NationStates Jolt Archive

Now, I'm curious. What would you guys think of a government that for the most part stayed out of your day to day life. (Examples: pro-choice, lower drinking age to 18, legalized gambling and prostitution, and let people sleep with who they wanted in their own homes as long as they were over 18.) Also got rid of things like Affirmative Action (Which gives special rights to minorities) and political correctness. (Which tries to control speech.) Also they got rid of things like the FCC. Now when it came to economics though the income tax would not pass 10%, welfare would consist of a free apartment, people who have been laid off would be taken care of (free food etc.) for six months until they could get a new job, and workers could still form unions. (This is a summory of the full theory.)

Now, I'm curious. What would you guys think of a government that for the most part stayed out of your day to day life. (Examples: pro-choice, lower drinking age to 18, legalized gambling and prostitution, and let people sleep with who they wanted in their own homes as long as they were over 18.)

Sounds like Holland.

Also got rid of things like Affirmative Action (Which gives special rights to minorities) and political correctness. (Which tries to control speech.)

Affirmative Action is a bad thing now?

welfare would consist of a free apartment, people who have been laid off would be taken care of (free food etc.) for six months until they could get a new job, and workers could still form unions.
All that on 10% income tax? Doubtful.

I'd like that.

Now, I'm curious. What would you guys think of a government that for the most part stayed out of your day to day life. (Examples: pro-choice, lower drinking age to 18, legalized gambling and prostitution, and let people sleep with who they wanted in their own homes as long as they were over 18.) Also got rid of things like Affirmative Action (Which gives special rights to minorities) and political correctness. (Which tries to control speech.) Also they got rid of things like the FCC.

Alright through this.

Now when it came to economics though the income tax would not pass 10%, welfare would consist of a free apartment, people who have been laid off would be taken care of (free food etc.) for six months until they could get a new job, and workers could still form unions. (This is a summory of the full theory.)

You drifted off into fantasy world here.

Now, I'm curious. What would you guys think of a government that for the most part stayed out of your day to day life. (Examples: pro-choice, lower drinking age to 18, legalized gambling and prostitution, and let people sleep with who they wanted in their own homes as long as they were over 18.) Also got rid of things like Affirmative Action (Which gives special rights to minorities) and political correctness. (Which tries to control speech.) Also they got rid of things like the FCC. Now when it came to economics though

Thats libertarian/Minarchist, most people on General support it.


the income tax would not pass 10%, welfare would consist of a free apartment, people who have been laid off would be taken care of (free food etc.) for six months until they could get a new job, and workers could still form unions. (This is a summory of the full theory.)

Wishful thinking, where the hell are you gonna get all that money with only a 10% income tax rate?

Wasnt there a topic with almost this exact same title not a week ago? And I think you can drop the lead-on act, oxford. Everyone knows what you're talking about.

You drifted off into fantasy world here.
Maybe he was high when he wrote this?


Affirmative Action is a bad thing now?


It's a form of substantive as opposed to formal equality. This is not in the libertarian agenda.

Sounds great.

Affirmative Action is a bad thing now?

"Now?" It was always bad.

"Now?" It was always bad.

I oppose it, but if we consider that government and the people have exploited a segment of the population for its own gain, we could say that a debt is owed.

I don't think that hiring quotas are the answer, but I do understand the rationale.

I oppose it, but if we consider that government and the people have exploited a segment of the population for its own gain, we could say that a debt is owed.

I don't think that hiring quotas are the answer, but I do understand the rationale.

Quotas are usually a bad idea, but Affirmative action is a way of restoring equality to a group of people that had been shit on for 200 years by slavery, Jim Crow, and deep-seated social prejudice

Affirmative Action is a bad thing now?


It is a bad thing. It gives special privledges and therefore destroys the so called "equality" it says it will create. Reverse discrimination.
Yes, I realised the economics were flawed.

Now, I'm curious. What would you guys think of a government that for the most part stayed out of your day to day life. (Examples: pro-choice, lower drinking age to 18, legalized gambling and prostitution, and let people sleep with who they wanted in their own homes as long as they were over 18.)
Sounds like where I live.
Also got rid of things like Affirmative Action (Which gives special rights to minorities) and political correctness. (Which tries to control speech.) Also they got rid of things like the FCC.
Not my cup of tea.
Now when it came to economics though the income tax would not pass 10%, welfare would consist of a free apartment, people who have been laid off would be taken care of (free food etc.) for six months until they could get a new job, and workers could still form unions. (This is a summory of the full theory.)
ROFLMAO

Quotas are usually a bad idea, but Affirmative action is a way of restoring equality to a group of people that had been shit on for 200 years by slavery, Jim Crow, and deep-seated social prejudice
Right - and once it fulfills its purpose, it must go.

It is a bad thing. It gives special privledges and therefore destroys the so called "equality" it says it will create. Reverse discrimination.

No more "special privledges" than any other case of government tort liability (which is horribly lacking).

Wishful thinking, where the hell are you gonna get all that money with only a 10% income tax rate?


He said legalized gambling right? The government will have to run the Casinos, and also rig the lottery. There's your funding money.

He said legalized gambling right? The government will have to run the Casinos, and also rig the lottery. There's your funding money.

Did he also say Nationalized gambling?

Quotas are usually a bad idea, but Affirmative action is a way of restoring equality to a group of people that had been shit on for 200 years by slavery, Jim Crow, and deep-seated social prejudice

So how come Asains aren't under Affirmative Action. Asians have been discriminated against by the government to, and they have been able to become a very sucessful ethnic group.

Economics seems a bit suspicious- probably going to be a lot of monetary inflation for government to pay for it all without taxes. Also, I'm not pro-choice, so I don't like that either.

Right - and once it fulfills its purpose, it must go.

Furthermore, the purpose can largely be filled through general public welfare systems, as long as government is indiscriminatory.

It is a bad thing. It gives special privledges and therefore destroys the so called "equality" it says it will create. Reverse discrimination.
Yes, I realised the economics were flawed.

Affirmative Action in principle is not a bad thing (such as targeted funding for urban/minority areas) but racial quotas are unconstitutional IMO.

Did he also say Nationalized gambling?

no he did not, i suggested that to try and make sense of the economics.

Furthermore, the purpose can largely be filled through general public welfare systems, as long as government is indiscriminatory.
I agree - targetting all those in need rather than specific groups is best.

So how come Asains aren't under Affirmative Action. Asians have been discriminated against by the government to, and they have been able to become a very sucessful ethnic group.

Because Affirmative Action is not about race.

Because Affirmative Action is not about race.

Yes, it is. Affirmative Action is what says you must take this black man or women over this white or asian man for a college spot.

So how come Asains aren't under Affirmative Action. Asians have been discriminated against by the government to, and they have been able to become a very sucessful ethnic group.

Mhm, hence they do not need aid in the form of Affirmative Action. However, a kid coming from a ghetto in downtown Detrot who will be the first in his family to go to college, who has had a horrible education at a public school system infested with street gangs, is gonna need a bit of help in order to become successful.

Now, I'm curious. What would you guys think of a government that for the most part stayed out of your day to day life. (Examples: pro-choice, lower drinking age to 18, legalized gambling and prostitution, and let people sleep with who they wanted in their own homes as long as they were over 18.)

All fine so far.

Also got rid of things like Affirmative Action (Which gives special rights to minorities)

Bad. It does give "special rights" in a sense - but only in the sense that the fire department targets the house that's on fire and not the one that's not.

and political correctness. (Which tries to control speech.)

How in the world would you get rid of political correctness?

Also they got rid of things like the FCC.

Both good and bad; it plays a valuable regularity function in preventing media concentration, but its censorship is bad.

Now when it came to economics though the income tax would not pass 10%,

Bad. Social services should have more funding.

welfare would consist of a free apartment,

It should extend a little further than that.

people who have been laid off would be taken care of (free food etc.) for six months until they could get a new job,

Delete the "for six months" part and I have no problem.

and workers could still form unions.

How generous of you.

Yes, it is. Affirmative Action is what says you must take this black man or women over this white or asian man for a college spot.

No, it is about perpetuated socio-economic disadvantages.

It only so happens that a great many of those trapped in this cycle are black.

Advocating the destruction of human lives on a scale that dwarfs the Holocaust is morally bankrupt. The government must make killing innocent babies illegal.

I don't think that hiring quotas are the answer

Quotas are illegal (except, IIRC, in highly exceptional circumstances.)

Advocating the destruction of human lives on a scale that dwarfs the Holocaust is morally bankrupt. The government must make killing innocent babies illegal.

o_O where in the hell did that come from?

Now, I'm curious. What would you guys think of a government that for the most part stayed out of your day to day life. (Examples: pro-choice, lower drinking age to 18, legalized gambling and prostitution, and let people sleep with who they wanted in their own homes as long as they were over 18.)
That sounds pretty good... I can see some problems, but the general idea is ok.
Also got rid of things like Affirmative Action (Which gives special rights to minorities) and political correctness. (Which tries to control speech.) Also they got rid of things like the FCC.
Not as good. Affirmative Action, while certainly not a perfect system, has a very valid purpose. Hopefully there will come a time when it can be phased out because it is no longer needed, but we are not there yet. How would you cut out political correctness? What specifically would you do there? Part of political correctness is that EVERYBODY gets to have their say. Yes, the part where one group is censored to protect another group BY AND LARGE should not happen... but when one group uses free speech to advocate and promote violence against another, there is a reason to protect the second group. It is a delicate balance that needs to be carefully watched. The FCC, well, yes and no. Certainly less by way of censorship, but some of the FCC regulations mean that smaller stations, ones with less financial power, are not crowded out entirely, and so other viewpoints can still be heard. That would be a bad thing to lose.
Now when it came to economics though the income tax would not pass 10%, welfare would consist of a free apartment, people who have been laid off would be taken care of (free food etc.) for six months until they could get a new job, and workers could still form unions. (This is a summory of the full theory.)
If you could manage all that on 10%, I would almost be willing to forgive you some of the things I don't agree with. I seriously doubt, however, that you could accomplish this with 100% taxes, and I don't THINK communism is where you are headed. Without revamping the entire economy (for instance with EXTREMELY strict rent controls) how would you accomplish this on 10% taxes?

