What is your ideal society?

[Ron Paul in 2008]

Please answer.

[user]

When I saw the title of your thread I thought you were asking for a vision that realistically could and should be achieved. But from your post I take it you're just asking for any fantasy, so I don't have much to say on that.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

When I saw the title of your thread I thought you were asking for a vision that realistically could and should be achieved. But from your post I take it you're just asking for any fantasy, so I don't have much to say on that.

Of course it can be achieved.

[user]

Of course it can be achieved.
I disagree. Aside from that, should it be achieved?

Just to be clear, you're saying one of the following:

1) Realistically, no one will make stupid movies.
2) People would make stupid movies but they should not be allowed to do so.

I can't agree with either of those.

[Kludge]

Weird, I was just in this same thread today, except it was created many months ago.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=145628

[heavenlyboy34]

Simple, OP-

Laissez-faire, FTW! :D:) Everything else takes care of itself. ;):)

[Ron Paul in 2008]

And should it?

Yes, absolutely. Evil must be stopped.



Just to be clear, you're saying one of the following:

1) Realistically, no one will make stupid movies.
2) People would make stupid movies but they should not be allowed to do so.

I am saying that Zionists, homosexuals and other degenerates must not be allowed to have control over my nation's culture.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

Simple, OP-

Laissez-faire, FTW! :D:) Everything else takes care of itself. ;):)

Do you oppose government regulation of the film industry? If so, why?

[Original_Intent]

In my society everyone will be principled. The society will be of one race, one culture, and one language. The culture will be wholesome. No more stupid, emptyheaded movies like "The Animal" or "Duce Bigalo Male Giggolo." Our movies will be a light to the world and reflect a cultured, good people. We will have great wealth and a limited government. The arts will flourish. Works like Michalangelo will be widespread in public buildings. We will be able to have paintings of the triumphs of the founding fathers and great Americans without the Zionists and their sheep complaining. Just total freedom and prosperity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WnYBHONtgY&feature=channel_page

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-nOtG__j6k&feature=channel_page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michelangelos_David.jpg

What is your ideal society?

Wow. In your ideal society who determines what is wholesome? Who is going to control the making of movies so movies that you deem stupid are not made. Who keeps the Zionists and their sheep from complaining, and what happens to them if they do complain. You say "total freedom and prosperity" but it is clear you mean free within the parameters that you set. So it doesn' seem very free to me.

But I'll play. In my ideal society no one is forced to help others thru wealth redistribution schemes. Hopefully true charity and not forced charity will meet the needs of those who TRULY cannot provide for themselves. Differing opinions are discussed in a civil manner. Government is small and there are no "state secrets". Each individual is responsible for themselves.

[user]

I am saying that Zionists, homosexuals and other degenerates must not be allowed to have control over my nation's culture.

Oh, you're one of those. I just assumed you were in favor of individual liberty. Oops.

Edit:

Just total freedom and prosperity.

Well, you can see where I got that impression.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

Wow. In your ideal society who determines what is wholesome?

The majority.



Who is going to control the making of movies so movies that you deem stupid are not made.

My idea is that we pass a hollywood production code at the federal level.



Who keeps the Zionists and their sheep from complaining, and what happens to them if they do complain.

Defeat the Zionists and the sheep won't complain.

[pcosmar]

Yes, absolutely. Evil must be stopped.



I am saying that Zionists, homosexuals and other degenerates must not be allowed to have control over my nation's culture.

Been done.
It was called Nazi Germany.:eek:

NO Thanks

[Ron Paul in 2008]

Oh, you're one of those. I just assumed you were in favor of individual liberty. Oops.

I am one of what?

I do not support eight Zionist Jews making whatever degenerate movies they please.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

Been done.
It was called Nazi Germany.:eek:

While I agree that the Nazi government was evil, what does this have to do with stopping the Zionists?

[Monolithic]

listen man the jews do a pretty good job with what they're doing in the entertainment industry i say let them have it

[Ron Paul in 2008]

listen man the jews do a pretty good job with what they're doing in the entertainment industry

lol. Do you enjoy movies like Duece Biggallo Male Gigallo?



i say let them have it

Those who control the culture control the people.

[constituent]

http://blog.infinitemonkeysblog.com/files/images/obvious_troll.preview.jpg

[Ron Paul in 2008]

What is trollish about my posts?

[pcosmar]

What is trollish about my posts?

Well, THIS

The majority.



My idea is that we pass a hollywood production code at the federal level.



Defeat the Zionists and the sheep won't complain.

Anti liberty on a Liberty Forum.
Pro Big Government on a limited Government forum
Collectivist rhetoric on an Individualist forum.

Basically taking a contrary position to the purposes of this forum.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

Well, THIS


Anti liberty on a Liberty Forum.

How is stopping degenerate movies bad?



Pro Big Government on a limited Government forum

How is passing a hollywood production code at the federal level "Big government?"



