Libertarian Thread #2: We Shall Never Die!

timothy leary wrote: as for statistics, you look them up, they are there for you to see but I doubt you will look, just google it and get back to me about the raping of resources in third world countries, I am not going to cut and paste and do all the work for you, anyone who reads these posts can do the same, the documentation of the raping of resources would fill volumes of books

you steppin' bro?

Thought I would get some fresh air, have a good time in fantasy libtardia

Oh my... We dared not to agree with Tim's views so he gets pissed.

Multiply that by a large numbe and you get totalitarianism: a guy with "good intentions" who seems to know what's bes tfor each person, tries to apply it, finds opposition, gets extremely pissed off. But, unline in an internet forum, as he has the whole coercive apparatus of the state behind him, instead of just leavig the discussion he just forces people to agree with him. Eventually he'll use all kinds of tools to get one segment of the population to agree with him always no matter what he does, then he stages democratic processes to give his reign an aura of legitimacy, and we have a dictatorship of the many in the hands of the few. Opposition? Good bye.

By the way, Tim never replied to my bigger post where I talk about the "resource raping" except with "it's there, look it up". And he keeps on doing it.

To make it clearer, this is how it is in thirld world countries, as I lived in one for 25 years (I'm ecuadorian you know).

There's big poverty. Populist governments offer messiah-like plans to the people but also need a common enemy which is the single most unifying factor for a populace. As he offers them redemption and salvation from poverty, he won't say "we'll have to tighten our belts and work hard" but he says "the US is evil; corporations are evil; we have to nationalize eveything". That makes the president popular and creates conditions for government to reject investments by corporations except those that offer great terms for the government (NOT the people). This anti-investment environment then generates lack of a large number of corporations entering the economy and helping create jobs and employment. Only few corporations manage to break in, those that have the blessing of government. No wonder they can do whatever they want. And fewer jobs and wealth is created, except for a few.

What is the element here that allows this "raping" to happen? These corporations might do a little of it but they don't have force or power. It's the government who is really benefitig from all of this. The government as in ITS MEMBERS, NOT the people in the country.

Proletariat wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote:   Regulation has caused a price increase for all other goods. I didn't think that needed to be stated. I never claimed that drugs do not increase crime. They very well may. I think the causation is a tricky thing to sort out. I would argue that we should be particularly careful here because those who get involved with hard narcotics tend to be people more prone to crime.  You should see the problem since you argue that drug addictions lead to muggings to support the abusers habit. If drugs cost less, some of this problem would be mitigated. On a more basic level though, isn't a high cost of anything bad? The goal is to have all goods as cheap as possible so that people may be able to enjoy more and more of them. I understand you've clearly made a moral judgement against drugs, but people enjoy them. I don't wish harm upon them just because they enjoy an activity which I do not.  i dont see how you can aply the term "bad" to prices. there is absolutely no morality or ethics involved in what is charged for a product. also while the free market may at times drive down prices it also drives down wages equally making little to no difference to anyone except for the "boss" and leaving the public no better off than before. and under a libertarian government they have no governmental programs to fall back on. its not worth half off on shoes

Epignosis wrote: I'm beginning to sense my retirement from discussing serious things with people on the Internet.

It's the sane thing to do.

Epignosis wrote: Proletariat wrote: Epignosis wrote: Proletariat wrote: Epignosis wrote: timothy leary wrote: It happens in every walk of life, countless religious leaders, sports heros, celebrities, politicians, teachers and on and on have been caught in the net of moral bankruptcy, am I right? Yep, but for most of these, I don't have to pay for their vices. you may not literally have to pay but they do effect people and whose to say one day you wont be the one being effected? I don't have a problem being effected.  I could use a new life. so its cool if i kill your family? ...way to put politics before things that really matter You don't know the difference between affected and effected.  Hence my comment. Snorting cocaine off a prostitute's ass in the privacy of your own home = killing my family.  I'm beginning to sense my retirement from discussing serious things with people on the Internet.

You retiring from discussing serious things on the internet =/= discussions on the internet getting any better

The T wrote: Epignosis wrote: Proletariat wrote: Epignosis wrote: Proletariat wrote: Epignosis wrote: timothy leary wrote: It happens in every walk of life, countless religious leaders, sports heros, celebrities, politicians, teachers and on and on have been caught in the net of moral bankruptcy, am I right? Yep, but for most of these, I don't have to pay for their vices. you may not literally have to pay but they do effect people and whose to say one day you wont be the one being effected? I don't have a problem being effected.  I could use a new life. so its cool if i kill your family? ...way to put politics before things that really matter You don't know the difference between affected and effected.  Hence my comment. Snorting cocaine off a prostitute's ass in the privacy of your own home = killing my family.  I'm beginning to sense my retirement from discussing serious things with people on the Internet.  You retiring from discussing serious things on the internet =/= discussions on the internet getting any better

The first and only time I "swore off" Internet debating was because of a Christian forum. 

Nastiest a****les you ever virtually met.

Epignosis wrote: The T wrote: Epignosis wrote: Proletariat wrote: Epignosis wrote: Proletariat wrote: Epignosis wrote: timothy leary wrote: It happens in every walk of life, countless religious leaders, sports heros, celebrities, politicians, teachers and on and on have been caught in the net of moral bankruptcy, am I right? Yep, but for most of these, I don't have to pay for their vices. you may not literally have to pay but they do effect people and whose to say one day you wont be the one being effected? I don't have a problem being effected.  I could use a new life. so its cool if i kill your family? ...way to put politics before things that really matter You don't know the difference between affected and effected.  Hence my comment. Snorting cocaine off a prostitute's ass in the privacy of your own home = killing my family.  I'm beginning to sense my retirement from discussing serious things with people on the Internet.  You retiring from discussing serious things on the internet =/= discussions on the internet getting any better The first and only time I "swore off" Internet debating was because of a Christian forum.  Nastiest a****les you ever virtually met.

You my friend have never been to IMDb.