sweepstakes Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 Yeah I used to dream about finding $25 TB-303s at garage sales too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 Paying more is literal theft! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke viia Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 Money that is not willingly given is money that is taken. You cannot refute this principle. Taxes only work because of the threat of force. Government can be run on voluntary money. It's just that no one is yet smart or daring enough to create a government that functions this way. It's the most efficient and the only moral way. Who would voluntarily give the government money without wanting something in return? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caze Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 i don't see the need for stoplights, personally several towns in Germany have experimented with doing away with stop lights, signs and various detriments to driving, it seems to reduce road traffic accidents, makes drivers more focused on what's in front of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caze Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 doing away with a central government is a terrible idea, it's equally retarded whether it's framed in a right or left libertarian model (left libertarianism is oxymoronic, you can't establish public ownership through agreement, it requires the force of a state, and both forms would descend into mad-max style tribal conflict pretty quickly). the best idea is to a have a strong centralised state, but with limited responsibilities, and with more power devolved to local political structures (councils, cantons, assemblies, what have you). this should be a gradual process too, slowly seeding more and more power away as is technically possible and empirically provable to be effective, revolutionary politics is inherently evil for the most part (with the exception of the popular overthrowing of totalitarian regimes). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adieu Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Money that is not willingly given is money that is taken. You cannot refute this principle. Taxes only work because of the threat of force. Government can be run on voluntary money. It's just that no one is yet smart or daring enough to create a government that functions this way. It's the most efficient and the only moral way. Who would voluntarily give the government money without wanting something in return? https://www.kickstarter.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WNS000 Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Lots of naive, fantasy thinking in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adieu Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 People who go around calling other people's ideas naive fantasies have probably never come up with anything remotely inventive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 ideas are rarely the problem, it's about implementation. tons of great ideas around, e.g. "lets go back in time & kill baby Hitler". cool idea, but, hard to implement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auxien Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 People who go around calling other people's ideas naive fantasies have probably never come up with anything remotely inventive. Are you saying the libertarian ideals you were stating earlier are remotely inventive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doublename Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 The timeline in which I killed baby Hitler was far worse than our own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 People who go around calling other people's ideas naive fantasies have probably never come up with anything remotely inventive. Not so much 'naive' as 'disastrously barbaric' In this Ayn Rand utopia, what would happen to people who can't take care of themselves? Who would ensure the food you're about to consume isn't tainted with E Coli? Who will ensure corporations don't freely pollute? How will we pay for infrastructure? How will we prevent monopolies? Etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baph Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 The timeline in which I killed baby Hitler was far worse than our own. Has no one thought of sending a nice Jewish granny back in time to give baby Hitler lots of nurturing and affection? IT IS SELF-EVIDENT THAT THIS IS THE WAY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azatoth Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 People who go around calling other people's ideas naive fantasies have probably never come up with anything remotely inventive. Not so much 'naive' as 'disastrously barbaric' In this Ayn Rand utopia, what would happen to people who can't take care of themselves? Who would ensure the food you're about to consume isn't tainted with E Coli? Who will ensure corporations don't freely pollute? How will we pay for infrastructure? How will we prevent monopolies? Etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Imagine going to buy something--food, a car, a humidifier, literally anything--and not knowing whether that thing is gonna kill you or not. (Or best case scenario: you know not to buy something because it's already killed thousands of people) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doublename Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 flol baph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adieu Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 People who go around calling other people's ideas naive fantasies have probably never come up with anything remotely inventive. Not so much 'naive' as 'disastrously barbaric' In this Ayn Rand utopia, what would happen to people who can't take care of themselves? Who would ensure the food you're about to consume isn't tainted with E Coli? Who will ensure corporations don't freely pollute? How will we pay for infrastructure? How will we prevent monopolies? Etc etc Please do not indirectly associate me with another person in an attempt to dilute the relevance of my point of view. People who cannot take care of themselves are at the