Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
WOW! Not exactly ross Perot...but wowJohnson/Weld was polling over 10% in 9 states
Well, I guess my short response would be, "That's retarded, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about".What about objecting to being automatically enrolled in a failed Ponzi scheme set up 40 years before my birth?
I wouldn't call it a failed ponzi scheme. It's working great as a ponzi scheme.What about objecting to being automatically enrolled in a failed Ponzi scheme set up 40 years before my birth?
Yeah. See. You didn't even respond in context with the rest of the post, and all you do is this bullshit. There is no point in discussing anything with you.Well, I guess my short response would be, "That's retarded, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about".
the longer response would be to direct you to sources that would help you understand why what you just said is very stupid.
In the end, you still own your own vote, right?
...but i won't provide said sources.the longer response would be to direct you to sources that would help you understand why what you just said is very stupid.
Because I don't have time to respond to every sentence you type and statement you make. My response to your statement would not have been altered by your "context" (since when is a series of statements that don't affect each other, 'context'?). You are not the first person to vomit that embarrassingly stupid talking point about social security, nor am i the first person to say it is stupid. So cry me a river.You didn't even respond in context with the rest of the post, and all you do is this bullshit.
Sure I could, as could anyone with google. Like I said, that would be my long answer, as I would also summarize some points from those sources. But that is not the topic of this thread and my short answer is more appropriate for what is, essentially, a tangent to the topic: his hypothetical...but i won't provide said sources.
And yet this is also one of its most important and redeeming qualities. Our justice system may not be perfect, but it is better than anything else anyone has thought of, in its fundamental ideas.This is its distinguishing characteristic - the "authority" to do things that would be wrong if any individual did them
The topic is about libertarians and what they believe in, alongside anarchists, and how they differ. All you've done is shit all over everything that libertarians/anarchists believe in, the foundation of which is individual liberty/freedom depending on exactly where someone lands. Social security is the anti-thesis of individual liberty, so it's pretty relevant to the discussion at large here.Sure I could, as could anyone with google. Like I said, that would be my long answer, as I would also summarize some points from those sources. But that is not the topic of this thread and my short answer is more appropriate for what is, essentially, a tangent to the topic: his hypothetical.
No, I consider the action of deferring the use of force to maintain law to our government (as opposed to chaos and vigilantism) a redeeming quality of human society. And I don't really appreciate the attempt to misrepresent me.You consider the “right” to act immorally to be a redeeming quality?
Correct, and I have been commenting about that very thing. one of the subtopics that arose was a comment on how libertarians don't have a very good way of delineating themselves from anarchists in their tax arguments, without immediately taking the position of a collectivist statist, eliminating any true "libertarian intellectual space".The topic is about libertarians and what they believe in, alongside anarchists, and how they differ.
All you've done is shit all over everything that libertarians believe in,
Social security is the anti-thesis of individual liberty
Why is it stupid, penis breath? 'Slain yourself, asswipe. Or, are you too fucking stupid to do so?Because I don't have time to respond to every fucking sentence you type, you whiner. My response to your statement would not have been altered by your context" (since when is a series of statements that don't affect each other, 'context'?). You are not the first person to vomit that embarrassingly stupid talking point about social security, nor am i the first person to say it is stupid. So cry me a river.You didn't even respond in context with the rest of the post, and all you do is this bullshit.
yes, what you said about social security was stupid. that would literally be my response. You asked what my response would be, and I gave it. Now you want to whine like a little bitch about it. Go ahead, then.
And, there it is.Actually, I think it represents an effort to enable individual liberty, as it helps prevent dependence in old age. So no, you are 100%, ass -backwards wrong.
How would anarchists handle a serial killer then? Everyone knows that that guy is killing people, but i as one citizen can't kill him back because killing is wrong. Can the government then apprehend/jail/kill that serial killer since an individual can't kill someone else so therefore the government shouldn't be able to? ...even though the rest of the community would likely agree that not having a serial killer around is a good idea?Anarchists can run a country, they don't believe in governmental authority (i.e. an inequality of rights). That is the fundamental distinction between anarchists and everyone else - the former does not condone the use of immoral violence (force used outside the scope of defense), everyone else does, to some degree. If a government does not employ such violence, it is no longer government. This is its distinguishing characteristic - the "authority" to do things that would be wrong if any individual did them.
