Reply With Quote
politics politics rabble rabble rabble
Sorry, I realized I didn't include a question in my above post. Do you guys believe he actually wrote that nonsense, or was some lackey of his pecking at the keyboard and putting this garbage out under his name?
politics politics rabble rabble rabble
This came out a long time ago. I honestly don't really care. If he wrote it I'd be pretty shocked and disappointed, but it *seems* like he's more guilty of not running his newsletter with an iron fist, which is certainly believable. The important distinction is that Ron Paul and Gary Johnson and the next guy are not demi-gods to be fawned over and adored - they're just representitives of a philosophy and a movement toward decentralized power. Unlike our counterparts in the pro-state camps, it's not required that the powerful central figure heads be seen as infallible messianic icons, only that they deliver us from them.Originally Posted by Randall
^ You hit on a good point. What sets us apart from the other political affiliations, is that to us, the only thing that matters is principal, not party or politician. Most exhibit the complete opposite traits.
Anarchy = a helpless population, unable to organize, powerless against street gangs? Hmmm . . . what makes you so sure?
What would happen if child molestation were legal? Would it be more common? Would molesters operate with impunity?Ban child molestation: yes
Anarchy doesn't make preparers like myself helpless but to most, yes. Either way, it might not even be a street gang that rises in a area, it could just be the strongest group in charge. Regardless, groups will rise like the mafia, with no weight to counter balance their power (like the government today), and those groups would be the ones abusing. It is just part of being human I suppose. The term "Limited government" is actually a key term in the founding American philosophy.
Think about property rights, without an intermediary to protect them, your property is essentially the property of whoever is stronger than you. In order to have true freedom, imo, we need a limited (and I do mean a very limited) government.
Child molestation? Yeah there are tons of guys that wish they can grope little kids without any police force that can track them down. This issue isn't like guns, there is no utility involved in child molestation, remove the laws and they will happen more.
Last edited by Time Warner; 02-01-2013 at 09:51 AM.
TimeWarner claims to be for limited government, and that they aren't good at just about anything... Yet he feels the government should decide who has the right to be free just based on where or who they were born to. That right there is a load of left wing Nazi bull****
My challenge is thus: anyone who paints such a detailed picture of what will surely be brings incredible scrutiy upon themselves. You sound incredibly prophetic here and, by omission, rule out any number of possible outcomes aside from the one, inevetible Somailia-esq future you envision. Many powerful people have a vested interest in security, prosperity, and free markets and the foregone conclusion that we all sit idly by as some Godfather 2.0 rises to control vast swaths of the continent seems like something a Canadian would dream up as a call for centralized power structure.
Who is stronger than me? Stronger than my community? Stronger than my business associations? Stronger than the public response to evidence of theft and hostility and violence against innocent people? That is a strong foe indeed.Think about property rights, without an intermediary to protect them, your property is essentially the property of whoever is stronger than you. In order to have true freedom, imo, we need a limited (and I do mean a very limited) government.
Again you've assumed that without a police force society would just shrug and accept child rape as a fact of life. You also assume that laws/police significantly deter molestation. I would challenge both of these assertions and ask you to provide evidence.Child molestation? Yeah there are tons of guys that wish they can grope little kids without any police force that can track them down. This issue isn't like guns, there is no utility involved in child molestation, remove the laws and they will happen more.
Your above description is not exactly how I feel. To be perfectly honest, I would rather have Anarchy over today's system. It would definitely be a game changer but I could probably do fine and I bet you would too, but it is other people that I wouldn't be so confident about.
Don't get me wrong, I've read "For a New Liberty" by Lew Rockwell, and I understand the theory of the non-aggression very well and for the most part, I am totally in support of it. But overall, I support the system that our founding fathers created in regards to the size of government. The problem with today's system is that the government got out of control and I do not know the perfect, fail proof answer to prevent these things from happening. We should probably let the states decide. Would you agree? But I do not think that the original foundation of this nation is flawed, as much as we made the fatal mistake of not holding the elected and appointed accountable. How I see this situation; it is every generation's duty to preserve liberty and all that it takes is one lazy generation to throw it away. An informed citizenry is must for a functional society.
When you bring up child molestation, I am simply convinced that more creeps would come out of the wood-works if there was not any laws in regards to it. I don't have a link to provide you or anything, it is just my observation. Same with theft, it should be illegal if you ask me. I do not believe that if one guy is stronger than another, the strong man should be allowed to seize the other guys property freely. Not everyone can defend themselves, including a lot of very smart people could thrive but would not be able to.
Understand that I am not challenging your position, I just feel that there are better answers than anarchy in regards to bettering society's problems. Every system will have its own unique problems, including anarchy, try not to get offended if it gets challenged a bit. There is nothing wrong with that. Overall, I truly believe that if we allowed states to govern themselves and even more so; we allow local communities and sheriffs to govern themselves, that is the best formula for growth and innovation.
Who said that I was against a legal immigration process? We need to crack down on violent militias at the boarder (not this overseas crap), but by no means do I think that we should close them entirely. I could actually make a strong case that tightening the boarder would benefit Mexicans greatly.
See, you are not thinking buddy, you are just assuming things while throwing around silly insults and it is not impressing anyone.
Last edited by Time Warner; 02-01-2013 at 08:18 PM.
Posting Permissions
