• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Voting and the Coercive Reality it Perpetuates

I didn't have time to watch all, but I got the idea that the government is the Mafia. Think of it more like a cleaner fish. Your neighbor puts a leach on your side and you swim in and the government eats the leach leaving you a bit lighter and healthier.

Or think of the government as a compost pile. The government takes some of your shit and makes fertilizer out of it. Your garden grows larger and the government makes even more compost. The problem with myopic people who focus only on what they give and not what they get is they they become sick in the head. They start to think the world is out to get them. Often such people turn to libertarianism with quaint little expressions like don't tread on me.
 
No, you aren't alone. There are millions of libertarians ready to follow the Ayn Rand lemmings over the cliff of irresponsibility.

-Robert
 
Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
Originally posted by: Evan
Originally posted by: sandorski
Oh vey.
Click to expand...

This.

It's no wonder Libertarians are widely considered loony. Glad I left the party.
Click to expand...

1) Attack the message, not the messenger.

2) I'm not a Libertarian.
Click to expand...

There's no message to attack, the guy proposes nothing substantial or quantifiable for his solutions. He's a joke as are your kind.
 
Ouch, my kind. That's nice, categorize me and lump me with a negative label.

These are simply philosophical queries, I'm not sure why you're so hostile towards ideas. Here's a question I have, if its considered immoral or unethical to take property or money from another individual through violence or force then is it ethical or moral for the government to force me to pay them for their services and throw me in jail if i don't comply? Is that not stealing by another name?
 
Originally posted by: Evan
Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
Originally posted by: Evan
Originally posted by: sandorski
Oh vey.
Click to expand...

This.

It's no wonder Libertarians are widely considered loony. Glad I left the party.
Click to expand...

1) Attack the message, not the messenger.

2) I'm not a Libertarian.
Click to expand...

There's no message to attack, the guy proposes nothing substantial or quantifiable for his solutions. He's a joke as are your kind.
Click to expand...

So you're just going to claim there's no message because you're incapable of arguing. Got it.

Why not just admit it instead of trying to bullshit?
 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Or think of the government as a compost pile. The government takes some of your shit and makes fertilizer out of it.
Click to expand...

Is the fertilizer made out of dead Iraqi's? If so, the one's Bush killed, or the one's Clinton killed? Both?
 
Originally posted by: sandorski
Name a Civilization without a Government.
Click to expand...

That's the simple and successful argument against Anarchy.

Government is a necessary evil.

People always remember it is necessary, but too often forget it is evil.
 
Originally posted by: Evan
This video is exactly why Libertarians are widely considered loony. Glad I left the party.
Click to expand...

I think all 3rd parties start out loony. They kind of have to, for people to pay any attention to them.

In 2016, the Libertarians and Green party will become the majority parties.
 
This is similar to a thought I had earlier today: the concept of property applies only to the individual. Therefore, there can be no such thing as "government property." The idea is contrary to the entire notion of government by and for the people. I disagree with the idea that coercion is always wrong because I feel that ethical guidelines should be enforced through laws. In my society, the role of voting would be to let the people decide what is considered ethical. Unfortunately, since we are in a world of thriving idiocy and ignorance, my society would likely also fail due to the selfishness and myopia of its members.
 
Originally posted by: SagaLore
In 2016, the Libertarians and Green party will become the majority parties.
Click to expand...

Marked for the sheer lulz of it's laughably callow ignorance.

 
Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
Ouch, my kind. That's nice, categorize me and lump me with a negative label.

These are simply philosophical queries, I'm not sure why you're so hostile towards ideas. Here's a question I have, if its considered immoral or unethical to take property or money from another individual through violence or force then is it ethical or moral for the government to force me to pay them for their services and throw me in jail if i don't comply? Is that not stealing by another name?
Click to expand...

No, it's common sense because no alternative has been suggested that would be superior to government (a collection of average Americans like any body private or public) and which is tasked with overseeing and distributing services. A strong federal gov't dates back to our founding. I cannot help that you do not understand any of it.

Originally posted by: manowar821
Originally posted by: Evan
Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
Originally posted by: Evan
Originally posted by: sandorski
Oh vey.
Click to expand...

This.

It's no wonder Libertarians are widely considered loony. Glad I left the party.
Click to expand...

1) Attack the message, not the messenger.

2) I'm not a Libertarian.
Click to expand...

There's no message to attack, the guy proposes nothing substantial or quantifiable for his solutions. He's a joke as are your kind.
Click to expand...

So you're just going to claim there's no message because you're incapable of arguing. Got it.

Why not just admit it instead of trying to bullshit?
Click to expand...