It's not a mystery, crybaby. If you honestly want to know why we have social security, pick up a history book and educate yourself, you ignorant slut.Why is it stupid, penis breath? 'Slain yourself, asswipe. Or, are you too fucking stupid to do so?Because I don't have time to respond to every fucking sentence you type, you whiner. My response to your statement would not have been altered by your context" (since when is a series of statements that don't affect each other, 'context'?). You are not the first person to vomit that embarrassingly stupid talking point about social security, nor am i the first person to say it is stupid. So cry me a river.You didn't even respond in context with the rest of the post, and all you do is this bullshit.
yes, what you said about social security was stupid. that would literally be my response. You asked what my response would be, and I gave it. Now you want to whine like a little bitch about it. Go ahead, then.
If I don't pay into social security, what happens to me?
If I don't give my wallet to the criminal holding a gun on me, what happens to me?
How could this be resolved without BUTTFUCKING individual liberty?
Now, go ahead and be your usual shitty, smug, bullshitting self. You have no answer of your own because you are full of shit. Your only answer is the Authoritarian answer. You are an ignorant statist cocksucker. You are the enemy of liberty. For ease, I group all you and all fucktards like you into one single pejorative group-- fucking commies.
I accept your surrender.It's not a mystery, crybaby. If you honestly want to know why we have social security, pick up a history book and educate yourself, you ignorant slut.
It's one thing to be able to relate the argument for social security, then explain why it does not compelling you. 8t's quite another to sit there like an ignorant slut and scratch your head, demanding someone spoonfeeds you a reason. I aM not your mommy.
So, supporting the idea that "government does have some small, limited role in civilized life and therefore needs to be funded via some small, limited taxation" = collectivist statist? Agree to disagree there. I agree that some libertarians run into issues with pure ideology vs reality but it's not a reason to completely dismiss the ideas behind it.Correct, and I have been commenting about that very thing. one of the subtopics that arose was a comment on how libertarians don't have a very good way of delineating themselves from anarchists in their tax arguments, without immediately taking the position of a collectivist statist, eliminating any true "libertarian intellectual space".
So, the other poster asked me a hypothetical. I gave him what would literally be my resposne, as requested.
You're going to have to get over it.
Could've fooled me. I haven't seen much espousal of actual liberty here from you, but to each their own.ON the contrary, I started off by identifying common ground that I have with libertarians, in mentioning classical liberalism.
Ah, so the ends justify the means? Because the intention is for you to be secure in your old age, we're going to confiscate your money and "hold onto it for you" without your consent until which point we feel you deserve to have it back? Anyone who believed in individual liberty at all would agree that it's the anti-thesis of liberty.Actually, I think it represents an effort to enable individual liberty, as it helps prevent dependence in old age. So no, you are 100%, ass -backwards wrong.
In a way, in this case, yes. Not in all cases. And one can make the argument that the person "donating" ends up with more money, even after donating, than he would have without soxial security,due to a more secure economy.To enable individual liberty (money), we must take it from another
Absolutey, in some cases.Ah, so the ends justify the means?
Gotcha. Good reasoning, and thanks! But like i just mentioned to the big government representation here, i think that approach to justice runs into obstacles from a real-world, practical application.Self-defense and defense of others is a natural law right. Of course you can, and should, kill him. To permit him to murder would be pro-violence (this is why pacifism is actually a pro-violence position). Defensive force (as distinguished from violence) is moral, and inherently required to protect freedom.
It does not violate the killer’s freedom, either, as individual freedom’s natural limitation is where it imposes upon another’s freedom. His mudering is not within his right to freedom.
If you think of freedom in the aggregate - as one thing being expressed by many individuals (like life, for example) - you see that freedom cannot impose upon itself (effectually becoming anti-freedom) and still be freedom (just as life cannot be death and still be life). Think of it as “A” cannot be “not A”.
This is the overall point of how applying the principle of maximizing liberty works.Self-defense and defense of others is a natural law right. Of course you can, and should, kill him. To permit him to murder would be pro-violence (this is why pacifism is actually a pro-violence position). Defensive force (as distinguished from violence) is moral, and inherently required to protect freedom.
It does not violate the killer’s freedom, either, as individual freedom’s natural limitation is where it imposes upon another’s freedom. His mudering is not within his right to freedom.
If you think of freedom in the aggregate - as one thing being expressed by many individuals (like life, for example) - you see that freedom cannot impose upon itself (effectually becoming anti-freedom) and still be freedom (just as life cannot be death and still be life). Think of it as “A” cannot be “not A”.