mercy of those that can take care of themselves. This is the way it's always been, and it will continue to be this way. Infrastructure = modified version of kickstarter.com and pay-per-use systems. (this is just a theory) Such as the currently implemented system of tollways and paid express lanes that are in use in Texas. It could be modified with a progressive fee system in order to cover the people with provably 0 income, or some kind of credit system that can be paid back over time. Food is already regularly infected with harmful bacteria. Most meats, fish, and poultry will test positive for harmful bacteria. People already get sick from eating food that is prepared for them improperly. The lie is that government is keeping you safe and helping you. Sure, they do some things that are beneficial. Most systems have some elements that actually do what they are supposed to, but for instance, if we started implementing sustainable and renewable manufacturing processes across the board (which we are) then things like environmental protection will continue to be less and less relevant. (which it will be) That's just an example. Also, I said government should as small as necessary. Not that it shouldn't exist at all. Imagine if we didn't have government interference in energy. We'd probably all already be on renewable energy with electric cars. Imagine going to buy something--food, a car, a humidifier, literally anything--and not knowing whether that thing is gonna kill you or not. (Or best case scenario: you know not to buy something because it's already killed thousands of people) That's already a reality. On another note, New Study Confirms 440,000 Deaths from Medical Negligence Every Year http://www.medicalmalpracticelawyer.center/2014/05/new-study-confirms-440000-deat.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adieu Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 (edited) And if you want to get into regulations regarding food. Most the meat you eat is extremely unhealthy. Both the animal and the adulterants they use to make the entire process possible. All these practices fall within the guidelines of the current regulations, and they are bad for you. Another one, High Fructose Corn Syrup, something that has only existed for <50 years is allowed and present in a HUGE amount of foods. It's nearly impossible to avoid, and it's not only unnatural for human's to consume it, but it's extremely detrimental for your health. It's also allowed under current regulations. The government isn't helping you stay healthy in most areas of your life. The government is also responsible for adding fluoride to the water supply. The government is also responsible for allowing GMO's. It's also allowed by the government that a huge portion of the corn and peanuts in the USA is infected with aflatoxin. Maybe the best function they are serving right now is protecting you from pollution related to industry, but it's only partial protection. Just look at home the oil and gas industry has polluted the water supply and environments of communities across the country. The things they are doing for the most part fall inline with government regulation. Government is the answer to our problems? I disagree. Guess what the government didn't regulate into existence? Healthy food stores. That was a development of consumer demand. The entire industry of food is changing, because consumers demanded it, not because government decided people should eat nutritious food that isn't poison. Edited March 22, 2016 by AdieuErsatzEnnui Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Okay, now imagine how much worse these things would be with no FDA, EPA, BBB, etc. Explain how this wouldn't be a nightmare...let alone how it'd be better. You also wanna defund police, right? Please just walk us through the broad strokes of this world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2475http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/lessons-from-dunning-kruger/Debating for the sake of it is fun though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Okay, again....how is the HFCS situation gonna improve by removing regulation? You are pointing out legit problems, but your proposed solutions are complete non-sequiturs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 (edited) Adieu, my friend, literally everything you listed would be worse in a right-libertarian society. GMO's Pollution Aflatoxin HFCS Adulterants in Meat You think antibiotics in meat are bad? Imagine what would get put in meat if there was no FDA, no regulation First off, you couldn't be sure you weren't eating dog meat Secondly, your meat would certainly have antibiotics As well as anything else they felt like putting in there There's no FDA to protect you from literally being poisoned anymore But yay, we don't have to pay taxes anymore...."freedom"! Edited March 22, 2016 by LimpyLoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2475 http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/lessons-from-dunning-kruger/ Debating for the sake of it is fun though. An ignorant mind is precisely not a spotless, empty vessel, but one that’s filled with the clutter of irrelevant or misleading life experiences, theories, facts, intuitions, strategies, algorithms, heuristics, metaphors, and hunches that regrettably have the look and feel of useful and accurate knowledge. couldn't help but lol XD plus we can all go back to sleep now. as ignoramuses we simply can't know the extent of our ignoramussythingy. by definition. ..well, ok not by definition, but by empirical research. ;p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke viia Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Money that is not willingly given is money that is taken. You cannot refute this principle. Taxes only work because of the threat of force. Government can be run on voluntary money. It's just that no one is yet smart or daring enough to create a government that functions this way. It's the most efficient and the only moral way. Who would voluntarily give the government money without wanting something in return? https://www.kickstarter.com/ Yeah but people kick-start projects to get something in return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts