Quote :

"It's not even white knighting. And you couldn't have been right about anything because you have yet to even make a fucking point."

I made my point with the answer to my question. It's a higher level of arguing than you're used to.
Instead of telling you why you're wrong, I help walk you to the conclusion at which point you saw where I was leading you and you repeated yourself 3 times.

6/21/2012 3:24:18 PM

You might want to start with learning basic communication skills before you attempt to "argue at a higher level."

And you repeated yourself 3 times. This is your thread. I have no problem shitting in it over and over.

[Edited on June 21, 2012 at 3:25 PM. Reason : ]

6/21/2012 3:24:57 PM

seriously man, you're totally delusional. i hope you know that, and address it.

sorry, i know i'm supposed to ignore you, but it's so hard.

6/21/2012 3:25:26 PM

You should also realize no one will ever play your question and answer games because everyone knows you're a fucking moron that's just trying to deflect.

d3489484i4 actually had the mental capacity to understand what I said and responded to it with an appropriate post.

[Edited on June 21, 2012 at 3:28 PM. Reason : ]

6/21/2012 3:27:25 PM

maybe next time you will answer the question and perhaps I wouldn't have to ask it three times in a row. It's your fault the conversation ended with repetition.

6/21/2012 3:31:03 PM

Fine, guy.

You: Who's money is the federal government spending?
Me: Not the mother fuckers that I was talking about.

Now, what's your next stupid fucking question?

6/21/2012 3:32:00 PM

Quote :

"Not the mother fuckers that I was talking about."

Which is a wrong answer. The national debt is all of our debt. If the country collapses, all of us are affected.

6/21/2012 3:33:22 PM

6/21/2012 3:37:00 PM

Quote :

"and? The same can be said of Neo-confederates or Neo-nazis. "

That's irrelevant.

Quote :

"What about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?"

It isn't correct to say that society owes any of that to you. You're alive, so you have life. You have the ability to move and think, so you have liberty, and the means of pursuing whatever you think will bring you happiness.

"Society" isn't a person. "Government" isn't a person. They are concepts used by people to control people. If you convince people that "society" or "government" can do things that would not be moral behavior for an individual, then you have a tool to steal from and kill people under the guise of legitimacy.

[Edited on June 21, 2012 at 3:38 PM. Reason : ]

6/21/2012 3:37:53 PM

sorry, i know i'm nit-picking, and kinda going off on a tangent, but

Quote :

"You're alive, so you have life"

right, and shouldn't have the right to continue living? so doesn't society owe me the right to continue living and not kill me?

Quote :

"You have the ability to move and think, so you have liberty,"

People in N Korea can move and think, do they have "liberty"? Should they have the right to liberty?

6/21/2012 3:51:29 PM

Quote :

""Society" isn't a person. "Government" isn't a person. They are concepts used by people to control people. If you convince people that "society" or "government" can do things that would not be moral behavior for an individual, then you have a tool to steal from and kill people under the guise of legitimacy."

If they're not people then why are you trying to hold them to the standards of individual morality? You can't have it both ways. Clearly there are moral decisions that result in suffering for the few to the advantage of many. If we accepted your philosophy and abolished government and billions suffered as a result would it really be more moral even if "no forced coercion" is morally consistent on an individual basis?

This is a fallacy of composition; that exactly what applies to/benefits the individual of a group would apply to/benefit the whole group.

6/21/2012 3:51:42 PM

Quote :

"right, and shouldn't have the right to continue living? so doesn't society owe me the right to continue living and not kill me?"

I mean, it's kind of clunky to say that society owes you the respect of not killing you. Yes, that's true, society (more specifically, other individuals) should not deny you the right of living by killing you.

Quote :

"People in N Korea can move and think, do they have "liberty"? Should they have the right to liberty?"

They have rights, but those rights are violated by individuals in power.

Quote :

"If they're not people then why are you trying to hold them to the standards of individual morality? You can't have it both ways."

I'm saying that "society" and "government" are not entities that can be held directly responsible. I'm trying to hold individuals to standards of individual morality. I don't view a government agent as anything more than an individual. Dressing a person in blue and giving them a gun does not give them moral high ground, it just gives them power. Power corrupts any person.

In other words, I don't want to have it both ways. I want moral standards to apply across the board. If you're an advocate of placing all power in the hands of a few people, you're expecting the impossible. You're expecting that people will gamble responsibly with other peoples' chips.

Quote :

"Clearly there are moral decisions that result in suffering for the few to the advantage of many. If we accepted your philosophy and abolished government and billions suffered as a result would it really be more moral even if "no forced coercion" is morally consistent on an individual basis?"

It would be more moral, yes. It's true that abolishing slavery in the U.S. resulted in many people suffering. Any economic or personal consequences that resulted from abolishing slavery are irrelevant, though. We agree - people should be free, and they should not be owned, the consequences be damned.

Back then, the argument for slavery was, "But who would pick the cotton?" At that time, they really didn't know. Well, lo and behold, the cotton got picked. They didn't know that a century later we'd have giant machines that do all the work that slaves did back then. Now, the argument for slavery by government is, "But who would build the roads? Who would pay for health care? Who would educate the population? Who would police the streets?" We can speculate on how those roles might be filled in a society based on free association, but it's secondary to one moral imperative - force must not be initiated, and no group or individual should be given a monopoly on the use of force.

[Edited on June 21, 2012 at 4:39 PM. Reason : ]

6/21/2012 4:36:17 PM

Quote :

"That's irrelevant. "

You associated entrepeneurs (a highly respected group) with libertarian views as an argument for why libertarianism is morally superior (I think thats what you were doing). I think its fair game for me to bring up the less likable parts of the libertarian base, especially when some "libertarian" politicians actively pander to those groups.

Quote :

"It isn't correct to say that society owes any of that to you."

Owe might not be the best word to describe it, but you are entitled to those things. You specifically said we weren't entitled to shit.

but thats a boring argument, here is where it gets fuzzy (for me):

You specifically said we aren't entitled to water. However, if one doesn't have access to water, then you will die in a matter of days. Doesn't this mean that water is an extension of the inalienable right to life? I mean, the stuff does fall freely from the sky without input from anyone else. Why isn't access to enough clean water to sustain yourself included in our inalienable rights?

6/21/2012 4:38:38 PM

Quote :

"You associated entrepeneurs (a highly respected group) with libertarian views as an argument for why libertarianism is morally superior (I think thats what you were doing). I think its fair game for me to bring up the less likable parts of the libertarian base, especially when some "libertarian" politicians actively pander to those groups. "

I was only offering a contrast to jazon's experience where libertarians tended to be low wage earners or underachievers.

Quote :

"Owe might not be the best word to describe it, but you are entitled to those things. You specifically said we weren't entitled to shit."

I think it can be safely said that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness fall under ownership of one's own body and one's own labor.

Quote :

"You specifically said we aren't entitled to water. However, if one doesn't have access to water, then you will die in a matter of days. Doesn't this mean that water is an extension of the inalienable right to life? I mean, the stuff does fall freely from the sky without input from anyone else. Why isn't access to enough clean water to sustain yourself included in our inalienable rights?"

You have a right to make your way to fresh water and drink it. You don't have a right to have it delivered to you by someone else in a form that can be easily consumed.

6/21/2012 4:46:20 PM

I definitely see your points, and agree with them to some extent, but like most libertarian philosohpy, i think a lot of it is very idealisitic, but not very praticical or realistic. But I do appreciate your thoughts.

6/21/2012 4:51:03 PM

Let me just say I was providing that anecdote to counter someone's claim that the majority of libertarians are somehow all rich, self-made, men about the world.

I'm sure there are plenty that are, but there are also plenty who are just scumbag hypocrites...like with anything else.

And I'm with Bullet. You make great points, philosophically speaking. I just don't think the idea is remotely realistic. *shrug*

[Edited on June 21, 2012 at 4:53 PM. Reason : ]

6/21/2012 4:51:39 PM

Quote :

"You have a right to make your way to fresh water and drink it. You don't have a right to have it delivered to you by someone else in a form that can be easily consumed. "

Ah, I agree. But wouldn't you say that means you are entitled to access to water?





Water is really unlike any other natural resource on earth, and we should make sure we treat it that way.

[Edited on June 21, 2012 at 5:11 PM. Reason : correction: Air should also be included on that list]

6/21/2012 4:59:43 PM

Quote :

"but like most libertarian philosohpy, i think a lot of it is very idealisitic, but not very praticical or realistic."

I'm not delusional; I have an idea of what is and isn't reasonable to expect. In 1800, it wouldn't have been practical or realistic to say, for instance, that a black woman could own land one day. That was so radical that it simply wasn't discussed. To have advocated such a system where ownership of land by a black woman was allowed would have gotten you laughed off the face of the earth.