Advocating the destruction of human lives on a scale that dwarfs the Holocaust is morally bankrupt. The government must make killing innocent babies illegal.
Someone post the "Aww geez, not this shit again" image please. :)

o_O where in the hell did that come from?
Pro-choice.

Someone post the "Aww geez, not this shit again" image please. :)

http://limewoody.wordpress.com/files/2006/03/aw_jeez_not_this_shit_again2.jpg

Now, I'm curious. What would you guys think of a government that for the most part stayed out of your day to day life. (Examples: pro-choice, lower drinking age to 18, legalized gambling and prostitution, and let people sleep with who they wanted in their own homes as long as they were over 18.) Also got rid of things like Affirmative Action (Which gives special rights to minorities) and political correctness. (Which tries to control speech.) Also they got rid of things like the FCC. Now when it came to economics though the income tax would not pass 10%, welfare would consist of a free apartment, people who have been laid off would be taken care of (free food etc.) for six months until they could get a new job, and workers could still form unions. (This is a summory of the full theory.)

Not perfect, but it's an improvement over what we have now. I could live under that sort of goverment, and be moderately happy.

Advocating the destruction of human lives on a scale that dwarfs the Holocaust is morally bankrupt. The government must make killing innocent babies illegal.

Just think, if you had been aborted, you wouldn't have to deal with this horrible, misguided outrage.

The absense of life is much, much easier.

And killing babies is illegal.

Pro-choice.

oh, I see.

I thought Means had really lost it there. lol.

o_O where in the hell did that come from?

Remember, Trolls live under bridges and like to EAT babies... so if we let the government kill the babies (and I think he is trying to make some sort of anti-abortion case here... albeit a very weak one) then trolls will have nothing to eat.

Especially if we don't feed them here. :p

http://limewoody.wordpress.com/files/2006/03/aw_jeez_not_this_shit_again2.jpg

Danke schoen. :)

Now, I'm curious. What would you guys think of a government that for the most part stayed out of your day to day life. (Examples: pro-choice, lower drinking age to 18, legalized gambling and prostitution, and let people sleep with who they wanted in their own homes as long as they were over 18.) Also got rid of things like Affirmative Action (Which gives special rights to minorities) and political correctness. (Which tries to control speech.) Also they got rid of things like the FCC. Now when it came to economics though the income tax would not pass 10%, welfare would consist of a free apartment, people who have been laid off would be taken care of (free food etc.) for six months until they could get a new job, and workers could still form unions. (This is a summory of the full theory.)

That's libertarianism, in a nutshell.

Besides, conservatives think the gov't has to regulate morality to save society from itself, and liberals think the gov't has to regulate the economy to save individuals from themselves.

That's libertarianism, in a nutshell.

Besides, conservatives think the gov't has to regulate morality to save society from itself, and liberals think the gov't has to regulate the economy to save individuals from themselves.
Lol, quite apt. :)

That's libertarianism, in a nutshell.

Besides, conservatives think the gov't has to regulate morality to save society from itself, and liberals think the gov't has to regulate the economy to save individuals from themselves.

Bingo. well said.

It is a bad thing. It gives special privledges and therefore destroys the so called "equality" it says it will create. Reverse discrimination.

Have you ever even bothered to consider the arguments in favor of it?

When we achieve genuine racial equality in this country, then I will oppose "special privledges" for anyone just as vociferously as you do, but as it is, affirmative action amounts to a start - and just a start - towards repairing the damage centuries of racism and oppression have done, damage that continues to harm its victims today.

Have you ever even bothered to consider the arguments in favor of it?

When we achieve genuine racial equality in this country, then I will oppose "special privledges" for anyone just as vociferously as you do, but as it is, affirmative action amounts to a start - and just a start - towards repairing the damage centuries of racism and oppression have done, damage that continues to harm its victims today.

The races aren't equal in this country? How?

and liberals think the gov't has to regulate the economy to save individuals from themselves.

This is a straw man (as you surely know.)

The races aren't equal in this country? How?

maybe he thinks some races are lesser than others, deep down inside?

This is a straw man (as you surely know.)
Yet the bit on Conservatives isn't? ;)

Someone post the "Aww geez, not this shit again" image please. :)

I was just posting my thoughts on this appalling and morally abhorrent outrage. The US, for example, slaughters unborn babies by the millions each year -- it's depraved. One must be quite insecure and hateful, indeed, to want to murder such an innocent and helpless creature. I'm sure Hitler felt the same way when massacring the Jews and company.

I was just posting my thoughts on this appalling and morally abhorrent outrage. The US, for example, slaughters unborn babies by the millions each year -- it's depraved. One must be quite insecure and hateful, indeed, to want to murder such an innocent and helpless creature. I'm sure Hitler felt the same way when massacring the Jews and company.
Reductio ad Hitlerum. Yay.

Yet the bit on Conservatives isn't? ;)


noticed that too huh?

This is a straw man (as you surely know.)

Well, to be fair, both sides of the statement had the same generalizations going on, not just the description of the liberals. But if you HAD to 'nutshell' it, the whole statement wasn't a bad extremely simplified generalization that didn't really address issues at all.

Reductio ad Hitlerum. Yay.

It's not my fault that the ideas of liberals on killing babies closely mimic those of Hitler on killing Jews. Maybe this argument would not be necessary if liberals valued human life.

I was just posting my thoughts on this appalling and morally abhorrent outrage. The US, for example, slaughters unborn babies by the millions each year -- it's depraved. One must be quite insecure and hateful, indeed, to want to murder such an innocent and helpless creature. I'm sure Hitler felt the same way when massacring the Jews and company.

WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO BE FORCED TO LIVE BY CHRISTIAN MORALS?
What if my morals says it is alright to abort something that isn't anything more than three cells?

Danke schoen. :)

*insert "you're welcome" in Afrikaans*

(I'm assuming you're Afrikaner)

This is a straw man (as you surely know.)

Not at all. I think I know better how to spend my money than the government. Is this really such a radical idea?

Of course we need taxes to fund things like education and the military, but not pet projects or affirmative action.

*insert "you're welcome" in Afrikaans*

(I'm assuming you're Afrikaner)
Good assumption, but unfortunately I was educated in French instead of Afrikaans. :)

Not at all. I think I know better how to spend my money than the government. Is this really such a radical idea?

Of course we need taxes to fund things like education and the military, but not pet projects or affirmative action.

Exactley.

The races aren't equal in this country? How?

Oh, I dunno, the fact that some races live in Appalling poverty and destitution devoid of virtually any chance of becoming successful and breaking the poverty cycle. Whereas others live in affluence with bright, hopeful prospects for the future.

Just because one isn't openly discriminated against doesn't mean they're equal.

It's not my fault that the ideas of liberals on killing babies closely mimic those of Hitler on killing Jews. Maybe this argument would not be necessary if liberals valued human life.
And the reductio continues ad infinitum. Rinse, wash and repeat.

Seriously, at least develop some real arguments.

I was just posting my thoughts on this appalling and morally abhorrent outrage. The US, for example, slaughters unborn babies by the millions each year -- it's depraved. One must be quite insecure and hateful, indeed, to want to murder such an innocent and helpless creature. I'm sure Hitler felt the same way when massacring the Jews and company.

Unborn "fetuses".

I agree with you that abortion is immoral in many cases, but the choice should be left to the individual. You can't enforce morality, my friend. The one person who shouldn't decide whether a woman can have an abortion is a bureaucrat.

Good assumption, but unfortunately I was educated in French instead of Afrikaans. :)

What background are you?

WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO BE FORCED TO LIVE BY CHRISTIAN MORALS?

The sanctity of human life is not just a Christian moral. In the Constitution, it says we all have the right to life -- nobody has the right to take that away unless you have committed a heinous act. An unborn baby is completely innocent of any such act and thus deserves to have the right to life. You can't decide to execute an innocent creature because of your moral depravity. Society needs to step in there and prevent a murderer from claiming another victim.

Oh, I dunno, the fact that some races live in Appalling poverty and destitution devoid of virtually any chance of becoming successful and breaking the poverty cycle. Whereas others live in affluence with bright, hopeful prospects for the future.

That is based on social class not race. Their are plenty of poor whites that will remain trailer trash and breed more of it.

The races aren't equal in this country? How?

Economically, most obviously.

Politically, a little less so, but still fairly clearly.

Oh, I dunno, the fact that some races live in Appalling poverty and destitution devoid of virtually any chance of becoming successful and breaking the poverty cycle. Whereas others live in affluence with bright, hopeful prospects for the future.

I tend to think that you as an individual can do more for yourself than the government can possibly do. Even if you are born in the ghetto, that doesn't stop you from becoming middle class. You don't even need to go to a fancy college. Get a community college degree in a profession that's needed, like nursing, for example, and you will make good money.

The culture of victimization does far more harm to poor people than racism or destitution.

What background are you?
Oh no, you guessed right - I am part Afrikaans, as well as some Greek, English and German.

This is a straw man (as you surely know.)

The mainstream modern liberal sees market regulation in the sense that he described, not as a leveler, but as a safety net so that no one can really hurt themselves financially.

WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO BE FORCED TO LIVE BY CHRISTIAN MORALS?
What if my morals says it is alright to abort something that isn't anything more than three cells?


Well it's not just about Christian morals and abortion usually involves a fetus that is more than 3 cells. especially in the second trimester where the images of the act are frightening. The fetus literally swims away and it is believed that pain is felt. You do not have to be a Christian to feel uneasy about this.

as far as 3 cell embryonic research goes, i am all for that. especially when they will be discarded anyway.

In the Constitution, it says we all have the right to life -- nobody has the right to take that away unless you have committed a heinous act.

Does the Constitution prohibit stepping on ants?

I would love to live in a socialist society.

MTAE, ironically, it's liberals who are more anti-abortion than conservatives. They want sex education, contraceptives, etc., to be widely available, so unwanted pregnancies don't happen in the first place, and thus, so abortions are rare. Outlawing abortions just creates a black market.

Does the Constitution prohibit stepping on ants?

I hope not. :(

That is based on social class not race. Their are plenty of poor whites that will remain trailer trash and breed more of it.

Exactly. Unfortunately a huge proportion of the people living below the poverty line are black, thus more black people will be eligible for affirmative action. Affirmative action should be open to anyone in the poverty cycle, it just so happens that a majority of people in the poverty cycle, are black.

Well it's not just about Christian morals and abortion usually involves a fetus that is more than 3 cells. especially in the second trimester where the images of the act are frightening. The fetus literally swims away and it is believed that pain is felt. You do not have to be a Christian to feel uneasy about this.

I don't know about the fetus swimming away, or any of the actual procedures of abortion. Why? Because it has no bearing on the issue.

Exactly. Unfortunately a huge proportion of the people living below the poverty line are black, thus more black people will be eligible for affirmative action. Affirmative action should be open to anyone in the poverty cycle, it just so happens that a majority of people in the poverty cycle, are black.
Then we might as well simply call it welfare and leave it at that. :)

Does the Constitution prohibit stepping on ants?

are you likening a fetus to an ant?

The sanctity of human life is not just a Christian moral. In the Constitution, it says we all have the right to life -- nobody has the right to take that away unless you have committed a heinous act. An unborn baby is completely innocent of any such act and thus deserves to have the right to life. You can't decide to execute an innocent creature because of your moral depravity. Society needs to step in there and prevent a murderer from claiming another victim.

But your definition of what constitutes life IS a Christian moral. The courts, however, have determined that it is NOT the one we are going to work with legally.

So no one is murdering anyone.

Does the Constitution prohibit stepping on ants?

lol! I just got a vision of MeansToAnEnd as a Jain monk in my head.

The mainstream modern liberal sees market regulation in the sense that he described, not as a leveler, but as a safety net so that no one can really hurt themselves financially.

Well, firstly, I don't think that's true. Lots of mainstream liberals express concern about the cycle of poverty and socioeconomic marginalization, and for economic justice.

Secondly, the individual is simply not responsible for everything that happens to her financially.

Well, firstly, I don't think that's true. Lots of mainstream liberals express concern about the cycle of poverty and socioeconomic marginalization, and for economic justice.
Are we speaking about American liberals or liberals proper?

I don't know about the fetus swimming away, or any of the actual procedures of abortion. Why? Because it has no bearing on the issue.


well i do not want to get deep into a debate about abortion, since my own views are conflicted on the issue, but the actual process of abortion is very relevant to the issue itself. The whole debate is when does life begin. studying the fetus and its behavior during the "abortion window" is very important.

also, this "abortion window" extends all the way to the 3rd trimester, which i am definitely against because the child is fully formed by then and his/her brains sucked out of the skull.

are you likening a fetus to an ant?

I find his assumption that the "right to life" has universal application to be ludicrous.

We all make distinctions, and if you want to be intellectually honest, you should acknowledge that the real question is about where we should draw the line - not whether we should draw it.

But your definition of what constitutes life IS a Christian moral.

Are you suggesting that a fetus is dead? I assure you -- it is alive, whatever activist judges say. I don't recall them ever receiving a Ph.D. in biology. If it can develop into a walking, talking human being, it is alive.

Are we speaking about American liberals or liberals proper?

I'm assuming that RockTheCasbah was referring to the American variety - that is, sickeningly moderate leftists.

lol! I just got a vision of MeansToAnEnd as a Jain monk in my head.

Wow! There is an image that causes a huge cognitive dissonance.

Are you suggesting that a fetus is dead? I assure you -- it is alive, whatever activist judges say. I don't recall them ever receiving a Ph.D. in biology. If it can develop into a walking, talking human being, it is alive.

So my sperm is alive?

I'm assuming that RockTheCasbah was referring to the American variety - that is, sickeningly moderate leftists.

Well, I consider them sickeningly leftists leftists. ;)

We all make distinctions, and if you want to be intellectually honest, you should acknowledge that the real question is about where we should draw the line - not whether we should draw it.

Yes, the most pressing philosophic question of our times: should stepping on ants be outlawed? Are you high, or a vegetarian or something? I thought that any rational man would conclude that the US Constitution was not, in fact, referring to ants. Apparently, somebody didn't get that memo. Every human being has a right to life provided he did not commit one of several crimes; a fetus is a human being which is innocent of any crimes. Therefore, it has a right to life.

Well, I consider them sickeningly leftists leftists. ;)

I consider Leninists to be excessively right-wing, so my descriptions will rarely, if ever, match with yours.

Are you suggesting that a fetus is dead? I assure you -- it is alive, whatever activist judges say. I don't recall them ever receiving a Ph.D. in biology. If it can develop into a walking, talking human being, it is alive.

I am suggesting it is a fetus... not a baby. It is not viable, (that is it is unable to survive on its own) and is, in many ways, a parasite. If the mother chooses to continue to support the fetus until it IS viable, then it becomes a baby. Until then, abortion is not the murder of a baby.

I consider Leninists to be excessively right-wing, so my descriptions will rarely, if ever, match with yours.
Haha that's sort of like some liberals proper considering Bush to be a Communist. :)

Yes, the most pressing philosophic question of our times: should stepping on ants be outlawed? Are you high, or a vegetarian or something? I thought that any rational man would conclude that the US Constitution was not, in fact, referring to ants. Apparently, somebody didn't get that memo. Every human being has a right to life provided he did not commit one of several crimes; a fetus is a human being which is innocent of any crimes. Therefore, it has a right to life.

Nope. A fetus is not a human being. It has the potential to become one, but so does every egg and sperm.

Haha that's sort of like some liberals proper considering Bush to be a Communist. :)

Not really. A dictatorship is actually quite right-wing.

I am suggesting it is a fetus... not a baby.

You or somebody else previously claimed that a fetus is not alive, which is a blatant lie. It is repulsive to look upon an unborn baby as a "parasite." I look upon any liberal who considers an unborn baby a parasite as a parasite to society.

Yes, the most pressing philosophic question of our times: should stepping on ants be outlawed? Are you high, or a vegetarian or something?

I am not "high"; drugs are the opiate of the masses.

Nor am I a vegetarian, but I'll grant any day that Peter Singer and those who agree with him have a good point, enough of one that I've begun to seriously consider the option.

I thought that any rational man would conclude that the US Constitution was not, in fact, referring to ants. Apparently, somebody didn't get that memo.

This observation would be a brilliant one, but for the fact that I did not mean that the US Constitution was referring to ants. (Obviously.)

Every human being has a right to life provided he did not commit one of several crimes; a fetus is a human being which is innocent of any crimes. Therefore, it has a right to life.

What is it about a human being that gives her a right to life?

Nope. A fetus is not a human being. It has the potential to become one, but so does every egg and sperm.

Ah, so what is it then? A blue whale? A monkey? A snake? Perhaps two fused platypi? No; it's a human being that will become a full-fledged baby as it grows and develops.

I consider Leninists to be excessively right-wing, so my descriptions will rarely, if ever, match with yours.

How the hell are Leninists right-wing?

Not really. A dictatorship is actually quite right-wing.

No. A dictatorship can be quite left-wing, as well.

Haha that's sort of like some liberals proper considering Bush to be a Communist. :)

Well, I didn't say they advocated capitalism; I just said they were excessively right-wing.

"Excessive" is, of course, a relative term.

Not really. A dictatorship is actually quite right-wing.
Bush is leftwards of most libertarians when it comes to economics - this is what they mean. It's just a parody of certain libertarians who take things to excesses.

How the hell are Leninists right-wing?

He wanted a smaller government, namely him. ;)

Ah, so what is it then? A blue whale? A monkey? A snake? Perhaps two fused platypi? No; it's a human being that will become a full-fledged baby as it grows and develops.

I don't think he was saying that a fetus is of a completely different species. Also, more babies are lost to miscarriages than to abortion, sometimes even before the woman knows she's pregnant. Should that be murder (if on purpose), or involuntary manslaughter?

Ah, so what is it then? A blue whale? A monkey? A snake? Perhaps two fused platypi? No; it's a human being that will become a full-fledged baby as it grows and develops.

A fetus inside the human womb is a mass of flesh and some underdeveloped organs. You can go ahead and call that human, if you like, but I prefer a different term. "Delicacy." Its sorta like veal.

As a libertarian, it sounds great to me. Although I would prefer the income tax replaced with a sales tax.

A fetus inside the human womb is a mass of flesh and some underdeveloped organs. You can go ahead and call that human, if you like, but I prefer a different term. "Delicacy." Its sorta like veal.

you are so flame-baiting.

You or somebody else previously claimed that a fetus is not alive, which is a blatant lie. It is repulsive to look upon an unborn baby as a "parasite." I look upon any liberal who considers an unborn baby a parasite as a parasite to society.

I did not say a fetus was not alive.

*sigh* EFFECTIVELY a parasite. Meaning it has the basic qualities of a parasitic lifeform. Because you are too lazy to go look up parasite, I will include a definition here...

par·a·site
n.
Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

Now, I'm curious. What would you guys think of a government that for the most part stayed out of your day to day life. (Examples: pro-choice, lower drinking age to 18, legalized gambling and prostitution, and let people sleep with who they wanted in their own homes as long as they were over 18.) Also got rid of things like Affirmative Action (Which gives special rights to minorities) and political correctness. (Which tries to control speech.) Also they got rid of things like the FCC. Now when it came to economics though the income tax would not pass 10%, welfare would consist of a free apartment, people who have been laid off would be taken care of (free food etc.) for six months until they could get a new job, and workers could still form unions. (This is a summory of the full theory.)

That is more or less, what Liberals defend, save maybe for affirmative action.

It is what I defend as a Liberal. And not in spite of being a liberal. It is because I am a liberal that I believe in these ideas.

However I don't believe in playing populist peter with taxes. There are economic conjectures where they have to be raised. picking a number... oh let's say... 10%... and Keeping them low when it will do nothing but harm, is populism. As far as welfare is concerned, I believe in a tough-love welfare system, as long as it is accompanied with an effective child-benefit and support system, to help unemployed parents find jobs, without worrying about their children as much.

Perhaps one major difference between today's Liberals and conservatives is this. I as a Liberal believe in public delivery health-care system. In other words, NO CORPORATE HANDOUTS TO THE HEALTH INDUSTRY. Conservatives are bent on making disease and sickness a business asset.

How the hell are Leninists right-wing?

"Vladimir Ilyich, your concrete actions are completely unworthy of the ideas you pretend to hold." - Peter Kropotkin

Leninists wish to maintain class distinctions and exclusive rule until capitalism has been smashed; I do not.

"Vladimir Ilyich, your concrete actions are completely unworthy of the ideas you pretend to hold." - Peter Kropotkin

Leninists wish to maintain class distinctions and exclusive rule until the capitalists have been smashed; I do not.

Lenin was extremely left-wing. He favored a 100% centrally planned economy, with no private property, no free market, etc.

"Delicacy." Its sorta like veal.

This is the reason why I despise most liberals -- they make jokes about things like ingesting human babies; it's grotesque. It also has basis in truth -- while you may not be actually eating the babies, you are killing them so you can be more comfortable. A such action is almost equally repugnant.

No. A dictatorship can be quite left-wing, as well.


I agree, a look at Venezuela confims this. Oh yea, and the Soviet Union. Oh yea, and North Korea too.

Lenin was extremely left-wing. He favored a 100% centrally planned economy, with no private property, no free market, etc.

That does not make him left-wing.

Leftism does not necessarily have anything necessarily to do with central planning or state intervention in the economy; it is essentially an attack on class society. That is why there are such things as free-market socialists.

Ah, so what is it then? A blue whale? A monkey? A snake? Perhaps two fused platypi? No; it's a human being that will become a full-fledged baby as it grows and develops.

It is a FETUS (and before that it is an embryo...). Were you not paying attention? Shall I go look up fetus for you too?

It is a human fetus, but it is not a baby till it is born.

It is a human fetus, but it is not a baby till it is born.

It is a human fetus. It is a human individual. It is human life. I don't want to play your shrewd semantics games, here, where you constantly switch the tables on me. You didn't have an issue with my classification of a fetus as a baby; you said that it wasn't even human!

This is the reason why I despise most liberals -- they make jokes about things like ingesting human babies; it's grotesque. It also has basis in truth -- while you may not be actually eating the babies, you are killing them so you can be more comfortable. A such action is almost equally repugnant.

Most liberals make jokes about things like ingesting human babies? I think I would very much like to see any proof that backs THAT one up. If you have none I will assume your silence to be an apology for that statement, which is unnecessarily offensive.

Now, I'm curious. What would you guys think of a government that for the most part stayed out of your day to day life. (Examples: pro-choice, lower drinking age to 18, legalized gambling and prostitution, and let people sleep with who they wanted in their own homes as long as they were over 18.) Also got rid of things like Affirmative Action (Which gives special rights to minorities) and political correctness. (Which tries to control speech.) Also they got rid of things like the FCC. Now when it came to economics though the income tax would not pass 10%, welfare would consist of a free apartment, people who have been laid off would be taken care of (free food etc.) for six months until they could get a new job, and workers could still form unions. (This is a summory of the full theory.)Wouldn't you mean "raise the drinking age to 18"?

It is a human fetus. It is a human individual. It is human life.

So?

It is a human fetus. It is a human individual. It is human life. I don't want to play your shrewd semantics games, here, where you constantly switch the tables on me. You didn't have an issue with my classification of a fetus as a baby; you said that it wasn't even human!

yes, he said it was an embryo, which funnily enough, is what it is.

This is the reason why I despise most liberals -- they make jokes about things like ingesting human babies; it's grotesque. It also has basis in truth -- while you may not be actually eating the babies, you are killing them so you can be more comfortable. A such action is almost equally repugnant.

Cannibalism can't be funny?

which is unnecessarily offensive.

You find my statement more offensive than one regarding the cannibalism of babies? That says it all.

It is a human fetus. It is a human individual. It is human life. I don't want to play your shrewd semantics games, here, where you constantly switch the tables on me. You didn't have an issue with my classification of a fetus as a baby; you said that it wasn't even human!

No semantics. It is a human fetus. But a fetus is NOT a viable life until it is born. Which is what I have been saying all along. A fetus leads a parasitic existance up until it IS viable (birth) at which point it becomes a baby.

And abortion becomes illegal before a fetus is viable. So your objection to 'killing a baby' does not hold water. A fetus is not a baby until it is born.

You find my statement more offensive than one regarding the cannibalism of babies? That says it all.

So you have no facts to back up your inane claim? I thought not. Apology accepted.

Wouldn't you mean "raise the drinking age to 18"?

I live in the US the drinking age is 21.

"Vladimir Ilyich, your concrete actions are completely unworthy of the ideas you pretend to hold." - Peter Kropotkin

Leninists wish to maintain class distinctions and exclusive rule until capitalism has been smashed; I do not.

Kropotkyn was the by far greatest of the lot. Hat's off to him.

I live in the US the drinking age is 21.Might want to specify that, considering that this is a British server running a forum to a game owned by an Australian with people from all over the world participating ;)

It is a human fetus. It is a human individual. It is human life. I don't want to play your shrewd semantics games, here, where you constantly switch the tables on me. You didn't have an issue with my classification of a fetus as a baby; you said that it wasn't even human!

I'm sure it's something to do with your intelligence as to why you don't understand his argument. Or maybe your brain is off. I don't know.

Yet the bit on Conservatives isn't? ;)

Missed this, sorry.

No, it actually isn't. In fact, it's a decent summation of cultural conservatism - an effort to restrict behavior within a society for the sake of that society, whether the motive is preserving tradition, appeasing God, or just promoting order and stability.

I'm sure it's something to do with your intelligence as to why you don't understand his argument. Or maybe your brain is off. I don't know.

(I am a Her, but that's ok!)

MTAE is being deliberately obtuse, because it doesn't suit the basis of his argument to understand what I am saying. If he can admit to understanding the actual scientific definition of fetus, the whole "this is NOT a Christian morality issue" house of cards falls flat.

(I am a Her, but that's ok!)

MTAE is being deliberately obtuse, because it doesn't suit the basis of his argument to understand what I am saying. If he can admit to understanding the actual scientific definition of fetus, the whole "this is NOT a Christian morality issue" house of cards falls flat.

Ohh sorry. Well, at least I know you're a woman now.

Missed this, sorry.

No, it actually isn't. In fact, it's a decent summation of cultural conservatism - an effort to restrict behavior within a society for the sake of that society, whether the motive is preserving tradition, appeasing God, or just promoting order and stability.
Perhaps it is characteristic of social conservatism, yes, but not of all conservatives, as he put it. Neither would the stereotype he used for liberals characterise all of them. Both are blatant stereotypes, which is the point. :)

Perhaps it is characteristic of social conservatism, yes, but not of all conservatives, as he put it. Neither would the stereotype he used for liberals characterise all of them. Both are blatant stereotypes, which is the point. :)

The difference is that while his depiction of conservatives (as distinguished from libertarians) is valid, if overgeneralized, his depiction of liberals is simply a straw man.

well i do not want to get deep into a debate about abortion, since my own views are conflicted on the issue, but the actual process of abortion is very relevant to the issue itself. The whole debate is when does life begin. studying the fetus and its behavior during the "abortion window" is very important.

also, this "abortion window" extends all the way to the 3rd trimester, which i am definitely against because the child is fully formed by then and his/her brains sucked out of the skull.
I can argue abortion rights till the cows come home, but I have no intention of feeding the MTAE troll. I just want to point out that there is no such thing as an elective third trimester abortion. Elective abortion is banned well before the start of the third trimester. Anti-choice groups routinely claim third trimester abortions as a reason to ban abortion, but the fact is that they are extremely rare and ONLY done out of medical necessity -- either to save the life of the mother or, more likely, because the fetus has already died in utero. So those sucked-out brains? Those were sucked out of a corpse, not a living being.

So I will assume that you do not believe that a woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy even if it will kill her, and that you do not believe that a woman should be forced to keep the festering corpse of a dead fetus inside her, and that therefore you will feel reassured by being told that there are no elective third trimester abortions.

Also got rid of things like... ...political correctness. (Which tries to control speech.)

Political correctness isn't a policy, it's just the fact that if you don't take measures to be politically correct, you will offend people. Recently, it has been very important to at least seem very tolerant and integrated, so many politicians and politically active people have been doing it, of their own free will, because they don't want to offend people.

Now, I'm curious. What would you guys think of a government that for the most part stayed out of your day to day life. (Examples: pro-choice, lower drinking age to 18, legalized gambling and prostitution, and let people sleep with who they wanted in their own homes as long as they were over 18.) Also got rid of things like Affirmative Action (Which gives special rights to minorities) and political correctness. (Which tries to control speech.) Also they got rid of things like the FCC. Now when it came to economics though the income tax would not pass 10%, welfare would consist of a free apartment, people who have been laid off would be taken care of (free food etc.) for six months until they could get a new job, and workers could still form unions. (This is a summory of the full theory.)

Where does the money come from?

Sounds like a new centrist government smoking dope.

Why should it be the government's job (and ability) to steal money from citizens to provide the unemployed with free apartments and free food?

Why should it be the government's job (and ability) to steal money from citizens to provide the unemployed with free apartments and free food?Because that's what it's there fore :)

I am suggesting it is a fetus... not a baby. It is not viable, (that is it is unable to survive on its own) and is, in many ways, a parasite. If the mother chooses to continue to support the fetus until it IS viable, then it becomes a baby. Until then, abortion is not the murder of a baby.


From the Dictionary:

fe·tus
n. pl. fe·tus·es
1) The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
2) In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.


par·a·site
n.
1) Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
2) One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return.

A Parasite (http://www.medicine.cmu.ac.th/dept/parasite/arthro/scab1.jpg)

Effect of the Parasite on "host" (http://www.medicine.cmu.ac.th/dept/parasite/arthro/scab3.jpg)

The Unborn Fetus (http://missionxp.webblogg.se/images/fetus_sucking_thumb_1137581244.jpg)

A Fetus not human? (http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/babysamuel.htm)

Effect of the Baby on "host" (http://www.nal.usda.gov/wicworks/Sharing_Center/DC/DCnursingmother.jpg)

Well make up your own mind. But if you want to use cold logic and play word games, then you might as well euthanize the mentally retarded, accident victims, abandoned or orphaned babies/toddlers and the elderly because they cannot take care of themselves and are a leach to society. Too bad they didn't get rid of Christy Brown or Stephen Hawking, it's not like they have contributed anything.

I personally find the comparison of an unborn child to something like a tick, reprehensible. Even soulless.

Now, I'm curious. What would you guys think of a government that for the most part stayed out of your day to day life. (Examples: pro-choice, lower drinking age to 18, legalized gambling and prostitution, and let people sleep with who they wanted in their own homes as long as they were over 18.) Also got rid of things like Affirmative Action (Which gives special rights to minorities) and political correctness. (Which tries to control speech.) Also they got rid of things like the FCC. Now when it came to economics though the income tax would not pass 10%, welfare would consist of a free apartment, people who have been laid off would be taken care of (free food etc.) for six months until they could get a new job, and workers could still form unions. (This is a summory of the full theory.)

too liberal.

I personally find the comparison of an unborn child to something like a tick, reprehensible. Even soulless.

its not soulless, its stupid.
all imigrants are terrorists?

I don't think he was saying that a fetus is of a completely different species. Also, more babies are lost to miscarriages than to abortion, sometimes even before the woman knows she's pregnant. Should that be murder (if on purpose), or involuntary manslaughter?

that would be more like sudden infant death syndrome where it is nobody's fault.

Liberty EKB;11800834']As a libertarian, it sounds great to me. Although I would prefer the income tax replaced with a sales tax.


I don't necessarily disagree, but a sales tax tends to hit the middle and working class more than the upper class.

Nah, I'm a socialist. This type of government wouldn't fit me at all, especially with only 10% tax.

I can argue abortion rights till the cows come home, but I have no intention of feeding the MTAE troll. I just want to point out that there is no such thing as an elective third trimester abortion. Elective abortion is banned well before the start of the third trimester. Anti-choice groups routinely claim third trimester abortions as a reason to ban abortion, but the fact is that they are extremely rare and ONLY done out of medical necessity -- either to save the life of the mother or, more likely, because the fetus has already died in utero. So those sucked-out brains? Those were sucked out of a corpse, not a living being.

So I will assume that you do not believe that a woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy even if it will kill her, and that you do not believe that a woman should be forced to keep the festering corpse of a dead fetus inside her, and that therefore you will feel reassured by being told that there are no elective third trimester abortions.

Anti-Choice? That is a political term used by an abortion activist. I use either Pro-Choice or Pro-Life. Both are fair terms to use and accurately describe where each group is coming from. Pro-Choice people are not necessarily pro-abortion and Pro-Life people are not necessarily "anti-choice" or wanting to control a woman. Leave the propaganda out of what is already an unnecessarily polarized issue.

And no, I do not support a woman having to carry around a dead Fetus in her womb. Not even an extreme pro-life activist would support that so I don't even know why you would bring that up. As for there being no "elective" third trimester abortions, the law states nothing about the life of the mother but the "health". Health could mean anything from a serious physical threat to anxiety or image concerns. There are people out there, many in Planned Parenthood who want the stigma of abortion to be completely removed as if it were the same as getting your hair or nails done.

My stance on abortion? Safe, Legal and RARE.

I don't necessarily disagree, but a sales tax tends to hit the middle and working class more than the upper class.
Visit the NS Classical Liberals Party then for a discussion on this. We're debating it still.

My stance on abortion? Safe, Legal and RARE.

The problem with that position is, once you allow for the first two, you lose any ability to control the third. Once something is easily, and legally available you have no way to "keep it rare".

Well make up your own mind. But if you want to use cold logic and play word games, then you might as well euthanize the mentally retarded, accident victims, abandoned or orphaned babies/toddlers and the elderly because they cannot take care of themselves and are a leach to society. Too bad they didn't get rid of Christy Brown or Stephen Hawking, it's not like they have contributed anything.

I personally find the comparison of an unborn child to something like a tick, reprehensible. Even soulless.

You are the one playing word games. The mentally retarded, the accident victims, abandoned and/or ophaned children and elderly do not depend on survival from the existance of another ORGANISM.

That is the definition of a parasite, that which survives off an ORGANISM, not society, not the tax payers, not their families, through a physical connection to a physical organism. That is what a parasite is, and no amount of ludicrus hyperboli is going to change that.

And that's exactly what a fetus does, it survives through a physical connection to a physical ORGANISM, which makes it a parasite.

And, just for the sake of furthering the argument, none of those entities mentioned above, NONE, have the right to survive at the expense of the bodily integrity of another human being. If one of them needs one of my kidneys to survive, I get to chose if he can have it. Nobody has the right to use my body for its own survival, not a fetus (difficult since I"m male but whatever), not the elderly, nobody. My bodily integrity is my own, and a pregnant woman has every right to expell a foreign entity from her own body if she choses to. Whether that foreign entity can survive outside her womb is really not her problem.

Affirmative Action is a bad thing now?

It is if you like equality.

sure why don't we all just declare anarchy?

It is if you like equality.

only if you have mistaken ideas of what equality entails

From the Dictionary:

fe·tus
n. pl. fe·tus·es
1) The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
2) In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.


par·a·site
n.
1) Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
2) One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return.

A Parasite (http://www.medicine.cmu.ac.th/dept/parasite/arthro/scab1.jpg)

Effect of the Parasite on "host" (http://www.medicine.cmu.ac.th/dept/parasite/arthro/scab3.jpg)

The Unborn Fetus (http://missionxp.webblogg.se/images/fetus_sucking_thumb_1137581244.jpg)

A Fetus not human? (http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/babysamuel.htm)

Effect of the Baby on "host" (http://www.nal.usda.gov/wicworks/Sharing_Center/DC/DCnursingmother.jpg)

Well make up your own mind. But if you want to use cold logic and play word games, then you might as well euthanize the mentally retarded, accident victims, abandoned or orphaned babies/toddlers and the elderly because they cannot take care of themselves and are a leach to society. Too bad they didn't get rid of Christy Brown or Stephen Hawking, it's not like they have contributed anything.

I personally find the comparison of an unborn child to something like a tick, reprehensible. Even soulless.


*sigh... again*

A parasitic life form is one that lives off of another without contributing to the survival of the host. THAT is all. A fetus lives off the mother without contributing to her survival. What part of that is so hard to understand?

I was not attaching a value judgement to parasite (as you have so clearly done). I was merely pointing out that a fetus CANNOT SURVIVE ON ITS OWN.

I am not advocating murder. I said nothing about euthanizing the mentally retarded. I did not suggest abandoning the elderly or orphaned. NONE of this has anything whatsoever to do with what I said. Not one bit of it. These are all invalid tactics used to try and prove why abortion should be wrong, and none of them make a lick of sense!

What I said, and here I will say it again, slowly, so that you can follow it, is this.

An embryo (which then becomes a fetus) has a parasitic existance. That is, it cannot survive on its own. As such, it is NOT a baby until it is born. This is the SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION of fetus and baby. A fetus is not born yet and unable to survive on its own. Once a fetus is born it is a baby.

That is what I said. That is ALL I said. Did you understand it that time???

Now, I'm curious. What would you guys think of a government that for the most part stayed out of your day to day life. (Examples: pro-choice, lower drinking age to 18, legalized gambling and prostitution, and let people sleep with who they wanted in their own homes as long as they were over 18.) Also got rid of things like Affirmative Action (Which gives special rights to minorities) and political correctness. (Which tries to control speech.) Also they got rid of things like the FCC. Now when it came to economics though the income tax would not pass 10%, welfare would consist of a free apartment, people who have been laid off would be taken care of (free food etc.) for six months until they could get a new job, and workers could still form unions. (This is a summory of the full theory.)

Sounds OK, but I'm not sure a ten percent income tax could pay for the free apartment and the six months of unemployment benefits along with the normal expenses of running a country. Also I think in the USA affirmative action for Blacks and Native Americans has a place. It's kind of like payback for slavery and for the near genocidal treatment of Natives.

Right - and once it fulfills its purpose, it must go.



• The median age of white Americans in 2005: 40.3 years
• The median age of African Americans in 2005: 30.0 years
(Lower life expectancy)

• Percentage of all black males aged 25 to 29 who were in state or federal prison or local jails on June 30, 2005: 12.0%
• Percentage of all white males aged 25 to 29 who were in state or federal prison or local jails on June 30, 2005: 1.7%

• Percentage of all babies in the United States who are born to African-American mothers: 17%
• Percentage of all low-birthweight babies in the United States who are born to African-American mothers: 33%
(Malnutrition)

• Percentage of all 25- to 29-year-old white Americans in 2005 who had completed some college work: 64.3%
• Percentage of all 25- to 29-year-old African Americans in 2005 who had completed some college work: 49.0%

•On average African American Salaries are 1/18th that of White American salaries.