Collectivist rhetoric on an Individualist forum.

How is regulating the film industry collectivist if regulation is democratically enacted?



Basically taking a contrary position to the purposes of this forum.

What are the purposes of this forum?

If you want to change my opinion post your best arguments.

[pcosmar]

I am anti-liberty of people making degenerate movies.



How is passing a hollywood production code at the federal level "Big government?" .
The federal Government would have to further expand to and create another bureaucracy to handle this.
Aside from that, It would violate the first amendment protection of freedom of speech.



No, not collectivist if regulation is democratically enacted.
Yes it would be by very definition.
The constitution protects the rights of the minority FROM the majority.



What are the purposes of this forum?
To promote the ideals of Liberty. To seek ways to protect Liberty and to return this country to it's Constitutional roots.

[constituent]

Yes, absolutely. Evil must be stopped.



I am saying that Zionists, homosexuals and other degenerates must not be allowed to have control over my nation's culture.


The majority.



My idea is that we pass a hollywood production code at the federal level.



Defeat the Zionists and the sheep won't complain.


I am one of what?

I do not support eight Zionist Jews making whatever degenerate movies they please.


What is trollish about my posts?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9wJcK9XcQ4Q/SRDBPsjZbBI/AAAAAAAAAD4/VlCUzwq-CFs/s320/thumbCurlyHoward.jpg


A wise guy, eh???

[heavenlyboy34]

Do you oppose government regulation of the film industry? If so, why?

I oppose it because it is by its nature an artifice. The ratings that you see on films are given by the MPAA (http://www.mpaa.org/Ratings_history1.asp). There is nothing the government can do better than the free market!! (except harm people) ;):D

[asimplegirl]

I agree, HB.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

The federal Government would have to further expand to and create another bureaucracy to handle this.

So you are worried about it being a waste of money?



Aside from that, It would violate the first amendment protection of freedom of speech.

Why do you think people should be allowed to communicate obscenity? Do you think inserting communist messages into movies doesn't influence people's thinking?



Yes it would be by very definition.
The constitution protects the rights of the minority FROM the majority.

I see regulation as protecting the majority from the minority.



To promote the ideals of Liberty. To seek ways to protect Liberty and to return this country to it's Constitutional roots.

Well, you can promote them to me.

[user]

I am one of what?

I do not support eight Zionist Jews making whatever degenerate movies they please.

You are one of those who may claim to support liberty but is ultra-conservative instead.

Why did you delete the original post?

[Ron Paul in 2008]

You are one of those who may claim to support liberty but is ultra-conservative instead.

I am not a conservative.

Do you support any restrictions on liberty? For instance, do you support a business owner or corporation being able to pollute the air?


I oppose it because it is by its nature an artifice. The ratings that you see on films are given by the MPAA (http://www.mpaa.org/Ratings_history1.asp). There is nothing the government can do better than the free market!! (except harm people) ;):D

I'll have to do some research.

[user]

I am not a conservative.

Of course you're a conservative. This is clear from the views you've expressed in this thread.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

Of course you're a conservative. This is clear from the views you've expressed in this thread.

I don't want to preserve existing conditions or institutions.

Do you support any restrictions on liberty? For instance, do you support a business owner or corporation polluting the air?

[user]

I don't want to preserve existing conditions or institutions. By itself, this does not mean you're not a conservative.


Do you support any restrictions on liberty?
No.
For instance, do you support a business owner or corporation being able to pollute the air?

As long as they have permission from those whose air they are polluting.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

By itself, this does not mean you're not a conservative.

Well that is the definition of conservative according to dictionary.com



As long as they have permission from those whose air they are polluting.

It's their air too isn't it?

How is it not a restriction on the liberty of business owners to prohibit them from polluting the air?

[pcosmar]

Of course you're a conservative. This is clear from the views you've expressed in this thread.

Nope, he is a bigot. More fascist than conservative. A Stormfront Nazi as I remember.
More a socialist than a Constitutionalist.

Yes , I peeked back at prior posts. I thought I had heard this crap before.
And yes , in a free society he has a right to his views. I also am free to reject them,and oppose them.

[user]

Well that is the definition of conservative according to dictionary.com

That is one definition. Look at definition #9 instead.




It's their air too isn't it?

How is it not a restriction on liberty to prohibit business owners from polluting the air?

They are free to pollute their own air.

[Kludge]

I thought we ran all the Stormfronters (can we start calling them Stormtroopers, instead? It sounds so much cooler - even though I've never watched Star Trek) out months ago.

[user]

Nope, he is a bigot. More fascist than conservative. A Stormfront Nazi as I remember.
More a socialist than a Constitutionalist.

Yes , I peeked back at prior posts. I thought I had heard this crap before.
And yes , in a free society he has a right to his views. I also am free to reject them,and oppose them.

I agree with you, but I consider a fascist to be a type of conservative.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

Nope, he is a bigot.

How am I bigot, Nazi, fascist?



Yes , I peeked back at prior posts. I thought I had heard this crap before.
And yes , in a free society he has a right to his views.

What are my views?



I also am free to reject them,and oppose them.

Rejecting my views is accepting evil.

[user]

I thought we ran all the Stormfronters (can we start calling them Stormtroopers, instead? It sounds so much cooler - even though I've never watched Star Trek) out months ago.

Stormtroopers were in Star Wars. And in the German army. ;)

[user]

How am I bigot, Nazi, fascist?

You have expressed bigoted views in this thread.




What are my views?

You have expressed some of them in this thread, and in the original post which you deleted for some reason.




Rejecting my views is accepting evil.

I must reject your views because I believe in individual liberty. I don't believe supporting individual liberty is accepting evil.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

That is one definition. Look at definition #9 instead.

No, that uses conservative in the definition.



They are free to pollute their own air.

You're being silly and I don't talk with silly people.

[pcosmar]

Are you white?

America was never really a melting pot. Until the 1860s she was entirely Nordic and of the Germanic race. Then we allowed East and Southern Europeans who are Caucasion and part of the white race and for the most part assimilated. Today, we are allowing people not part of the white race and conforming to Spanish (we have to press 2 for English) having our ballots in Spanish and generally encouraging all these groups to retain their cultures in direct opposition to the foundational policies of the country. THomas Jefferson and the founding fathers wrote at length that assimilation is the goal of our policies and we followed them.


The world will not be worth living in if the white race will perish.

I believe the state sanctioned extermination of the white race is the most evil thing to happen in the history of the world. I will never stop fighting genocide. Never.

Confucious said that if you believe something is wrong, and yet refuse to do something for whatever reason, than this is cowardice.

Resisting genocide and preserving a place for our race to survive has nothing to do with this.
And there was this whole thread,
Are Australian Aborigines people really Neanderthals?

Too many quotes to repeat, but the pattern is clear and the rhetoric old.

[user]

You're being silly and I don't talk with silly people.

I think extreme conservatism is silly. I still talked to you.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

You have expressed bigoted views in this thread.

Like what?

I listen to all viewpoints.



You have expressed some of them in this thread, and in the original post which you deleted for some reason.

It'd help if you can be specific.



I must reject your views because I believe in individual liberty.

Does individual liberty even exist? Can you give me an example of someone who has complete freedom? Has individual liberty ever been attained?


I don't believe supporting individual liberty is accepting evil.

Well, do you support an individual being able to kill another person?

[user]

Like what?

I listen to all viewpoints.



It'd help if you can be specific.



It'd help if you restored your original post.:confused:


Does individual liberty even exist? Can you give me an example of someone who has complete freedom? Has individual liberty ever been attained?

Are you suggesting that if individual liberty has never been attained, it cannot exist?



Well, do you support an individual being able to kill another person?

Only in self-defense. You?

[Ron Paul in 2008]

And there was this whole thread,
Are Australian Aborigines people really Neanderthals?

How does that thread make me a bigot?

Neanderthals and Australian Aborigines share many craniofacial features.



Too many quotes to repeat, but the pattern is clear and the rhetoric old.

Do you think that truth is rhetoric?

[Conza88]

How does that thread make me a bigot?

Neanderthals and Australian Aborigines share many craniofacial features.

And Asians have black hair only. And Africans have black pigmented skin. What's your point? :rolleyes:

Polylogism fails remarkably.

Epic retardedness ftl.

[pcosmar]

Sorry, but i spent a lot of time in prison debating these same topics with the Aryan Nations, Nazi's and KKK.
Is old, I'm tired and I'm done.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

It'd help if you restored your original post.:confused:


Are you suggesting that if individual liberty has never been attained, it cannot exist?

I am thinking about it.

I think if a man living by himself on an island doesn't have individual liberty then no. Do you think that this is an example individual liberty?



Only in self-defense. You?

Then you support restrictions on individual liberty.

[Conza88]

Then you support restrictions on individual liberty.

Non aggression axiom + private property.

You violate both. Fail.

[user]

I am thinking about it.

I think if a man living by himself on an island doesn't have individual liberty then no. Do you think that this is an example individual liberty?



Then you support restrictions on individual liberty.

Wrong. You don't understand what individual liberty is.

[Conza88]

Wrong. You don't understand what individual liberty is.

Libertine is what he's thinking of.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

Sorry, but i spent a lot of time in prison debating these same topics with the Aryan Nations, Nazi's and KKK.
Is old, I'm tired and I'm done.

I accept truth.


And Asians have black hair only. And Africans have black pigmented skin. What's your point? :rolleyes:

I hypothesized that Australian Aborigines are Neanderthals, or either that AAs have a very close relationship.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

Wrong. You don't understand what individual liberty is.

Care to explain it? I am going by the dictionary's definitions.

[user]

Care to explain it? I am going by the dictionary's definitions.
Sure, let's start with what you think you know already. Please show me the dictionary definition which states self-defense is a violation of individual liberty.

