Milo Yiannopoulos fursona.

[Troj]

The bad thing about career politicians is that they internalize the world view of Washington, and become cynical, corrupt, and myopically focused on just getting re-elected.

The bad thing about newbies and outsiders is that they can end up either making major mistakes or hitting gridlock because they don't understand the ins and outs of the system, and the culture surrounding it. The tax laws alone will throw the average person for a major loop.

[Crazy Lee]

22 hours ago, #00Buck said:

The only people who say Trump is racist or homophobic are leftists. It does not make sense for it to be a pro-Trump sticker. 

Was the sticker on Trump's truck though? Whether or not Trump is racist or homophobic or not doesn't matter, if a large percentage of his followers are.

[Troj]

16 minutes ago, Crazy Lee said:

Was the sticker on Trump's truck though? Whether or not Trump is racist or homophobic or not doesn't matter, if a large percentage of his followers are.

Exactly--AND if they assume that he is, and that he'll back them up.

[#00Buck]

23 minutes ago, Crazy Lee said:

Was the sticker on Trump's truck though? Whether or not Trump is racist or homophobic or not doesn't matter, if a large percentage of his followers are.

If a large percentage of people who breathe oxygen are racist does that mean we should all stop breathing?

 

[willow]

6 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

If a large percentage of people who breathe oxygen are racist does that mean we should all stop breathing?

yes. please

 

[#00Buck]

1 hour ago, willow said:

yes. please

 

Ok you first. 

[willow]

10 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

Ok you first. 

[Rassah]

So, with everything that's going on, is my view that we should just make our own decisions in our lives and govern ourselves making any more sense now?

[#00Buck]

3 minutes ago, Rassah said:

So, with everything that's going on, is my view that we should just make our own decisions in our lives and govern ourselves making any more sense now?

Nobody will ever admit anything you've said makes sense on principal alone. 

[Rassah]

3 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

Nobody will ever admit anything you've said makes sense on principal alone. 

Only because of their delicate principles, not because they secretly shamefully agree with it.

[#00Buck]

Just now, Rassah said:

Only because of their delicate principles, not because they secretly shamefully agree with it.

I've heard this is a fetish in the Red Lantern but I don't go in the dirty part of the forum so I can't confirm this. 

[Zeke]

15 hours ago, Rassah said:

So, with everything that's going on, is my view that we should just make our own decisions in our lives and govern ourselves making any more sense now?

Nope. 

[#00Buck]

The left is trying to ban Harambe!

Thank goodness we have a hero who will stand up against them.

 

[Crazy Lee]

19 hours ago, Rassah said:

So, with everything that's going on, is my view that we should just make our own decisions in our lives and govern ourselves making any more sense now?

Oh I want to govern myself.

My own governing says I should kill people I feel are causing the world to be a shitty place, or just being stupid. Should I do this?

[Cannakitty]

12 minutes ago, Crazy Lee said:

Oh I want to govern myself.

My own governing says I should kill people I feel are causing the world to be a shitty place, or just being stupid. Should I do this?

Join the Army?

[#00Buck]

40 minutes ago, Crazy Lee said:

Oh I want to govern myself.

My own governing says I should kill people I feel are causing the world to be a shitty place, or just being stupid. Should I do this?

If you ask permission you're not governing yourself. 

You're submitting to someone else's will. 

[#00Buck]

Community Update:

When Daddy Trump wins the election I make three promises.

#1 I will make America yiff again.

#2 I will take my fellow Toronto furs out to dinner at the Trump Hotel in downtown Toronto to celebrate.

#3 I will have a set of snow leopard ears and tail made in honour of Milo. 

Who knows? Maybe I will even mail Milo the ears and tail so he can wear them while he triggers SJW's on campus? 

Just like any politician I may or may not keep these promises. 

BTW my nuclear launch time is only 3 minutes. 

[Rassah]

20 hours ago, Zeke said:

Nope. 

Will that change if "LITERALLY HITLER" gets elected and Republicans start doing all the bad things everyone is terrified of?

I'm just wondering how far this circus has to go before people decide they can make better decisions for themselves.

16 hours ago, Crazy Lee said:

Oh I want to govern myself.