What's there to BS, I outlined in one sentence exactly why the YouTube video author was completely full of crap; no solutions were given to solve any of the real world problems we face, just a bunch of nonsense about gov't "stealing" money even though you are in no way forced to live in the U.S. to begin with.
 
Originally posted by: SagaLore
Originally posted by: Evan
This video is exactly why Libertarians are widely considered loony. Glad I left the party.
Click to expand...

I think all 3rd parties start out loony. They kind of have to, for people to pay any attention to them.

In 2016, the Libertarians and Green party will become the majority parties.
Click to expand...

Lol, I just set a reminder on my phone for Nov 4th, 2016 to bump this thread.
 
Originally posted by: Evan
A strong federal gov't dates back to our founding.
Click to expand...

:laugh: :laugh:


...you are in no way forced to live in the U.S. to begin with.
Click to expand...

Translation: "And if you don't like it, then leave!"

There's just no room for dissent in a country like the USA. :thumbsup:
 
Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
Ouch, my kind. That's nice, categorize me and lump me with a negative label.

These are simply philosophical queries, I'm not sure why you're so hostile towards ideas. Here's a question I have, if its considered immoral or unethical to take property or money from another individual through violence or force then is it ethical or moral for the government to force me to pay them for their services and throw me in jail if i don't comply? Is that not stealing by another name?
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

wikipedia is how i'm rolling tonight.
 
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
This is similar to a thought I had earlier today: the concept of property applies only to the individual. Therefore, there can be no such thing as "government property." The idea is contrary to the entire notion of government by and for the people. I disagree with the idea that coercion is always wrong because I feel that ethical guidelines should be enforced through laws. In my society, the role of voting would be to let the people decide what is considered ethical. Unfortunately, since we are in a world of thriving idiocy and ignorance, my society would likely also fail due to the selfishness and myopia of its members.
Click to expand...

how do corporations own property?
 
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Evan
A strong federal gov't dates back to our founding.
Click to expand...

:laugh: :laugh:
Click to expand...
actually for the first 12 years, the federal government was fairly assertive, at least relative to the 1800-1860 era

...you are in no way forced to live in the U.S. to begin with.
Click to expand...

Translation: "And if you don't like it, then leave!"

There's just no room for dissent in a country like the USA. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

see that social contract thing above
 
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
This is similar to a thought I had earlier today: the concept of property applies only to the individual. Therefore, there can be no such thing as "government property." The idea is contrary to the entire notion of government by and for the people. I disagree with the idea that coercion is always wrong because I feel that ethical guidelines should be enforced through laws. In my society, the role of voting would be to let the people decide what is considered ethical. Unfortunately, since we are in a world of thriving idiocy and ignorance, my society would likely also fail due to the selfishness and myopia of its members.
Click to expand...

Very nice.

Personally, I see nothing to warrant the notion you can own anything. Suppose in a society of apes, one has a bunch of bananas and the others are starving. Now suppose too, that when all the other apes die the ape with the bananas will die to for lack of social protection. You can see that the ape can't really own the bananas. They must, of necessity, belong to everybody.

Humanity is asleep living in a wrong world. Competition is hate and so so is competition for things.
 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Very nice.

Personally, I see nothing to warrant the notion you can own anything. Suppose in a society of apes, one has a bunch of bananas and the others are starving. Now suppose too, that when all the other apes die the ape with the bananas will die to for lack of social protection. You can see that the ape can't really own the bananas. They must, of necessity, belong to everybody.

Humanity is asleep living in a wrong world. Competition is hate and so so is competition for things.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I think you can own things. However, those things cannot be protected by the rule of law because they can't be stolen.

:music:
And love is not the easy thing
The only baggage that you can bring...
And love is not the easy thing...
The only baggage you can bring
Is all that you can't leave behind

And if the darkness is to keep us apart
And if the daylight feels like it's a long way off
And if your glass heart should crack
And for a second you turn back
Oh no, be strong

Walk on, walk on
What you got they can't steal it
No they can't even feel it
Walk on, walk on...
Stay safe tonight

You're packing a suitcase for a place none of us has been
A place that has to be believed to be seen
You could have flown away
A singing bird in an open cage
Who will only fly, only fly for freedom

Walk on, walk on
What you've got they can't deny it
Can't sell it, or buy it
Walk on, walk on
Stay safe tonight

And I know it aches
And your heart it breaks
And you can only take so much
Walk on, walk on

Home... hard to know what it is if you've never had one
Home... I can't say where it is but I know I'm going home
That's where the hurt is

I know it aches
How your heart it breaks
And you can only take so much
Walk on, walk on
:music:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top