[user]

Libertine is what he's thinking of.

I know what you mean, but I don't think he supports liberty either.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

Sure, let's start with what you think you know already. Please show me the dictionary definition which states self-defense is a violation of individual liberty.

I read Wikipedia too, and it didn't give anything about restrictions. The definition of individual is a single human being, and the definition of liberty is:

liberty –noun, plural -ties.
1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.
4. freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint: The prisoner soon regained his liberty.

So I just take it to mean being able to do what you want without any control.

My thinking is that people will always be controlled by government in some way, and that if we were to live without government we'd still be controlled by other people. What do you think?

[Ron Paul in 2008]

I know what you mean, but I don't think he supports liberty either.

I support some restrictions on liberty, but very little. The restrictions I support are regulation of the film industry, child pornography, and abortion. I don't think I support others.

Can you give me an example of a person having individual liberty or of a society having individual liberty?

[user]

So I just take it to mean being able to do what you want without any control.

My thinking is that people will always be controlled by government in some way, and that if we were to live without government we'd still be controlled by other people. What do you think?

As you might've guessed, I disagree. I believe it is possible for people to be free.

Are you familiar with the non-aggression principle?

[user]

I support some restrictions on liberty, but very little. The restrictions I support are regulation of the film industry, child pornography, and abortion. I don't think I support others.

In the real world, it is highly unlikely that a government which regulates those things will stop there. Even if they did, those restrictions violate the non-aggression principle, which some of us consider important.


Can you give me an example of a person having individual liberty or of a society having individual liberty?

There are some possible historical examples, and many that come close in some way, but again I maintain that even if no society has yet had individual liberty, this does not mean such a society is impossible.

Guns did not exist 100,000 years ago. That doesn't mean it was impossible for them to exist in the future.

[Pauls' Revere]

I disagree. Aside from that, should it be achieved?

Just to be clear, you're saying one of the following:

1) Realistically, no one will make stupid movies.
2) People would make stupid movies but they should not be allowed to do so.

I can't agree with either of those.


LOL

:D

But we want the freedom to watch them.

Buckaroo Banzai was one of my favorites.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086856/

;)

[Ron Paul in 2008]

As you might've guessed, I disagree. I believe it is possible for people to be free.

So your definition of individual liberty is what? People being to do whatever they want as long as they don't harm others?



Are you familiar with the non-aggression principle?

Now I am a little. I need to read up on it more.

[user]

So your definition of individual liberty is what? People being to do whatever they want as long as they don't harm others?

Actually, you have just stated the "harm principle", which is a famous liberal principle. :)

However, I prefer the non-aggression principle, which is less vague and more strict.

[Conza88]

Now I am a little. I need to read up on it more.

The Non-Aggression Axiom of Libertarianism by Walter Block (http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html)

[Ron Paul in 2008]

In the real world, it is highly unlikely that a government which regulates those things will stop there.

Why? If we have a democracy they still have to follow the legislative process.



Even if they did, those restrictions violate the non-aggression principle, which some of us consider important.

Well, I consider life to start at conception which will be an act of aggression. We are not going to agree on this one.

How is having kids in pornography not an act of aggression/force against a child?

How does regulation of the film industry violate the non-aggression principle? I suppose technically the gov initiates physical force by threatening imprisonment if someone violates the code, but if this is the case that means all laws violate the non-aggression principle.

Wikipedia definition:

It holds that "aggression," which is defined as the initiation of physical force, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property, is inherently illegitimate.



There are some possible historical examples, and many that come close in some way, but again I maintain that even if no society has yet had individual liberty, this does not mean such a society is impossible.

Guns did not exist 100,000 years ago. That doesn't mean it was impossible for them to exist in the future.

It'd really help if you can give an example.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

The Non-Aggression Axiom of Libertarianism by Walter Block (http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html)

I'll read it tomorrow morning and get back to you.

[user]

Why? If we have a democracy they still have to follow the legislative process.

If we're talking about a democracy, it's especially likely that the government will not stop there.



Well, I consider life to start at conception which will be an act of aggression. We are not going to agree on this one. I don't think you know my view on abortion, so how do you already know if we agree or not?


How is having kids in pornography not an act of aggression/force against a child? Depending on the case, there may very well be an act of aggression involved.


How does regulation of the film industry violate the non-aggression principle? I suppose technically the gov initiates physical force by threatening imprisonment if someone violates the code,You've answered your own question pretty well!

but if this is the case that means all laws violate the non-aggression principle. A law against murder doesn't violate the principle. The principle doesn't preclude self-defense.




Wikipedia definition:

It holds that "aggression," which is defined as the initiation of physical force, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property, is inherently illegitimate.



It'd really help if you can give an example.Free communities appear to have existed in 17th-century Rhode Island and medieval Iceland. These are two of the better-known examples.