My own governing says I should kill people I feel are causing the world to be a shitty place, or just being stupid. Should I do this?

Sure, as long as you're willing to deal with the consequences. Even Lennin had an assassination attempt against him.

 

[Saxon]

5 minutes ago, Rassah said:

Will that change if "LITERALLY HITLER" gets elected and Republicans start doing all the bad things everyone is terrified of?

I'm just wondering how far this circus has to go before people decide they can make better decisions for themselves.

Sure, as long as you're willing to deal with the consequences. Even Lennin had an assassination attempt against him.

 

A Donald Trump presidency is a better alternative than an anarchistic style of government, yes.
Most of the people who actually do the ground-work of distributing services and collecting taxes don't change on election day, and the work they do makes most of our lives better. 

 

 

[Rassah]

21 minutes ago, Saxon said:

A Donald Trump presidency is a better alternative than an anarchistic style of government, yes.
Most of the people who actually do the ground-work of distributing services and collecting taxes don't change on election day, and the work they do makes most of our lives better. 

 

 

So you're saying we were better off with Germany electing Hitler, than we would have been if they had simply abolished their government and defaulted on their WW1 debts? 

 

And yes, most of the people working in government and having a direct impact on our lives aren't elected, or accountable to us in any way 

[Saxon]

4 minutes ago, Rassah said:

 

So you're saying we were better off with Germany electing Hitler, than we would have been if they had simply abolished their government and defaulted on their WW1 debts? 

That wasn't the question you asked; you asked me about the Republican candidate who is sarcastically described as 'literally hitler'.

Your next point is silly, because even a communist regime could have been better than the third Reich, but it doesn't mean that I will support setting up a communist government today.

Perhaps you should ask yourself why you have to offer people the false dichotomy of Hitler and Anarchy in order to persuade people to choose anarchy.

 

[Troj]

Life's full of trade-offs and compromises, but if we resign ourselves to only choosing between a turd and a douche for all eternity, then that's what we'll get.

[Zeke]

2 hours ago, Rassah said:

Will that change if "LITERALLY HITLER" gets elected and Republicans start doing all the bad things everyone is terrified of?

 

 

I'd rather see Trump as president and a repeat of the 1950's  with the LWKs coming out of their houses in their snazzy ghost costumes and  their hatred of the lowercase T and minorities than anarchy.

 

[Rassah]

2 hours ago, Saxon said:

That wasn't the question you asked; you asked me about the Republican candidate who is sarcastically described as 'literally hitler'.

Some people think he's literally the next Hitler. Literally.

2 hours ago, Saxon said:

Your next point is silly, because even a communist regime could have been better than the third Reich, but it doesn't mean that I will support setting up a communist government today.

Er, actually communist regimes killed more than Hitler. But people still support communism, so I can't use it as an example of something terrible.

2 hours ago, Saxon said:

Perhaps you should ask yourself why you have to offer people the false dichotomy of Hitler and Anarchy in order to persuade people to choose anarchy.

Because that's where we seem to be headed with some governments around the world?

3 minutes ago, Zeke said:

I'd rather see Trump and a repeat of the 1950's  with the LWKs coming out of their houses in their snazzy ghost costumes and  their hatred of the lowercase T and minorities than anarchy.

Responsibility and making your own decisions terrifies you that much, huh.

[Zeke]

9 minutes ago, Rassah said:

 

Responsibility and making your own decisions terrifies you that much, huh.

It doesn't scare me, but you do not understand adding the variable of "People" to the equation. Adding a people variable is adding chaos because by our very nature, we're unpredictable and aren't always playing by the rules set. There are always loopholes and things to go around if the current set it doesn't fit our agenda. 

Self governance either has two outcomes;  group or group of people will place their own needs above the many because humans ARE a selfish bunch and will not agree to anything unless it benefits them even if it means trampling rights of others for personal gain. On the other hand, chaos always ends with some as semblance of order with a group or groups of people returning to the same type of governing body that has existed before with the same checks and balances. Nothing has changed and/or nothing has gained. People put their trust back into that old system again.

I am all up for less government control in some aspects, but people aren't necessarily trustworthy when considering the bigger scope of things. Everything's black and white and there's no in-between.

[Rassah]

People are unpredictable and aren't playing by the same rules set, including using loopholes and going around the rules.. So we must solve this problem by giving a few of those same people the power to make the rules that control all of us. That will definitely not result in them using that power in unpredictable ways or abusing the rules in their favor that they don't bother to follow themselves, and those rules will definitely prevent people who normally use loopholes and go around rules, because this time those rules are somehow different.

Humans are selfish and only agree to things that benefit their own needs, so we must put those same selfish people who are interested interested in their own needs in charge of controlling and distributing the money going to those who actually need it. Those selfish self interested people will definitely not abuse their power if we entrust them with all our charity money instead of managing it ourselves.

If people aren't trustworthy when considering the bigger scope of things, then why are you advocating putting those same untrustworthy people in complete control over all the biggest things as if you trust them implicitly?

[Saxon]

1 hour ago, Rassah said:

Some people think he's literally the next Hitler. Literally.

Er, actually communist regimes killed more than Hitler. But people still support communism, so I can't use it as an example of something terrible.

Because that's where we seem to be headed with some governments around the world?

Responsibility and making your own decisions terrifies you that much, huh.

What you've established is the outcomes in democratic governments can be bad, therefore we should choose anarchism.
I agree that democratic outcomes can be bad sometimes, though they are broadly good overall, and I think that anarchist outcomes would almost always be bad.

It's like saying 'cooking your food with that oven could cause burns, you should use this flame thrower instead'.

People are unpredictable and aren't playing by the same rules set, including using loopholes and going around the rules.. So we must solve this problem by giving a few of those same people the power to make the rules that control all of us. That will definitely not result in them using that power in unpredictable ways or abusing the rules in their favor that they don't bother to follow themselves, and those rules will definitely prevent people who normally use loopholes and go around rules, because this time those rules are somehow different.

Humans are selfish and only agree to things that benefit their own needs, so we must put those same selfish people who are interested interested in their own needs in charge of controlling and distributing the money going to those who actually need it. Those selfish self interested people will definitely not abuse their power if we entrust them with all our charity money instead of managing it ourselves.

If people aren't trustworthy when considering the bigger scope of things, then why are you advocating putting those same untrustworthy people in complete control over all the biggest things as if you trust them implicitly?

 

Consider industrial pollution. Companies routinely have to be kept in line by authorities to make sure they do not poison our environment.

If we lived in a self-governing society, industrial pollution would run wild, because no authority would exist to stop it.

You might argue that company reputation and free market controls would prevent this (in which case, why don't they prevent companies trying to bend the rules today?) but companies will simply pay shills to convince people that their opponents are the real polluters and that they are harmless.

You essentially end up envisaging a society in which scientists do not have regulatory power, but the 'mmr causes autism' campaign and the 'carbon dioxide doesn't warm the planet' camps could put themselves in charge.

:\

[Zeke]

It's in the same scope of why you have people pushing pseudo-scientific studies and "censoring" educational studies because it doesn't fit their scope of how the world works, or people pushing personal agendas like anti-LGBT bills because their religious values outweigh the equity of society. Or banning weapons because a few nut jobs that were known to be psychologically unstable needed help. Even people banning vaccines because someone heard through the grapevine that it gives people autism without any proven data. 

So no, having people govern themselves us plainly idealistic and silly. I prefer we kill each other off instead. 

[Rassah]

2 hours ago, Saxon said:

What you've established is the outcomes in democratic governments can be bad, therefore we should choose anarchism.
I agree that democratic outcomes can be bad sometimes, though they are broadly good overall, and I think that anarchist outcomes would almost always be bad.

It's like saying 'cooking your food with that oven could cause burns, you should use this flame thrower instead'.

If you want to look at it simplistically like that, sure. I think what's been established is that governance is bad, so we should reduce or get rid of governance. Like, if the over is burning your food, and you keep burning it more by turning up the heat, maybe it's time you turned down the temperature or turned the oven off. With our governments, the goose is cooked as it were.

Quote

Consider industrial pollution. Companies routinely have to be kept in line by authorities to make sure they do not poison our environment.

We've been over this. Industrial pollution is enabled by the authorities. If people don't like pollution, they'll find ways to stop it.

Quote

If we lived in a self-governing society, industrial pollution would run wild, because no authority would exist to stop it.

Because reasons :V Because authority, paid for by those polluters, is the best way to stop it.

Quote

You might argue that company reputation and free market controls would prevent this (in which case, why don't they prevent companies trying to bend the rules today?)

Because people don't care and think government will take care of them. "Moral Hazard"

 

Quote

but companies will simply pay shills to convince people that their opponents are the real polluters and that they are harmless.

As opposed to paying politicians to convince people that their pollution is within legally accepted levels.

Quote

You essentially end up envisaging a society in which scientists do not have regulatory power, but the 'mmr causes autism' campaign and the 'carbon dioxide doesn't warm the planet' camps could put themselves in charge.

:\

> No government/authority

> Put themselves in charge

What?  How? With what money and from what authority?

If we didn't have public or government controlled healthcare, your insurance company would actually do the studies to assess risks of everything you do, including vaccines, and charge you more for being stupid. The whole vaccine thing would never even be an issue, since your personal opinion won't matter to insurance companies who know scientifically you're being an idiot and will charge you more for it.

[Rassah]

1 hour ago, Zeke said:

It's in the same scope of why you have people pushing pseudo-scientific studies and "censoring" educational studies because it doesn't fit their scope of how the world works, or people pushing personal agendas like anti-LGBT bills because their religious values outweigh the equity of society. Or banning weapons because a few nut jobs that were known to be psychologically unstable needed help. Even people banning vaccines because someone heard through the grapevine that it gives people autism without any proven data. 

How do people ban things when they governmen themselves?

And did you seriously just say that you would rather we all kill ourselves if we didn't have the option of having a select group of elite selfish, unpredictable people control our lives? What about being able to control your own life scares you so much? The personal responsibility?

[Zeke]

11 minutes ago, Rassah said:

What about being able to control your own life scares you so much? The personal responsibility?

Like I said before; it doesn't scare me, but understanding the people variable makes it easier to understand how people think, especially when it comes to volatile nature of politics. Personal responsibility comes with personal awareness, which many do not possess. You should've rephrased it as trust instead of fear. 

[Rassah]

Nah, if you actually think that we would all be better off dead than governing ourselves, there's some fear about something in there. And yes, most people don't have personal responsibility. Government took over more and more functions and bred that out of them (most retire poor expecting government pensions, no one bothers to check safety of things they consume or check on the companies they buy from to make sure they're good, no one checks medical prices expecting government or regulated insurance to pay for it, etc). Which is a problem when government functions start to break down and people are forced to face their lack of responsibility head on. Like pensioners in Greece, or everyone in Venezuela.

[Crazy Lee]

So, is this yet another quality Rassah thread where he magically thinks that if government goes away the entire world becomes a giant hugbox and everyone's just so nice to each other. Delightful.

I always see anarchist libertarianism or objectivism, and marxism/communism as two sides of the same coin. Two extremes on either side of the scale. In one, people think that a huge government spreading wealth and resources will bring about a utopia where there will be no poverty and everyone will always get what they need. Yet not a single system that has gone that route has succeeded. In the other, like the way Rassah thinks, people believe that if we strip away the government everyone will just be so nice to each other. Neighbors will get along, people will always agree, everyone will love each other, crime will magically go away, and people will be singing kumbya in the streets. Yet another radical fantasy utopia that has no basis in reality or takes into account human nature.

For instance, do you think crime will magically disappear in your fantasy utopia? Well, certainly there will be no "crime" as there will be no laws to make something a crime, but the acts will still exist. People will still murder, rape, steal, assault, and do other wrongs against others if their mentality or "moral compass" says so. And who's to stop them? Some strongman in some local village who keeps the people safe?