•Out of the nearly 2 million ballots thrown out in the Kerry - Bush election 2/3 were from African-American districts, while only .0035% were from White majority districts.

Yeah, that is just about equal....

Now, I'm curious. What would you guys think of a government that for the most part stayed out of your day to day life. (Examples: pro-choice, lower drinking age to 18, legalized gambling and prostitution, and let people sleep with who they wanted in their own homes as long as they were over 18.) Also got rid of things like Affirmative Action (Which gives special rights to minorities) and political correctness. (Which tries to control speech.) Also they got rid of things like the FCC. Now when it came to economics though the income tax would not pass 10%, welfare would consist of a free apartment, people who have been laid off would be taken care of (free food etc.) for six months until they could get a new job, and workers could still form unions. (This is a summory of the full theory.)

As niether I totally like this, but the conservatives will never ever get over letting "damn queers" get together and liberals would never ever allow affirmative action, or political correctness to go away. They're both to hard headed to the point where its discusting.

Thats libertarian/Minarchist, most people on General support it.




Wishful thinking, where the hell are you gonna get all that money with only a 10% income tax rate?

You could get that much from a 10% national sales tax and then we could just abolish the IRS and the entire federal income tax beaurocracy which woudl save so many billions of dollars every year. :)

As niether I totally like this, but the conservatives will never ever get over letting "damn queers" get together and liberals would never ever allow affirmative action, or political correctness to go away. They're both to hard headed to the point where its discusting.

Not quite.

I am a liberal, and I look forward to a time when affirmative action is no longer needed and can be done away with because everyone gets equal treatment (which is what affirmative action is working towards). And I don't want political correctness to be legislated; it is the way I choose to behave, and would like others to, but I support freedom of speech even for people who say things I don't agree with. And I think you will find many liberals feel the same way.

Anti-Choice? That is a political term used by an abortion activist. I use either Pro-Choice or Pro-Life.
Use whatever term you like.

And no, I do not support a woman having to carry around a dead Fetus in her womb. Not even an extreme pro-life activist would support that so I don't even know why you would bring that up.
I brought it up because I actually have faced extremists on this forum and elsewhere who do believe women should be forced to sacrifice their own lives for the sake of pregnancy and that even the removal of a dead fetus is somehow an evil interference... in something...I don't know what the hell they're talking about. I was just trying to nip any such in the bud. You know, you're not the only person who can read the posts addressed to you.

And considering that the whole subject was brought up by a troll...

As for there being no "elective" third trimester abortions, the law states nothing about the life of the mother but the "health". Health could mean anything from a serious physical threat to anxiety or image concerns. There are people out there, many in Planned Parenthood who want the stigma of abortion to be completely removed as if it were the same as getting your hair or nails done.
And there are those who think there should be a "stigma" attached to abortion. What's your point? That we must take a reasonable approach to the subject? Agreed.

My stance on abortion? Safe, Legal and RARE.
Mine too.

The problem with that position is, once you allow for the first two, you lose any ability to control the third. Once something is easily, and legally available you have no way to "keep it rare".
Not true. Public health organizations up to and including the WHO attest that providing women with the means to plan their pregnancies, significantly reduces the number of abortions by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. This effect has been observed and recorded all over the world for nearly 100 years.

The above statement is based on an unfounded assumption that women WANT to get abortions. Nobody WANTS to get an abortion, but if you have a pregnancy you do not want or cannot carry safely, then abortion is your only option.

If women can avoid becoming pregnant, the numbers of abortions will go down, without any need to ban abortion itself.

EDIT: I get the impression from reading one of your later posts, that you do not oppose legal abortion. However, the argument that if abortion is legal then it will become rampant is one that is often floated by those who wish to ban it, so my counter-argument about the effects of proper family planning and birth control can stand for them.

Those who would say that the races arent equal are looking for equality of outcome as opposed to opportunity. They long for some sort of harrison bergeron-esque society in which the strong are laid low so no one ever has to feel bad about themselves.

equality of outcome is crap.

The irish came here with nothing and made it, more recently the Asians came here with nothing and made it. Hell Mexicans are coming here with less than nothing and making it.

if you arent making, its not everyone elses fault. The first time i was in school, "the man" didnt put a bottle of Jim Beam to my lips. I failed out on my own. Accept that everyones environment presents challenges. you either overcome them or you don't. its not up to the rest of us to make you succeed.

Those who would say that the races arent equal are looking for equality of outcome as opposed to opportunity.

No, we aren't.

We are looking for genuine equality of opportunity.

They long for some sort of harrison bergeron-esque society

Absolutely not. Absurd straw man.

The irish came here with nothing and made it, more recently the Asians came here with nothing and made it. Hell Mexicans are coming here with less than nothing and making it.

if you arent making, its not everyone elses fault. The first time i was in school, "the man" didnt put a bottle of Jim Beam to my lips. I failed out on my own. Accept that everyones environment presents challenges. you either overcome them or you don't. its not up to the rest of us to make you succeed.

No, but it is up to us as a society to ensure that a fair chance is presented to all.

Unique kinds of oppression merit unique solutions. Problems do not go away by ignoring them.

too liberal.

It promotes freedom and low taxes. How is it liberal?

It promotes freedom and low taxes. How is it liberal?

Because that´s the definition of liberal?

• The median age of white Americans in 2005: 40.3 years
• The median age of African Americans in 2005: 30.0 years
(Lower life expectancy)

• Percentage of all black males aged 25 to 29 who were in state or federal prison or local jails on June 30, 2005: 12.0%
• Percentage of all white males aged 25 to 29 who were in state or federal prison or local jails on June 30, 2005: 1.7%

• Percentage of all babies in the United States who are born to African-American mothers: 17%
• Percentage of all low-birthweight babies in the United States who are born to African-American mothers: 33%
(Malnutrition)

• Percentage of all 25- to 29-year-old white Americans in 2005 who had completed some college work: 64.3%
• Percentage of all 25- to 29-year-old African Americans in 2005 who had completed some college work: 49.0%

•On average African American Salaries are 1/18th that of White American salaries.

•Out of the nearly 2 million ballots thrown out in the Kerry - Bush election 2/3 were from African-American districts, while only .0035% were from White majority districts.

Yeah, that is just about equal....

We cannot force someone to go to college, we cannot force someone not to drink, and we cannot force someone not to commit a crime. Blacks are more than capable of getting an education and job, but they decide not to. Once they stop blaming whites for everything and except their mistakes and actualy work to fix their problems then we wont have this problem.

Because that´s the definition of liberal?

No, I thought liberals wanted high taxes on the rich and a huge social safety web. Plus a very regulated economy.

Now, I'm curious. What would you guys think of a government that for the most part stayed out of your day to day life. (Examples: pro-choice, lower drinking age to 18, legalized gambling and prostitution, and let people sleep with who they wanted in their own homes as long as they were over 18.) Also got rid of things like Affirmative Action (Which gives special rights to minorities) and political correctness. (Which tries to control speech.) Also they got rid of things like the FCC. Now when it came to economics though the income tax would not pass 10%, welfare would consist of a free apartment, people who have been laid off would be taken care of (free food etc.) for six months until they could get a new job, and workers could still form unions. (This is a summory of the full theory.)

Wow, you just mixed Libertarianism and socialism...congradulations! Plus, the tax burden would exceed 10%. Id say about 15-20.

No, I thought liberals wanted high taxes on the rich and a huge social safety web. Plus a very regulated economy.

Wow. Grab a dictionary, quick.

No, I thought liberals wanted high taxes on the rich and a huge social safety web. Plus a very regulated economy.
Maybe in the US, but in the rest of the world it basically means what you call libertarian.

Because that´s the definition of liberal?

Social equality yes, low taxes...You must be on the pipe.

Sounds OK, but I'm not sure a ten percent income tax could pay for the free apartment and the six months of unemployment benefits along with the normal expenses of running a country. Also I think in the USA affirmative action for Blacks and Native Americans has a place. It's kind of like payback for slavery and for the near genocidal treatment of Natives.

Why should I pay for the mistake my ancestors made. Also if that is the case then the native Mexicans who come from Aztec decent, and the Egyptians, Turks, and Northern Africans should have to pay for their role in the slave trade. Not to mention the native balcks that sold us the slaves.

I support freedom of speech even for people who say things I don't agree with.

Do you support Foley's freedom of speech?

Do you support Foley's freedom of speech?

What does Free Speech have to do with soliciting minors?

Do you support Foley's freedom of speech?

In general? Everyone here would.
In those specific e-mails and IMs? No, those are harassment and not protected under freedom of speech.

What does Free Speech have to do with soliciting minors?

Free speech means that any two people should be able to have a conversation if they so desire, as long as there are no negative consequences incurred if one chooses to leave the conversation and as long as no plot is being concocted.

Oh! Sounds great! But would really suck in America! I dont want to live in one of 48 giant rice patties which is exactly what would happen (after the Chinese take over) with a 10% tax (which would make for one, crappy military) in a nation where aids would spread like wildfire (w/ legal prostition) and the healthy ones: not so healthy because they allways blow the grocery money on gambling.

Although at that point, If China did invade, they might just say "fuck this!!! Lets go back to the lovely coal burning polution of China where it's cleaner!!!"

Why should I pay for the mistake my ancestors made. Also if that is the case then the native Mexicans who come from Aztec decent, and the Egyptians, Turks, and Northern Africans should have to pay for their role in the slave trade. Not to mention the native balcks that sold us the slaves.

Because our government profited from slavery and from seizing Native American land and so it owes something back. If the freed slaves had been given their 40 acres and a mule I wouldn't care about affirmative action for them, If the Indians had been integrated into the nation as it spread across the continent I wouldn't think affirmative action would be necessary for them. That didn't happen. The slaves were freed to live under Jim Crow and to continue slaving away as share croppers and the Indians were killed in huge numbers and driven into reservations with no prospects for economic growth. We, as a nation, owe them.

Free speech means that any two people should be able to have a conversation if they so desire, as long as there are no negative consequences incurred if one chooses to leave the conversation and as long as no plot is being concocted.

...without breaking the law. Soliciting minors breaks the law. Foley has nothing to do with this. Stop trying to bring in false analogies to the debate.

Blacks are more than capable of getting an education and job, but they decide not to..

When certain trends extend nationally across a fairly diverse group of people, it is reasonable to assume that the problem does not lie with individuals.

• The median age of white Americans in 2005: 40.3 years
• The median age of African Americans in 2005: 30.0 years
(Lower life expectancy)

• Percentage of all black males aged 25 to 29 who were in state or federal prison or local jails on June 30, 2005: 12.0%
• Percentage of all white males aged 25 to 29 who were in state or federal prison or local jails on June 30, 2005: 1.7%

• Percentage of all babies in the United States who are born to African-American mothers: 17%
• Percentage of all low-birthweight babies in the United States who are born to African-American mothers: 33%
(Malnutrition)

• Percentage of all 25- to 29-year-old white Americans in 2005 who had completed some college work: 64.3%
• Percentage of all 25- to 29-year-old African Americans in 2005 who had completed some college work: 49.0%

•On average African American Salaries are 1/18th that of White American salaries.

•Out of the nearly 2 million ballots thrown out in the Kerry - Bush election 2/3 were from African-American districts, while only .0035% were from White majority districts.

Yeah, that is just about equal....

Are you one of those idiots who doesn't read my posts properly? I presume so. Your response would've been meritted if I actually said "we've achieved equality" ...

Now, I will point out a blatant error you made - you posted bland statistics without evidencing the reason that they are the way they are. You must provide causal correlations. For instance, if black males are simply more likely to commit crime in spite of socioeconomic conditions, these statistics are illusory - they need further elucidation. The only statistic which you provided which does show an actual inequality is with regard to wages - but again, without a causal correlation this is but a number.

We, as a nation, owe them.
Again with this collective "we" notion. I would think those who made profits off the slaves and whose families inherited said profits owe them - not this magical "We".

Do you support Foley's freedom of speech?

You are NOT going to try and resurrect the "It's OK if Foley solicits children as long as the child agrees" argument are you?

I do support his freedom of speech, I do not support his breaking the law. He is free to say whatever he likes (and so are you, as you insist on trying to twist this into a free speech issue, which it is not, I am not saying you cannot state your idiotic opinion) but HE IS NOT FREE TO USE THE INTERNET TO SOLICIT SEX OR PERFORM LEWD ACTS WITH CHILDREN.

Can we move on now?

Free speech means that any two people should be able to have a conversation if they so desire, as long as there are no negative consequences incurred if one chooses to leave the conversation and as long as no plot is being concocted.

Soliciting minors, and engaging in lewd behavior with minors is illegal. This is not a free speech issue. Even Mark Foley says it is not a free speech issue in the legislation that he chaired to protect children from the very behavior in which he engaged. If Mark Foley doesn't think it is a free speech issue, why are you arguing so hard for it to be one?

Maybe in the US, but in the rest of the world it basically means what you call libertarian.
meaning,you have a big walot(and/or a lot of ambition) you want to rule and dispose of your life,you did make your way using unsocial behavior,believing we all are a bunch of monkey(social darwinisme a la wallstreet),fighting to get over with the nation state(too much taxes),only replacing it with a big name open to concurency,of course believing the big K is your best friend...
You will reunite with the "k", only to struck out all social agreement ,in the name of emancipation.
Tsssss!!!!
it's like anarchists who advocate chaos, you out

meaning,you have a big walot(and/or a lot of ambition) you want to rule and dispose of your life,you did make your way using unsocial behavior,believing we all are a bunch of monkey(social darwinisme a la wallstreet),fighting to get over with the nation state(too much taxes),only replacing it with a big name open to concurency,of course believing the big K is your best friend...
You will reunite with the "k", only to struck out all social agreement ,in the name of emancipation.
Tsssss!!!!
it's like anarchists who advocate chaos, you out

I'm sorry... what? Could someone translate this for me, I can't make heads or tails of most it.

What is the "k"?

I'm sorry... what? Could someone translate this for me, I can't make heads or tails of most it.

What is the "k"?
Your guess is as good as any. :confused: I am assuming the guy is either not a native English speaker, or simply high.

Not that smart. Gambling and abortion are destructive, and you need more than 10% tax to pay for what we need.

Your guess is as good as any. :confused: I am assuming the guy is either not a native English speaker, or simply high.
lol,you guys really want to know whata libertarian is?
isn't it?

Have you ever even bothered to consider the arguments in favor of it?

When we achieve genuine racial equality in this country, then I will oppose "special privledges" for anyone just as vociferously as you do, but as it is, affirmative action amounts to a start - and just a start - towards repairing the damage centuries of racism and oppression have done, damage that continues to harm its victims today.
Race politics are bullshit. You're thinking of social class not race. Affirmative action for working class kids (of any race) is better than rich black people being handed everything.

Liberty EKB;11800853']I agree, a look at Venezuela confims this. Oh yea, and the Soviet Union. Oh yea, and North Korea too.
Venezuela is not a dictatorship.

On the subject of taxes, which was most people's complaint, why not just have the gov't budget itself well, with an eye toward minimal spending, and tax everyone 1/300,000,000 of that quantity? Then you don't have people paying for other people, only themselves. And since those taxes are calculated toward that individual entrusting the gov't with that money to protect his/her rights, instead of wasting more tax money by locking up tax violators, why not just remove all their rights that involve the gov't, i.e. voting, driver's license, etc. no property ownership, abortion rights or firearm ownership suspension; those are human rights, not civil ones. most importantly, automatically suspend the rights proposed for suspension for people on welfare, as they aren't even supporting themselves. also, have prisoners work for the cost of their room, food and board, to reduce the drain on the tax system.

*expects lots of flame from liberals and hippies for taxing so little and enforcing the taxes so "barbarically", can imagine conservatives disliking this*

Race politics are bullshit.

No, they aren't. If Martin Luther King and his contemporaries had thought so, there would have been no Civil Rights Movement and no end to segregation.

Just as class politics are justified against class oppression, race politics are justified against racial oppression. Both help some who don't deserve to be helped and hurt some who don't deserve to be hurt, but that is in the nature of political movements seeking to change things, whether for better or for worse.

You're thinking of social class not race.

No, I'm not. Sorry, I think I know what I'm thinking of better than you do.

Different kinds of oppression and marginalization require different responses. Social class is one, race another. Racism is not and has never been a mere subset of classism, though I will grant that they reinforce one another (and in a truly economic classless society, the sentiments that generate racism would be harder to maintain for any rational mind - but that's another discussion.)

Or have you never heard of glass ceilings?

Affirmative action for working class kids (of any race) is better than rich black people being handed everything.

That may be, but does not address the relevant question - should we or should we not get rid of racial affirmative action?

why not just have the gov't...tax everyone 1/300,000,000 of that quantity?

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_1.gif

On the subject of taxes, which was most people's complaint, why not just have the gov't budget itself well, with an eye toward minimal spending, and tax everyone 1/300,000,000 of that quantity? Then you don't have people paying for other people, only themselves. And since those taxes are calculated toward that individual entrusting the gov't with that money to protect his/her rights, instead of wasting more tax money by locking up tax violators, why not just remove all their rights that involve the gov't, i.e. voting, driver's license, etc. no property ownership, abortion rights or firearm ownership suspension; those are human rights, not civil ones. most importantly, automatically suspend the rights proposed for suspension for people on welfare, as they aren't even supporting themselves. also, have prisoners work for the cost of their room, food and board, to reduce the drain on the tax system.

*expects lots of flame from liberals and hippies for taxing so little and enforcing the taxes so "barbarically", can imagine conservatives disliking this*

No... but a 10% tax rate doesn't answer the basic problem posed by the OP... if the government is going to provide housing and support for unemployed people, and continue to exist as a government, 10% is not going to be enough. Considering how much of my income I spend on such things, it would take a number of people's taxes at 10% to support me. In any sort of economic depression, where unemployment was up and taxes down, the government would sink like a stone.

lol,you guys really want to know whata libertarian is?
isn't it?
I already know what one is - I am one...

I already know what one is - I am one...

About that...

How can you be both a moncarchist and a minarchist at the same time? How do you reconcile rule by one with minimal rule?

About that...

How can you be both a moncarchist and a minarchist at the same time? How do you reconcile rule by one with minimal rule?
Replace President as Head of State with Monarch, et voila. I'll elaborate my political system fully, some day.

Replace President as Head of State with Monarch, et voila.

Why?

Why?
A matter of preference.

A matter of preference.

You like the idea of rulers who rule because they were born to the right people?

You like the idea of rulers who rule bbecause they were born to the right people?

Don't even bother. There is no hope in saving some people.

You like the idea of rulers who rule bbecause they were born to the right people?
I like the idea of Royal houses. I like the idea of a Head of State being above petty partisan politics. In a minarchist state, there is only one form of government - minimal government. Those who dislike it would leave elsewhere. Given how few powers a President has, as it is the PM who actually governs alongside a cabinet and Parliament, it raises no issues. The Monarch would be dealing in a limited range of activities anyway, such as foreign policy. It would be anathema to any minimal state to have a ruler that would alter the State subject to the whims of majorities. If the minarchist realm wants a Monarch as its symbol, so be it. The history of Monarchy and such are irrelevant to me.