[Bman]

Why? If we have a democracy they still have to follow the legislative process.



Well, I consider life to start at conception which will be an act of aggression. We are not going to agree on this one.

How is having kids in pornography not an act of aggression/force against a child?

How does regulation of the film industry violate the non-aggression principle? I suppose technically the gov initiates physical force by threatening imprisonment if someone violates the code, but if this is the case that means all laws violate the non-aggression principle.


How exactly is hollywood forcing their thoughts on you? Isn't it more noble of a man to let them believe what they want to believe and have the best argument to defeat an idea? Why would you need force of law to restrict someone elses ideas? Are they causing you physical harm? Do you not have an option to just not watch or listen? How do you percieve things being forced upon you? Is i tnot possible for you to just stay on your property with a big fense around it, where you have your own crops and livestock and remain reclusive from the rest of society?

[Conza88]

I'll read it tomorrow morning and get back to you.

:rolleyes: No you won't. Read it now.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

Question to all libertarians:

Would it be okay with you for people to have sex in the middle of a public square in the middle of the day?


:rolleyes: No you won't. Read it now.

Read it.

What else should I read to understand libertarianism?


How exactly is hollywood forcing their thoughts on you?

Where did I say this?



Isn't it more noble of a man to let them believe what they want to believe and have the best argument to defeat an idea?

They are free to believe what they wish. However, degenerate hollywood movies are broadcast to the world and reflect on us. Do you think hollywood movies represent middle America? Do you they represent you and me? Why should we allow literally eight Zionist Jews to control the culture of a nation of 300 million? Those who control the culture control the values of society, and the values that people have shape our laws. My point is as long as we have degenerate movies, we are going to have a degenerate people, and as long as we have a degenerate people, we will have a degenerate government. In other words, no libertarian society.

What I want is it to be more democratic by having federal regulation. Someone posted the MPAA and in theory this sounds good to allow people to decide what movies they want to watch, but in reality the majority of people just follow their leaders. Normally this is fine and the way nature designed animal and human societies, but in the United States the leaders are Zionist Jews, and these Zionist Jews hate Europeans and are hell bent on destroying morality and Europeans.



Why would you need force of law to restrict someone elses ideas?

No, I don't restrict ideas. People must always be able to read whatever they wish and say whatever they want. However, movies are a different medium and its too much power for eight people to have. And, a lot of it is not "ideas" but flat out programing/propaganda/deceit. For instance, most movies today have a homosexual, an interracial relationship, absolutely unreal plot lines and horribly empty values. They are so offensive to intelligence to morality. One typical movie of Jewish Zionist trash I saw was with Cameron Daiz in "The Sweetest Thing." There were two scenes I saw. The first was one character who had braces and got stuck on a man's penis. The fire department was called, and the whole SF gay community was in the building, about 75 people watching (mostly transvesites/gays) as the fire department was addressing the problem. The other scene was Daiz driving in a car, and her passenger Barrymore dropped something and had to reach down near Daizs groin. As this is happening, a Biker drives next to them and sees what appears to be a girl eating out another girl. He starts cheering them on. Diaz notices and pretends that she enjoys it. Then the guy roots them on in some unrealistc way and then he crashes high speed into some road construction. THe main characters just laugh and ignore it and the movie is set up in a way where we are supposed to think his crash is funny. In reality the guy would have been seriously injured, yet in Jewish hollywood we are supposed to say "ha ha." Now this is a very light example. I don't watch these stupid pointless movies, so I can't really tell you others that are 1000 times worse.

Do you think we will ever have a virtuous, enlightened people with movies like this? A society of the founding fathers? A society that gave birth to the constituttion? Is this the society that you want to live in?



Are they causing you physical harm?

Racial integration does kill people. They do cause me mental harm.



Do you not have an option to just not watch or listen? How do you percieve things being forced upon you?

I don't watch, but I hate it that these Zionists scum peddle this trash. I am going to destroy them.


Is i tnot possible for you to just stay on your property with a big fense around it, where you have your own crops and livestock and remain reclusive from the rest of society?

I'd like to do that eventually, but my girlfriend would never go for it. And I do enjoy some of the benefits of living in society.


USER - I will respond to your post later.

[user]

Question to all libertarians:

Would it be okay with you for people to have sex in the middle of a public square in the middle of the day?

1) Who actually owns the square?
2) It is possible for someone to not like it, but that doesn't mean they have to believe those people should be arrested.



Read it.

What else should I read to understand libertarianism? First, please read The Law (http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basLaw1.html) ASAP.

[Conza88]

Question to all libertarians:

Would it be okay with you for people to have sex in the middle of a public square in the middle of the day?

Well, generally there wouldn't be a public square in a Libertarian society. ;)


Read it.

What else should I read to understand libertarianism?

:o Good job.