And speaking of that, you don't seem to comprehend human nature very well. Few people think like you and your adorable little drug-fueled fantasies. Look at the two Presidential front runners. One promises to bring back jobs through government manipulation of trade, the other promises free college and shit. The vast majority of people out there WANT a government to fix their problems and do shit for them, just as long as it otherwise stays out of their way. In almost every single situation of anarchy, troubles, or the switching of government anywhere, people have rallied around a strongman, or figure that promised them something. Hitler, Mao, Stalin & Lenin, Che, Castro, Khomeini. What do you think will happen if we had a full anarchist system? The vast majority of people will look for a leader who will guide them to a better life, by making promises and blaming others for their ills. Maybe they'll invoke religion as authority for their power and actions, and the pious will follow blindly because boy this guy certainly talks good.

9 hours ago, Rassah said:

Sure, as long as you're willing to deal with the consequences. Even Lennin had an assassination attempt against him.

What consequences are those though? That someone else will decide to take me out? So they're basically doing the exact same thing I was doing. And so on and so on.

And if you're saying that a militia or group of people will take up arms to take me out, then what gives them that authority to do that? You have a group of people who invoke a sort of "authority" to protect others or to prevent crime, and you have something that's starting to look rather like a government...

[Rassah]

@Crazy Lee Nice strawman there. Dorothy would be proud. I never claimed that if government goes away the world will become a nice hug box. Only that all the bad things governments do will go away.

 

Weird that you see libertarianism and communism as two sides of the same coin, since one advocates personal liberty and property rights, while the other advocates totalitarian oppression to deprive everyone of their property and force everyone to be equal. They couldn't be further apart!

And another strawman claiming I thinks there will be no crime. Let me know when you have an actual argument against something I actually claimed.

Regarding who will stop the criminals, an argument from ignorance ("I don't know, so it's not possible") isn't an argument.

And I do understand human nature quite well. It's why I don't advocate that we just take down government right away. -lTo quote The Matrix, "You have to understand. Most people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured and so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it." If we actually had an anarchist system, where people viewed political authority as an immoral concept on the same level as we see slave owners today, then what you said will not happen. Not any more than someone could become a slave owner and take ownership of people in today's culture. So we have to change people's views gradually, which we're succeeding with.

As for what consequences? There are plenty of other consequences besides just being killed in retribution. Ostracism, losing your job, apartment, and grocery shop rights, etc. Use your imagination. No authority involved there. People just refuse to deal with you.

And no, a voluntary, or even a paid, group of people who decide to protect those who ask for that protection is not at all like a government. I'll let you think about it and figure out what actually makes a government to figure this one out.

[#00Buck]

Trump 2016 build a text wall!

14 minutes ago, Rassah said:

@Crazy Lee Nice strawman. I never claimed that if government goes away the world will become a nice hug box only that all the bad things governments do will go away (wars, thefts, pollution, inequality, corruption, corporatism, poverty, mass democide).

 

Weird that you see libertarianism and communism as two sides of the same coin (did you always see it that way, or only since you saw that TYT video?). It's weird because one side advocates personal liberty, property rights, and personal responsibility, while the other advocates totalitarian oppression to deprive everyone of their property, and absolve everyone of responsibility by giving other people's property and labor to everyone else. Like, they couldn't be further apart!

But seriously, nice strawman with that whole "Rassah thinks there will be no crime and everyone will love each other. Let me know when you have an actual argument against sobering I actually claimed.

Being too stupid and unimaginative to the point where you can't answer simple questions like "who will stop criminals" isn't an argument either. Argument from ignorance ("I don't know, so it's not possible") isn't an argument. I bet since you don't know how vaccines work exactly, you believe they don't actually work either, right?

And I do understand human nature quite well. It's why I don't advocate that we just take down government right away. "You have to understand. Most people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured and so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it." I also understand why we have these two politicians: humans are gullible and think when politicians promise them that someone else will pay for their free stuff, they actually mean it. They're completely brainwashed, by media, schools, and their parents and peers, into believing that the government actually can fix their problems, when it was the government that created them in the first place. If we actually had an anarchist system, where people viewed political authority as an immortal on the same level as we see slave owners today, then what you said will not happen. Not any more than someone could become a slave owner and take ownership of people in today's culture. So we libertarians/anarchists just have to take things step by step, making government functions or decrees obsolete one at a time (like copyright with BitTorrent). Or be ready to take over with a better alternative when a government finally collapses (like bitcoin adoption in Venezuela).

 

As for what consequences? Are you saying that killing someone in retribution is exactly the same as murdering someone? Cause society disagrees with you. There are plenty of other consequences that could happen too. Use your imagination. And there is no authority involved there. You simply decided to make a statement that you do not value another person's right to life, and by that act have declared that your own life isn't to be valued by others either. Kinda like if you decided to violate your neighbor's property by going into his house and taking his things, where your neighbor would then, after repeatedly asking you to stop, would have no qualms about violating your property in return. And no, a voluntary, or even a paid, group of people who decide to protect those who ask for that protection is not at all like a government. I'll let you think about it and figure out what actually makes a government to figure this one out.

The wall just got ten lines higher. 

[LazerMaster5]

MR. @#00Buck, TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!

[#00Buck]

2 minutes ago, LazerMaster5 said:

MR. @#00Buck, TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!

I'm not building the wall.

It won't cost us anything. 

Rassah will build the wall and they will pay for it... With bitcoin. 

[Rassah]

Sorry, shortened a bit. I'm really trying not to make walls...

[#00Buck]

7 hours ago, Rassah said:

Sorry, shortened a bit. I'm really trying not to make walls...

You know you want to.

Don't be a cuck-servative. 

[Rassah]

3 hours ago, #00Buck said:

You know you want to.

Don't be a cuck-servative. 

Eh, regarding those walls, I don't want any. I actually would prefer if borders and passports were abolished and we went back to how we were pre 1914, when anyone could travel freely. They were supposed to be a temporary wartime only measure anyway, but unfortunately, when governments take a little bit of freedom "temporarily," they almost never give it back.

[Zeke]

Too many wall posts. :V

[Rassah]

I forgot the link... https://fee.org/articles/passports-were-a-temporary-war-measure/

[Saxon]

20 hours ago, Rassah said:

If you want to look at it simplistically like that, sure. I think what's been established is that governance is bad, so we should reduce or get rid of governance. Like, if the over is burning your food, and you keep burning it more by turning up the heat, maybe it's time you turned down the temperature or turned the oven off. With our governments, the goose is cooked as it were.

We've been over this. Industrial pollution is enabled by the authorities. If people don't like pollution, they'll find ways to stop it.

Because reasons :V Because authority, paid for by those polluters, is the best way to stop it.

Because people don't care and think government will take care of them. "Moral Hazard"

 

As opposed to paying politicians to convince people that their pollution is within legally accepted levels.

> No government/authority

> Put themselves in charge

What?  How? With what money and from what authority?

If we didn't have public or government controlled healthcare, your insurance company would actually do the studies to assess risks of everything you do, including vaccines, and charge you more for being stupid. The whole vaccine thing would never even be an issue, since your personal opinion won't matter to insurance companies who know scientifically you're being an idiot and will charge you more for it.

 

'If people don't like pollution they'll find ways to stop it'
What if those means constitute establishing a regulatory body, advised by scientists, which industry is accountable to?

Your answers are handwavey ('find ways' isn't an answer) and you literally blame everything on government. If you fell down the stairs you'd blame the government. It's a bit of a joke. :\

[Crazy Lee]

23 minutes ago, Saxon said:

'If people don't like pollution they'll find ways to stop it'
What if those means constitute establishing a regulatory body, advised by scientists, which industry is accountable to?

And what if the vast majority of people accept this regulatory body? You yourself may not like it because it's too much of a governing body interfering with private enterprise that would likely need to use force to enforce their regulations (like fines or police), but if the majority of people want it, they're going to allow it despite your protests to the contrary.

I do notice that he has this tendency to state things without elaborating, like "They'll find ways to stop it"? Okay, how? Because, without examples you could have people come to many conclusions, such as Saxon's example which is certainly one valid way of "stopping it".

Or, say they decide to "stop it" by violence. They go in, kill a bunch of people, take out the business. They're following their own moral path, because their morals say that someone who destroys nature should be punished (think, for example, eco-terrorists). Or maybe they're just an angry mob because their local water source is now orange and has three-eyed fish. Maybe some of the people at that company are people who were complicit with the pollution, but what about the low level worker who was just doing his job and had no idea what was going on? Does he deserve to die as well?