Don't even bother. There is no hope in saving some people.
Silence, troll.

Silence, troll.

Your authority is illegitimate.

Your authority is illegitimate.
All you ever do is go on unsubstantiated, endless rants. If anyone needs saving, it is you. Good day.

All you ever do is go on unsubstantiated, endless rants. If anyone needs saving, it is you. Good day.

Well, if you're going to go on the decidedly non-libertarian moncarchist power trip, then, Seig Heil, Mein Fuhrer.

I like the idea of Royal houses.

You like the idea of people privileged without merit?

I like the idea of a Head of State being above petty partisan politics.

Not necessarily true of a monarch, nor necessarily untrue of an appointed president.

But I'll have to confess that I think all major public figures should be openly and honestly partisan - non-partisanship amounts all too often to unconditional support for the status quo.

In a minarchist state, there is only one form of government - minimal government.

A meaningless label.

You like the idea of people privileged without merit?
You like the idea of people being privileged by selling themselves out and using any means necessary to gain power? I'm sorry, but few modern politicians have any traits I can admire. Those that do (e.g. Angela Merkel) are usually sidetracked.

Not necessarily true of a monarch, nor necessarily untrue of an appointed president.

But I'll have to confess that I think all major public figures should be openly and honestly partisan - non-partisanship amounts all too often to unconditional support for the status quo.
The difference is a Monarch does not have to be re-elected - if they don't tow with the party line, and stick to their duties, they won't be punished for it. Whereas with, say, Mr Bush, if he doesn't appeal to his mainstream supporters and party, he will lose his job. This means he will focus on furthering party interests instead of executing his duties. In a system with the Prime Minister as the effective tool of government, the PM would be responsible for all matters partisan. The Monarch, for the most part, would represent the State abroad and handle the duties delegated to a President in any such system.

A meaningless label.
The government for the most part does not interfere with the lives of its citizens, aside from the provision of certain basics. How is it then a meaningless label?

Well, if you're going to go on the decidedly non-libertarian moncarchist power trip, then, Seig Heil, Mein Fuhrer.
You know, things aren't black and white in this world. Try using your powers of reasoning for once as opposed to trolling, and I might take you seriously - just maybe.

You like the idea of people being privileged by selling themselves out and using any means necessary to gain power? I'm sorry, but few modern politicians have any traits I can admire. Those that do (e.g. Angela Merkel) are usually sidetracked.

The whole point of democracy is that politicians sell themselves to the people. That is a good thing.

The difference is a Monarch does not have to be re-elected - if they don't tow with the party line, and stick to their duties, they won't be punished for it. Whereas with, say, Mr Bush, if he doesn't appeal to his mainstream supporters and party, he will lose his job. This means he will focus on furthering party interests instead of executing his duties.

So? Again, that is a part of democracy, and a good thing. It is a check on the power of politicians.

Setting up the monarch as a symbol of any state implies a staunch dislike of democracy - a sentiment that the only "proper" symbol is one onto which the dirty Mob cannot intrude.

The government for the most part does not interfere with the lives of its citizens, aside from the provision of certain basis.

Yes, it does - it just doesn't call it interference, merely "protecting rights" or some such euphemism.

The whole point of democracy is that politicians sell themselves to the people. That is a good thing.
If you find this good, then fine. I don't.

So? Again, that is a part of democracy, and a good thing. It is a check on the power of politicians.

Setting up the monarch as a symbol of any state implies a staunch dislike of democracy - a sentiment that the only "proper" symbol is one onto which the dirty Mob cannot intrude.
I am not so much worried about the "dirty Mob" as I am about politicians who don't know the limits of their power - most governments, as it is, act as if they know better than the "Mob" anyway. Any given Monarch's constitutional status would be in danger if he/she violated the terms of his/her office - he/she is equal before the law, not above it, and has no powers to alter it. They would simply carries out certain duties - a PM is the actual force in a nation.

Yes, it does - it just doesn't call it interference, merely "protecting rights" or some such euphemism.
It actually does call it interference - minimal interference. Whether or not a euphemism is evoked depends on the individual involved.

I am not so much worried about the "dirty Mob" as I am about politicians who don't know the limits of their power - most governments, as it is, act as if they know better than the "Mob" anyway. Any given Monarch's constitutional status would be in danger if he/she violated the terms of his/her office - he/she is equal before the law, not above it, and has no powers to alter it. They would simply carries out certain duties - a PM is the actual force in a nation.

I don't think you understand - just as you seem to believe that a monarch is a good symbol for a nation, I hold the opposite.

A genuinely free and egalitarian society should never have monarchist privilege as a source of national pride.

It actually does call it interference - minimal interference.

But the interference is not at all "minimal." It underlies almost all relations.

The only way the right-libertarians can get away with calling themselves minarchists is by assuming away that "interference" - pretending it doesn't exist, or is "natural" and thus has nothing to do with government.

I don't think you understand - just as you seem to believe that a monarch is a good symbol for a nation, I hold the opposite.

A genuinely free and egalitarian society should never have monarchist privilege as a source of national pride.
If, in practical terms, a Monarch is better at executing the duties assigned to a President, then any matters of principle are essentially moot - it devolves into one adhering to ideology instead of reality. If, a Monarch can better serve the interests of a minarchist State then there is no reason to oppose such an office. If the members of the society approve of a Monarch, then how does it oppose their freedom?

And if hereditary Monarchy is such an issue, elective monarchy still offers the same benefits - the "Monarch's" position is lifelong (unless they violate their terms of office or fail to execute their duties sufficiently), they develop the immense experience in handling foreign leaders in their time in office and again they do not need to worry about re-election, so they can carry out their duties unhindered. Again, they have no power over the laws of the land, so they cannot bend them to their will.



But the interference is not at all "minimal." It underlies almost all relations.

The only way the right-libertarians can get away with calling themselves minarchists is by assuming away that "interference" - pretending it doesn't exist, or is "natural" and thus has nothing to do with government.
Most assume that it is a natural element of social relations to begin with. Others assume a contractarian basis for such a society. This is essentially semantics.

You know, things aren't black and white in this world. Try using your powers of reasoning for once as opposed to trolling, and I might take you seriously - just maybe.

Apparently humor is a black and white issue for you. I'm not allowed to make jokes based on your ideological inconsitincies, but you have free reign to decide that I'm a troll. I don't care if you take me seriously. If you stopped being so holier-than-thou, maybe I'd take you seriously. Apparently, that's an issue for you.

Apparently humor is a black and white issue for you. I'm not allowed to make jokes based on your ideological inconsitincies, but you have free reign to decide that I'm a troll. I don't care if you take me seriously. If you stopped being so holier-than-thou, maybe I'd take you seriously. Apparently, that's an issue for you.
The inconsistency is non-existent. Unless, you misconstrue what I mean by Monarchy.

The inconsistency is non-existent. Unless, you misconstrue what I mean by Monarchy.

No, I'm talking about how you consider yourself to be a libertarian, yet constantly try to silence me. Isn't that rather coercive of you?:eek:

No, I'm talking about how you consider yourself to be a libertarian, yet constantly try to silence me. Isn't that rather coercive of you?:eek:
If I actually forced you into silence, yes. Have I done such a thing? :)

If I actually forced you into silence, yes. Have I done such a thing? :)

Your attempts to do so reveal your hidden authoritarianism. Won't be much longer, and you'll find yourself in Statist Hell.;)

Your attempts to do so reveal your hidden authoritarianism. Won't be much longer, and you'll find yourself in Statist Hell.;)
Yep, a real Hitlerian Fascist I am.

Yep, a real Hitlerian Fascist I am.

I guess I'll be joining you, because the Marxists condemned me to Statist Hell as well.

I guess I'll be joining you, because the Marxists condemned me to Statist Hell as well.
Oh dear, warum?

Oh dear, warum?

:confused:

:confused:

...

Why?

...

Why?

arum? Is he a poster on NSG? I don't know what you mean by "warum"

arum? Is he a poster on NSG? I don't know what you mean by "warum"
It means "why" in German.

Now, you may answer.

It means "why" in German.

Now, you may answer.

Marxists love to call anarchists closet statists, because of the personal misgivings of a few of the foudners of anarchism.

Marxists love to call anarchists closet statists, because of the personal misgivings of a few of the foudners of anarchism.
Fine, then you keep to your side of Statist Hell and I'll keep to mine. :D

Apparently humor is a black and white issue for you. I'm not allowed to make jokes based on your ideological inconsitincies, but you have free reign to decide that I'm a troll. I don't care if you take me seriously. If you stopped being so holier-than-thou, maybe I'd take you seriously. Apparently, that's an issue for you.

This is the second time I have noticed that you have insulted someone's beliefs and fallen back on the "I was just kidding" defense.

A troll is a troll whether they are serious or not.

You like the idea of rulers who rule because they were born to the right people?

No matter how you slice it, you succeed or fail because you were born to the right people.

Most on the left (and specifically you) have been trying tirelessly to prove that some people are doomed to failure.

So, if you are going to set up a minarchist government, why not set it up so that the individual can control the role of government through contractual agreement? Democracy suffers from the horrible affliction of being legitimized, and assumes some sort of moral authority because of it.

Many on the left have been trying to prove the moral authority of democratic governance.

Your attempts to do so reveal your hidden authoritarianism. Won't be much longer, and you'll find yourself in Statist Hell.;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wGR4-SeuJ0

Come to think of it, Chad reminds moi of moi. <.< The authoritarian within.

You could get that much from a 10% national sales tax and then we could just abolish the IRS and the entire federal income tax beaurocracy which woudl save so many billions of dollars every year. :)
Sales tax is a regressive tax that hits the poor far harder than the more well off. Income taxes are far more fair.

Sales tax is a regressive tax that hits the poor far harder than the more well off. Income taxes are far more fair.
Again, head to the NS Classic Liberals Party thread where this is being discussed.