What are you interested in / have read so far? This may give me a better idea of suggestions.. :)

[Truth Warrior]

"Society are people." -- Frank Chodorov

"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." -- Robert A. Heinlein (1907-1988)

[Ron Paul in 2008]

Well, generally there wouldn't be a public square in a Libertarian society. ;)

I support individual liberty except in cases of obscenity.

What laws would you have in a libertarian society?



:o Good job.

What are you interested in / have read so far? This may give me a better idea of suggestions.. :)

The main philosophical beliefs of libertarianism will be nice.

[heavenlyboy34]

I support individual liberty except in cases of obscenity.

What laws would you have in a libertarian society?
The main philosophical beliefs of libertarianism will be nice.

Define "obscenity". ;) How will enforce your little laws? :eek::confused:

[pcosmar]

Define "obscenity". ;) How will enforce your little laws? :eek::confused:
Racism is Obscene.
A perfect society would be mixed race to the point that none were distinguishable from another.:D

[heavenlyboy34]

Racism is Obscene.
A perfect society would be mixed race to the point that none were distinguishable from another.:D

What about individuality? :eek::confused:

[Ron Paul in 2008]

Racism is Obscene.
A perfect society would be mixed race to the point that none were distinguishable from another.:D

How am I a racist?

[pcosmar]

What about individuality? :eek::confused:

I did not say clones., but racially indistinguishable.
Unfortunately, there would no doubt be some that would make hair color or eye color an issue.:(
I would like to see a time when each individual could be accepted and respected without regard for such trivia.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

Define "obscenity". ;)

obscentiy
–noun, plural -ties for 2, 3.
1. the character or quality of being obscene; indecency; lewdness.
2. something obscene, as a picture or story.
3. an obscene word or expression, esp. when used as an invective.



How will enforce your little laws? :eek::confused:

So you are uncivilized?

I will enforce my "little" laws in the same way you will use laws to protect depravity.

Don't taunt me. I am here to learn and have a civil debate. If you do not want a civil debate do not respond.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

I did not say clones., but racially indistinguishable.
Unfortunately, there would no doubt be some that would make hair color or eye color an issue.:(
I would like to see a time when each individual could be accepted and respected without regard for such trivia.

You are free to have what you wish, and I am free to live in a society that is 100 percent European.

But why do you want whites to go extinct? Why do you believe the races are equal? How is it good to mix the races?

[Truth Warrior]

obscentiy
–noun, plural -ties for 2, 3.
1. the character or quality of being obscene; indecency; lewdness.
2. something obscene, as a picture or story.
3. an obscene word or expression, esp. when used as an invective.



So you are uncivilized?

I will enforce my "little" laws in the same way you will use laws to protect depravity.

Don't taunt me. I am here to learn and have a civil debate. If you do not want a civil debate do not respond. Sounds pretty BARBARIC to me. :(

[pcosmar]

How am I a racist?


How am I a racist?
Undecided. I believe in the preservation of races and I am a conservationist. I am anti-Judeo Bolshevism and therefore oppose anything that is Judeo-Bolshevik such as its modern variant neoconservatism, degenerate art, race mixing, atheism, etc.


How am I a racist?

Although, I am an independent minded person. In general the Nazi Party supported a lot of my views but I don't know enough about Nazi history to form an opinion. All history is so conflicting or bias and I havent really had the time to discover the truth about this part of history.



I don't know if i'd really say the white "race" is superior as its composed of individuals. However, the majority of individuals composing the white race tend to be less prone to crime, violence, lack of education and the problems that plague individuals of other races.

There are many different aspects of superiority that I really don't care to get into right now.

Looks that way to me.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

Looks that way to me.

What do you believe a racist is?

[heavenlyboy34]

obscentiy
–noun, plural -ties for 2, 3.
1. the character or quality of being obscene; indecency; lewdness.
2. something obscene, as a picture or story.
3. an obscene word or expression, esp. when used as an invective.



So you are uncivilized?

I will enforce my "little" laws in the same way you will use laws to protect depravity.

Don't taunt me. I am here to learn and have a civil debate. If you do not want a civil debate do not respond.

Your definition is too broad and subjective to be made law. I'm not obscene IMO, but some might think so. They have no right to shut me up unless I violate their rights. ;):D Sorry if I came off as uncivil...I'm kinda emotionally involved in this issue.

[pcosmar]

What do you believe a racist is?

An obscenity.:D

[Ron Paul in 2008]

Your definition is too broad and subjective to be made law.

True. It must be very specific and a case by case basis to prevent it being broadly interpreted to infringe upon our rights, but I didn't intend to get into this in this particular debate.



I'm not obscene IMO, but some might think so. They have no right to shut me up unless I violate their rights. ;):D

How do people have a just claim to have sex in a public square? Do you believe that children will not be affected? Why can't people have sex in the privacy of their own homes?


Sorry if I came off as uncivil...

Its okay, just don't do it again.


I'm kinda emotionally involved in this issue.

Why?

