to actually have a (supposed) liveable wage. Most people earn above minimum wage so it isn't even relevant in most jobs.
If china thought it could pay a minimum wage of £50 an hour then that would be down to them (a fucking stupid idea if they did but they could do it if they wanted) it wouldnt work out well but they could do it if they wanted.
atleast you acknowledge the principle i am espousing.
the same reason that a person worth 1$ 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.
-
why would you pay someone $1000 an hour for a little ebay shop? again a ludicrous argument as always. Nothing you have said in that first example is even worth answering as it is such a mumbled load of gibberish that has no basis in reality.
because you dont want to 'exploit' anyone.
the same absurdity it is to pay someone 1000$ 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.
Fine you dont care what the law says in regards to employment, fair enough I am just glad I have it to protect me.security in exchange for the animating contest of freedom.
At no point have I said anything about morality of the law, purely what the law says, if the law states salvery is legal then it is legal, doesnt mean I agree with it or think it is right, this is the great thing about thinking for yourself you can decide what you do and dont agree on, I agree with employment law, you don't, employment law has benefitted me many times.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.
At no point have I said that an employer cannot fire an employee or an employee leave a position, just that there are steps that HAVE to be followed to make it happen and telling someone to work a saturday is not a valid reason to fire someone, whether you think it is or not.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.
-
Foriegn aid is something I am not really a lefty on. Maybe if a country has had a major disaster it is nice to give them some money to help but I dont see why the hell we regularly give money to different countries to prop up their corrupt systems.
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.
-
China can do what they want, I am talking about the law that affects me. Same as I dont live in the 3rd world so what happens there is of no relevance to me in this discussion.
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?
I never said passing a law would create prosperity, that is just another one of your extreme examples that never has any basis in reality and never do anything for your arguement. I am trying to talk about things that are actually in the real world, you always come out with these examples that are complete fantasy and would never work in a real world situation.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.
-
because if a company is laying off workers they have to pay redundancy to compensate the employee, if the company cannot afford to pay them then there are routes the worker can go down to claim money back. Businesses go out of business it is a completely different situation to what we have been discussing.
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.
If you think an employer has a right to tell you to take a hike then that is fine, I'm not gonna be pushed around like that. Also it is not within the employers right to tell you to work saturday or fire you, if they give you adequate notice of a change in your working hours then yes that is fine but if your boss comes to you on thursday and says work saturday or your fired then the employer would not havea leg to stand on.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.
-
economically yes, but not for the full spectrum of my political viewpoints
im curious to hear what issues you arent a commie on......:D
-
Just look back to Victorian times where working conditions were awful, wages awful and the employers were basically slave drivers, if you removed employment law from society nowadays do you think that this would benefit the employee?
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?
-
I do agree to a degree. Without a contract of employement then you are right, an employer has the right to basically do whatever they want as does the empoyee, however I find it silly to discuss things that aren't based in real life.
Employment law is a fact of reality and is something all employers are bound by. A cash in hand job is generally a job that isn't offical so you are right you have no leg to stand on as an employee and cash in hand jobs are generally used so the employer can pay substandard wages or avoid the issues of paying tax. Hence why they tend to be illegal (well over herre at least)
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"
-
Discussing employment without recognising this core leaves us arguing from a position of legal positivism which would see an employer-employee relationship as whatever the law says it is. Yet this would not be at all a satisfying definition as it cannot account for the full range of employer-employee relationships that occur within society, of which many are cash based or informal operating outside of the legally defined framework.
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.
-
I am not the 100% lefty that people probably think I am, as I have said many times before I do like to play a bit of devils advocate on here otherwise it would just be a bunch of us agreeing and slapping each other on the back!
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.
-
but what you have stated there AOD is different, your employer asked you if you were able to work more hours, you agreed to this, he didnt say work more hours or I will fire you, there is a distinct difference in the 2 situations, even you must be able to see that.
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.
The employer does not have a right to just fire me for no reason, and me refusing to work additional hours outside my contracted hours is not a justifiable reason to fire someone.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?
I am not enslaving the employer I am just getting them to operate within the guidelines of the law.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
-
basically anyone stupid enough to enter work without a contract of employment deserves to be fucked over by their employer, it is their own stupid fault for not getting in writing the terms and conditions of the employment.
It is straight against the law for an employer to do what you are suggesting, this is why if an employer wants to terminate your position then they need a valid reason for doing so, and to have followed the disciplinary procedures within that business. Sometimes this is really frustrating for the employer but they have to do it. I do not know what kind of lala land people live in if they think it is fine for an empoyer to fire you for not working more hours.
If my contract states I get paid X amount for the hours I work I can, if I want hand in my notice (another thing that is always in a contract of employment) and leave. If I just quit and walk out then the employer can give bad references, reclaim overpayment of wages back from me etc. An employer can request that you change your working hours (again it would be in the contract) subject to them giving you relevant notice, generally 4 weeks.
If you think an empoyer can do whatever the hell they want due to them owning the business then I would have to say I would not want to live in that type of society because employers would fuck their staff left right and centre.
So as far as I am concerned props to the government for having employment laws.
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.
-
I disagree AOD, the example was being told to work more hours or lose your job, if my job is 9-5 then why the hell would I work more hours?
To threaten me with dismissal because I refuse to work more than my hours that were agreed upon is a threat, plain and simple.
You say the employee has no right to force themselves on the employer, what right does the employer have to force their will on me?
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.
gun thread
in Channel Zero
Posted
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