I think it's very important that we talk about philosophy and the brass tacks of morality. We can easy look at past eras and other cultures and point out how wrong they were/are. Let's not be the people that are mocked by future generations. I'd rather be seen as one individual of many that didn't rigidly adhere to notions of pragmatism, even at the risk of being called a hardliner or idealistic.

Quote :

"Ah, I agree. But wouldn't you say that means you are entitled to access to water? Water is really unlike any other natural resource on earth, and we should make sure we treat it that way."

I would actually argue that water, air, and land can't be owned, they can only be "in use". Since they are not the product of anyone's labor and cannot be "produced", they don't fall under the category of property. They also aren't scarce in any way, and no individual or group is capable of restricting access to all water/air/land.

[Edited on June 21, 2012 at 5:32 PM. Reason : ]

6/21/2012 5:27:54 PM

Quote :

"and no individual or group is capable of restricting access to all water/air/land."

Well, that's debatable.

Assuming someone can't restrict access to a resource, they sure as hell can pollute it or make it otherwise unusable.

6/21/2012 5:52:36 PM

Quote :

"Since they are not the product of anyone's labor and cannot be "produced""

maybe not "produced" per se, but it certainly requires labor to gain access to it in most instances. people die of thirst everyday in africa because they can't get clean water, even if it's just 100 feet below their feet.

Quote :

"I'm not delusional; I have an idea of what is and isn't reasonable to expect. In 1800, it wouldn't have been practical or realistic to say, for instance, that a black woman could own land one day. That was so radical that it simply wasn't discussed."

i really don't think that a fair analogy. it wasn't "reasonable" because of black's and women's place in american society. but the concept of humans owning land was completely reasonable. I forgot what this argument was about, but in the instance of pollution, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that some would pollute our waters if it profited them, if there weren't regulations to prevent it. or that private companies would build safe roads or water distribution systems without some form of "government" involvement and regulation and taxation.

[Edited on June 21, 2012 at 6:36 PM. Reason : ]

6/21/2012 6:24:51 PM

you might need to start a new thread on this one d357r0y3r

[Edited on June 21, 2012 at 8:00 PM. Reason : you can call it "Private Land Ownership is NOT moral" ]

[Edited on June 21, 2012 at 8:02 PM. Reason : I know my head would implode]

6/21/2012 7:56:49 PM

Since we're already so off-topic...

Quote :

"Now, the argument for slavery by government is, 'But who would build the roads? Who would pay for health care? Who would educate the population? Who would police the streets?'"

Seeing that you've equated these public services with slavery, I wonder how you feel about the concept of wage slavery.

I'm not trying to make any argument; I'm just curious of your perspective.

If I were to differ with any of your suggestions, it would be in regard to your statement that,

Quote :

"Back then, the argument for slavery was, 'But who would pick the cotton?' At that time, they really didn't know."

I'm fairly certain that slaveholders weren't faced with the dilemma of not having anyone to pick the cotton; it was merely a matter of how to compensate those workers for their efforts in doing so.

6/21/2012 8:39:42 PM

Quote :

"I've noticed that most libertarians I meet; work out consistently, generally have great health, and are rather productive members of society. Definitely anecdotal, but it keeps popping up. Any guesses why?"

aren't you a personal trainer and spend a lot of time in the gym? i would bet that the majority of people you meet work out consistently, generally have great health, and are rather productive members of society.

6/22/2012 10:45:30 AM

Quote :

"I would actually argue that water, air, and land can't be owned, they can only be "in use". Since they are not the product of anyone's labor and cannot be "produced", they don't fall under the category of property."

Nothing exists that is soley the product of anyone's labor. Everything is a product of capital and labor. A chair for example is only a chair thanks to the wood used to make it, and while the person who grew the tree might claim ownership of it, they would have no tree without the seed used to grow it, which if traced back he had no hand in making. As such, nothing in this world exists that is the product of labor alone.

Quote :

"They also aren't scarce in any way, and no individual or group is capable of restricting access to all water/air/land."

Land isn't scarce? Then why don't I own 5 blocks in downtown manhattan?

6/22/2012 12:23:54 PM

I see this mostly as an attempt to highlight how far destroyer goes in the opposite direction, but I have to say your position is equally idealistic for the sake of fairness.

6/22/2012 12:39:23 PM

What does any of this have to do with Ron Paul?

6/22/2012 12:48:06 PM

isn't he a libertarian?