[mconder]

We all know the axiom, "people that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it." I would argue that those who learned from history should try and repeat it. The American experiment is the greatest success the world has ever known and we would all do well to return to the founding principles as they are proven to work. As long as you keep the criminally insane out of government, they work and would have continued to work. Sadly, the statists, Marxists, Utopians, Tyrants and thieves are in complete control of our government today. I think it's safe to say this is no longer a government of the people.

[mediahasyou]

http://voluntaryist.com

[Truth Warrior]

http://voluntaryist.com ;) :)

[The_Orlonater]

As of this moment.

A society with only a governmental court system and friendly militias everywhere. :D

[asimplegirl]

Quote:
I'm kinda emotionally involved in this issue.
Why?

Well, HB is an artist. That's the first, and obvious answer. As am I, just in a different type of art... I tend to agree with most everything that he has said here.

[heavenlyboy34]

Why?

"Obscenity" charges have been used to silence great individuals in my field (art/music), so I'm pretty sensitive about it.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

Well, HB is an artist. That's the first, and obvious answer. As am I, just in a different type of art... I tend to agree with most everything that he has said here.

Questions are to you as well.


"Obscenity" charges have been used to silence great individuals in my field (art/music), so I'm pretty sensitive about it.

That's understandable. What kind of "art" do you make?

What is your definition of art? Do you think that is is art to paint a picture of Jesus or Mohammed and smear feces on it? Would you oppose censorship in these cases? If so, why?

Also, why can't people have sex in their own homes? Would it be okay with you if I decided to have target practice in a public building with my shotgun?

[Andrew-Austin]

I am one of what?

I do not support eight Zionist Jews making whatever degenerate movies they please.

You do not have to support it fascist. And lets take the fluff from you sentence and word it clearly, you want to use government force to prevent people from making movies you don't like.

Its the same type of reactionary bullshit that comes from all statists liberal and conservative. You see a 'problem' in society and automatically resort to the gun to trample over people's liberty.



How do people have a just claim to have sex in a public square? Do you believe that children will not be affected? Why can't people have sex in the privacy of their own homes?

The problem of common land (government collectivized land where nobody owns it yet everyone has rights to it) has two solutions:
a) Democratically hash out what standards/rules that land will be held too
and
b) Privatize the land. The owner sets the guidelines for his own property, such as specifying whether nudity is allowed. In the case of a recreational park, it would be decided by the owner that allowing public nudity/sex is not at all conducive to making profits. People who are consistently for liberty and property rights opt for this solution.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

You do not have to support it fascist.

So you can't debate civilly?

Calm down. If you want to change my opinion don't call me names.



Its the same type of reactionary bullshit that comes from all statists liberal and conservative. You see a 'problem' in society and automatically resort to the gun to trample over people's liberty.

It is harmful for eight, unscrupulous Zionist Jews to decide the culture of 300 million people and insert whatever programming, propaganda, deceit etc. as they wish because those who control the culture control the people. The first thing the communists and Nazis did was take over the media and have their regime control it. Subsequently, everyone was a communist and Nazi. Today, the media is controlled by virtually eight Zionist Jews or their pawns like Sumner Redstone. Consequently, everyone is a Zionist neocon liberal. What I propose is having regulation such as a hollywood production code enacted at the federal level. It will be voted on. The code will have the following code:



The Production Code enumerated three "General Principles" as follows:

1. No picture shall be produced that will lower the moral standards of those who see it. Hence the sympathy of the audience should never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil or sin.

* The ridicule of religion was forbidden, and ministers of religion were not to be represented as comic characters or villains.
* The depiction of illegal drug use was forbidden, as well as the use of liquor, "when not required by the plot or for proper characterization."
* Methods of crime (e.g. safe-cracking, arson, smuggling) were not to be explicitly presented.
* Murder scenes had to be filmed in a way that would discourage imitations in real life, and brutal killings could not be shown in detail. "Revenge in modern times" was not to be justified.
* The sanctity of marriage and the home had to be upheld. "Pictures shall not imply that low forms of sex relationship are the accepted or common thing." Adultery and illicit sex, although recognized as sometimes necessary to the plot, could not be explicit or justified and were not supposed to be presented as an attractive option.
* Portrayals of miscegenation were forbidden.
* "Scenes of Passion" were not to be introduced when not essential to the plot. "Excessive and lustful kissing" was to be avoided, along with any other treatment that might "stimulate the lower and baser element."
* The flag of the United States was to be treated respectfully, and the people and history of other nations were to be presented "fairly."
* The treatment of "Vulgarity," defined as "low, disgusting, unpleasant, though not necessarily evil, subjects" must be "subject to the dictates of good taste." Capital punishment, "third-degree methods," cruelty to children and animals, prostitution and surgical operations were to be handled with similar sensitivity.


Just regulations that a decent person would agree with. I agree with most of these regulations except I'd be more specific. Why do you disagree with them?