23 minutes ago, Saxon said:

Your answers are handwavey

He does act a lot like a politician in a campaign in this way. "I'll fix your problems!" "how?" "We'll figure it out when we get in office." Or, they offer numbers, but not how they'll get to those numbers. Trump does this a lot. And he does as well.

Quote

and you literally blame everything on government. If you fell down the stairs you'd blame the government. It's a bit of a joke. :\

The kind of attitude he seems to project is that if he got pulled over by a cop who was friendly, who just told him his taillight was out and then sent him on his way with little issue, he'd screech that that was fascism and his precious rights were violated even though said traffic stop was a minor inconvenience compared to rights violation like torture, murder, mass surveillance, or even something somewhat less serious like civil forfeiture abuse. Whining about minor things like that make you sound like a rebellious 13-year old who complains because his parents set rules and curfew.

And I do notice that people with Rassah's belief system, either very firm libertarianism, or anarcho-capitalism, tend to be white, live well off or comfortable lives, are often rich, live in a developed western government, and generally live a pretty easy life. It's as if they are so well off or have it so easy they're just looking for a new thing to whine about. I almost believe that it's basic human nature to find a villain or external force to blame all your ills and problems, and in his case, it's government in general.

[Fossa]

16 minutes ago, Crazy Lee said:

And I do notice that people with Rassah's belief system, either very firm libertarianism, or anarcho-capitalism, tend to be white, live well off or comfortable lives, are often rich, live in a developed western government, and generally live a pretty easy life. It's as if they are so well off or have it so easy they're just looking for a new thing to whine about. I almost believe that it's basic human nature to find a villain or external force to blame all your ills and problems, and in his case, it's government in general.

But Rassah has a very tough  & sometimetimes dangerous  night job...I seen him here in a local go-go bar as an Ayn Rand Impersonator. He takes a lot of abuse for it here in Baltimore, but I hear the pay's good. :V

[Rassah]

46 minutes ago, Saxon said:

 

'If people don't like pollution they'll find ways to stop it'
What if those means constitute establishing a regulatory body, advised by scientists, which industry is accountable to?

That's fine. If people are willing to find that body themselves, and companies are willing to submit themselves to that body voluntarily. Look at how BBB works, or other review services. Look how much the whole "organic" fad took off. People wanted it, and companies are scrambling to get certifications so people will buy their stuff.

Quote

Your answers are handwavey ('find ways' isn't an answer) and you literally blame everything on government. If you fell down the stairs you'd blame the government. It's a bit of a joke. :\

No, I literally blame everything in a discussion about government on government. The topic is about government. On the other hand, government is so intertwined in our lives that it's hard to find anything it isn't involved in our not screwing up. 

[Rassah]

@Crazy Lee Those are all valid ways of stopping it, yes. More likely businesses will just not do it in the first place so as to not fuck their reputation, or because of a threat of things you mentioned happening. They won't have government or police to protect them like they have now, or government leased land they they can do whatever they want with, knowing government will take care of the cleanup.

 

The reason I'm not elaborating is because I don't know. No one does. I can think of possibilities, but at the end of the day, no one can really predict things. But that doesn't excuse that there is a problem in the first place. "But without slavery, who will pick the cotton?" I don't know, but that doesn't make slavery ok. And no one who was asked that question could have predicted the mass mechanization and innovation that followed as a result.

Regarding cops, I know they're power mongers with lethal force and itchy trigger fingers, so I'm not an idiot. I'm also very polite and cordial, and hate violence. But I'll do what I can to put them out of a job in other ways. When things like that happen (I got a fine for tinted car windows in NY which were well within legal limit in MD where I live, and just yesterday TSA stole my shaving cream bottle because it was a tad to big) it's just motivation for me to work harder to do what I do.

So no, I'm not a screeching petulant child. I'm the adult in here telling people to grow up, take personal responsibility, and stop blaming your problems on others and taking their stuff by force, while you're being the petulant child (children?) going "but what about my roads, and my free stuff? Who will protect me from the scary bad men?!"

As for the white rich privilege of people like me, I started out dirt poor, as did many of my friends in this space. Maybe it's not that only well off people who support this, maybe supporting and understanding this makes becoming well off easier? I'm sure someone can chime in with studies of relative wealth between people who have internal vs external locus of control.

 

P.S. Mexicans keep out

[Saxon]

5 minutes ago, Rassah said:

That's fine. If people are willing to find that body themselves, and companies are willing to submit themselves to that body voluntarily. Look at how BBB works, or other review services. Look how much the whole "organic" fad took off. People wanted it, and companies are scrambling to get certifications so people will buy their stuff.

No, I literally blame everything in a discussion about government on government. The topic is about government. On the other hand, government is so intertwined in our lives that it's hard to find anything it isn't involved in our not screwing up. 

 

#

 

 

I think organic food illustrated why marketing forces aren't a good regulator for the agricultural industry, rather than an independent regulatory body responding to peer reviewed science. Owing to their extensive testing and vetting, before independent regulatory bodies can approve them, the vast majority of pesticides used in agriculture are used in a controlled and safe fashion which allows enough food to be grown for the population to be fed.
The public panic about pesticides is an example of public over-reaction to a perceived threat, just like the response to genetically modified crops or gamma-sterilisation of food as a preservative.
You're right to call this a 'fad'. It's not a position motivated by a reasonable expectation to protect the environment or consumer safety.
If we were to abandon obligatory and independent regulation of industries, such as agriculture, then they would behave in their best marketing interests, which very well may not be the safest or most environmentally friendly; they only need to convince their consumer that it is (if their consumer even cares).

 

 

I don't think I need to explain why government is involved with many of the items on the graphic you included...but I guess I will have to. :\

-There are housing regulations to stop dangerous death-traps from being built, and to stop people invading land set aside for conservation.
-There are driver's license regulations to prevent dangerously under-experienced people from driving.
-There are weapons regulations to reduce arms sales to convicted criminals and deranged people.
-There are fishing rules because, without the, the fish reserves would soon be exploited to the point of extinction.
-Collection of Rainwater is mandatory in some countries with astonishingly small natural water supplies (for example Bermuda)
-If there were no hunting regulations, then wild stocks of animals could be exploited and depleted or driven to extinction.
-Without laws about road-crossing it wouldn't be possible to determine liability in car-crashes with pedestrians
-Without laws about marriage, paedophiles could marry 6 year olds.
-Without laws about leaving the country it would be easy for criminals to escape, or for foreign fighters to join groups like IS.
-Businesses that are established need to be known about for tax collection and for regulatory inspection.
-Obviously there need to be aviation laws, otherwise dangerous people could board them more easily.
-(I'll give you this one, since many national drugs laws are draconian and not evidence-informed)
-Without laws about work it would be difficult to guarantee workers' rights and responsibilities and to prevent large scale economic immigration.

 

 

[Rassah]

32 minutes ago, Fossa-Boy said:

But Rassah has a very tough  & sometimetimes dangerous  night job...I seen him here in a local go-go bar as an Ayn Rand Impersonator. He takes a lot of abuse for it here in Baltimore, but I hear the pay's good. :V

I used to live in a run down shack in Towson off York Road near Towson University, sharing the house with 5 other people, including druggies, scrounging $20 a month on food, and skimping on rent  but only delaying being homeless thanks to the gay landlord finding me attractive and sometimes getting butseks from me. It wasn't fun and swore I'd never be there again. I'm now retired for two years.

@Saxon Remember "ship shape" or do you need a reminder? Do you know of CE and UL?

[Saxon]

Just now, Rassah said:

I used to live in a run down shack in Towson off York Road near Towson University, sharing the house with 5 other people, including druggies, scrounging $20 a month on food, and skimping on rent  but only delaying being homeless thanks to the gay landlord finding me attractive and sometimes getting butseks from me. It wasn't fun and swore I'd never be there again. I'm now retired for two years.

...I'm pretty sure your landlord should be in prison if he was accepting sexual favours in place of rent. O_O