6/22/2012 12:56:44 PM

More like a libertyrian

6/22/2012 1:15:37 PM

Quote :

"isn't he a libertarian?"

Pretty fucking sure he proclaims himself Republican.

absdlaksklfasjdf not that it fucking matters


\naming people is soo fucking stupid, WORSE than stereotyping.

6/22/2012 1:27:54 PM

You are the worst.

6/22/2012 2:04:31 PM

Well, that's debatable.

Assuming someone can't restrict access to a resource, they sure as hell can pollute it or make it otherwise unusable.

6/22/2012 3:13:20 PM

Quote :

"Land isn't scarce? Then why don't I own 5 blocks in downtown manhattan?"

what a dumb way to make a point.

6/22/2012 3:18:28 PM

^^ If you're too stupid to understand that, there really is no hope for you.

6/22/2012 3:20:25 PM

I forgot who you were for a moment jaZon.

Then I remembered.

6/22/2012 3:28:08 PM

Yes, one of those people that realize natural resources aren't limitless.

6/22/2012 3:31:21 PM

And I'm with Bullet. You make great points, philosophically speaking. I just don't think the idea is remotely realistic. *shrug*

6/22/2012 3:31:22 PM

\naming people is soo fucking stupid, WORSE than stereotyping.

6/22/2012 3:32:13 PM

Agreed.

6/22/2012 3:32:45 PM

I don't believe I'm right.

I know I'm right.

6/22/2012 3:33:02 PM

^^

6/22/2012 3:33:40 PM

This is YOUR quote.
YOU take credit for it!
I'm sick of your SHIT.

6/22/2012 3:38:58 PM

You didn't quote anything.

6/22/2012 3:42:35 PM

Well guys, this week was a huge turning point for me. I'm pretty sure we don't have a chance at all now. Ron Paul's campaign managers were hindering the cause all along and this week they turned the guns around and killed us. The momentum was amazing while it lasted, but alas, we have been defeated by shady government people once again.

If you don't know by now, Doug Wead was George Bush's campaign manager. He's a piece of shit and I've been calling for his removal the whole time. Doug even recorded Bush's conversations secretly and then release them to promote his book. He's scum.

Then there is Jesse Benton, who came out to the media in an interview and said we weren't going to win, even though at that time we won 7 out of 9 states. He is Ron Paul's granddaughter's husband. He gets paid $300,000 yr. After the letter came out, Ron Paul's supporters jaws dropped to the floor. Lots of supporters gave up, Lots of supporters advocated Gary Johnson (stupid), and only the hardcore supporters are sticking around.

I am no longer excited about the campaign or any of its successes because they were all made in vane. The campaign has stonewalled us (the groundworkers) from communicating directly with Ron Paul, and vice versa.

The campaign, specifically talking about the members of the official campaign headquarters, was the flop and it singlehandedly broke the whole campaign itself, needlessly, for motivations and intentions unknown.

After our striking loss this saturday from too much damage control caused by our own campaign managers, I am going to take a backseat in this campaign until the conventions, which will be a loss for us also, unless I find out doug wead, jessie benton, and john tate leave office, which is highly unlikely.

6/22/2012 3:42:50 PM

6/22/2012 3:47:16 PM

Quote :

" aren't you a personal trainer and spend a lot of time in the gym? i would bet that the majority of people you meet work out consistently, generally have great health, and are rather productive members of society."

Yes, that is true. And that's why I said it was purely anecdotal.

I am actually a small business owner and run my own gym now. And, from this experience of jumping through all the hoops and paying all the costs to get my place open, it has solidified my disgust for bureaucratic bullshit, barrier-to-entry raising taxes and frivolous regulation.

6/22/2012 6:38:27 PM

Quote :

"And, from this experience of jumping through all the hoops and paying all the costs to get my place open, it has solidified my disgust for bureaucratic bullshit, barrier-to-entry raising taxes and frivolous regulation."

I hate it too, but the more I think about it, I like it because it weeds out the lazy people.

6/22/2012 7:21:45 PM

Seems to me like Oregon just swept 100% of Oregan's At-Large Delegates.

6/23/2012 7:21:00 PM

THIS JUST IN: Oregon becomes frontrunner in GOP presidential nomination!

6/23/2012 8:08:41 PM

i'm voting for oregon, 100%!

6/24/2012 11:56:15 AM

Child's Psychology really works.

6/24/2012 1:17:41 PM