Again, I am not interest in trading insults. You can change my opinion if you have well reasoned arguments.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

The problem of common land (government collectivized land where nobody owns it yet everyone has rights to it) has two solutions:
a) Democratically hash out what standards/rules that land will be held too
and

This is what I support. I don't believe that people should be allowed to have sex on public property. Do you consider a prohibition of sex on public property to be a restriction on individual liberty?


In the case of a recreational park, it would be decided by the owner that allowing public nudity/sex is not at all conducive to making profits.

That sounds good in theory, but I will give an example with the Zionist media. Most people will think it is not conducive to profits to censor Ron Paul and just be incredibly bias to every anti-Zionist, but yet they get away with it. What do you think?

[pcosmar]

This is what I support. I don't believe that people should be allowed to have sex on public property. Do you consider a prohibition of sex on public property to be a restriction on individual liberty?



That sounds good in theory, but I will give an example with the corporate media. Most people will think it is not conducive to profits to censor Ron Paul and just be incredibly bias to every anti-Zionist, but yet they get away with it. What do you think?

Well it would wipe out my favorite movies.

And what is this fixation you have with sex in public? I don't know where you live but that is already illegal everywhere I have been. I can't say in my 50 years that I have ever seen anyone having sex in public.
Is it a big problem where you are?
Or are you seeing something that no one else sees?

[Andrew-Austin]

So you can't debate civilly?

Calm down. If you want to change my opinion don't call me names.

Okay. Your not a big government fascist, but the policy you are supporting is. Better?




It is harmful for eight, unscrupulous Zionist Jews to decide the culture of 300 million people and insert whatever programming, propaganda, deceit etc. as they wish because those who control the culture control the people.

The cartelization of the media came about through government regulation that hampered competition, and thus could be said to be a result of big government. You do not 'fix' government created problems with more government.



The first thing the communists and Nazis did was take over the media and have their regime control it.

Sounds like what you are trying to do. What I said above most likely applies to this as well.



Subsequently, everyone was a communist and Nazi.

No not everyone, I hate generalizations thank you very much.



And the Today, the media is controlled by virtually eight Zionist Jews or their pawns like Sumner Redstone. Consequently, everyone is a Zionist neocon liberal.


Nope, your just throwing out generalizations as you go.



What I propose is having regulation such as a hollywood production code enacted at the federal level. It will be voted on.

Voted on you say? Well that will make it peachy clean. :rolleyes:



Just regulations that a decent person would agree with.

It is arbitrary what a 'decent person' is. If you say this bill should be passed for the sake of morality, then you consent to the view that the government should micromanage all moral issues, which would be handing tons of power to people you will never have control of to ensure sure their views match perfectly to yours.



* The ridicule of religion was forbidden, and ministers of religion were not to be represented as comic characters or villains.

Some ministers are villainous comic book characters. To be able to criticize religion is a pretty basic right. Your probably only against people criticizing YOUR specific religion that you subscribe to. Textbook fascist bullshit, not based on any coherent view of rights and the purpose of government.



* The depiction of illegal drug use was forbidden, as well as the use of liquor, "when not required by the plot or for proper characterization."

1. Drugs should not be illegal in the first place. Please don't make me type up an essay explaining why when you can easily find excellent arguments out there.
2. The use of any drug in a film is for plot and characterization purposes, when directors/writers just throw random elements in it makes for a bad movie.
3. The difference between alcohol and light-core illegal drugs is completely subjective on your part.
4. If I want to smoke Marijuana with a camera rolling that is 100% my business.
5. If I want to view a movie with drug use in it that is also my prerogative.
6. Viewing the usage of drugs in a film does not in any way whatsoever determine people to use drugs. Since the directors want to base their movie on aspects of the real world / things people can relate to, most do choose to emphasize the negative aspects of drugs.

If your going to be making laws that trample people's rights for utilitarian reasons, you might want to make sure they are halfway decent reasons.



* Methods of crime (e.g. safe-cracking, arson, smuggling) were not to be explicitly presented.

1. Crime is a very real part of our world whether we like it or not, its subsequent portrayal in movies does not in any way compel others to crime. It would be a crime to infringe on one's right to freedom of expression.
2. You can't learn how to crack a safe in a movie or TV show. You probably could by watching internet videos though... So you want to regulate the internet next?
3. Crime is something so simple any adolescent's mind can easily imagine it with or without the aid of films and television.



* The flag of the United States was to be treated respectfully, and the people and history of other nations were to be presented "fairly."

I'll burn and shit on a flag if I want to, and doing so could in no rational way be deemed immoral. It could be called silly behavior, but not immoral. One pattern of cloth is not more special than the flags of other nations.

This is all so easily ripped apart by the average discerning eye I might as well stop right here and save myself the trouble.

[user]

Ron Paul in 2008, based on what you're posting, such as your "Production Code", it can't really be said that you believe in individual liberty. If you read the book I linked to, you'll see an example of one man's belief in individual liberty. It will at least give you something to think about.