Page 28 of 29 FirstFirst ... 1826272829 LastLast
Results 811 to 840 of 856

Thread: Please convince me of statism!

  1. #811
    Quote Originally Posted by CCTelander View Post
    It's sad to see that this place has degenerated from a hotbed of radical liberty advocacy and philosophical discussion to the cesspool of mouth-breathing partisan hackery that it's become. Even sadder is the fact that it's only a very small handful of extremely prolific posters that have affected that change, at least that part that has occurred over the last 2-3 years or so. As you noted, it seems like these people have nothing else to do but spam this forum with their partisan, anti-liberty horse$#@!. I liked the place better when achieving actual liberty was the predominant goal.
    I suppose we should feel flattered that the statists recognized us as a threat. Unfortunately, they've used our weapon of fealty to the principles of liberty against us in that we can't ban them from the site without violating our own principles. I think Brian is looking for suggestions - I'm just fresh out.
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #812
    Quote Originally Posted by CCTelander View Post
    It's sad to see that this place has degenerated from a hotbed of radical liberty advocacy and philosophical discussion to the cesspool of mouth-breathing partisan hackery that it's become. Even sadder is the fact that it's only a very small handful of extremely prolific posters that have affected that change, at least that part that has occurred over the last 2-3 years or so. As you noted, it seems like these people have nothing else to do but spam this forum with their partisan, anti-liberty horse$#@!. I liked the place better when achieving actual liberty was the predominant goal.
    The Trump stuff can be a bit much. That said, this thread is defining statism as just people who want any government at all.

    I would never want to live in a Rothbard/Hoppe society. Never. I think it would be on par with Communism. I think it would not only not be freer, I think it would be an almost total loss of freedom.

    I guess that makes me a statist using the definition this thread. All of the super radical anarchist threads from 10 years ago are interesting thought experiments. Never really said is why anarchism would be worth it. Life is pretty good and pretty free in the United States right now. There would be a huge cost to set up a society that in my view probably wouldn't even work There is no need for total overhaul. Gradual course corrections like Hayek talks about in his political books are what are needed.

    All the doomsday stuff about collapses and tyranny remind me of grandma who was always talking about the rapture. What is needed is just more education to public about what the proper role of government should be and a basic understanding of economics which will lead to better policy outcomes.

  4. #813
    Quote Originally Posted by Conza88 View Post
    I am intellectually honest and open to reason. If you would like to fix my unrealistic political philosophy, I eagerly await your enlightenment! I'm so sick and tired of being wrong.
    My argument is that statism is like air, it exists everywhere. Within any geographic location there's going to be some person or group with the most force that makes the decisions. Therefore the best use of your time is to minimize statism or control it as best as possible. Not eliminate it, because that's impossible.

  5. #814
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The best argument is that it is unavoidable, the corrupt will organize and impose themselves on others if allowed to and the only way to successfully defend against them is to create a limited government.
    Nope. See, there currently exists anarchy still between states...

    For the aspiring Austro-Libertarian: What to read? #4

    I thought I would recommend some of the not so well known but nevertheless mind-blowing journal articles that should be read by everyone in the movement, especially by those outside it. This is the fourth in a series of many.


    Do We Ever Really Get Out of Anarchy? [voluntarism] by Alfred G. Cuzan



    • “A major point of dispute among libertarian theorists and thinkers today as always revolves around the age-old question of whether man can live in total anarchy or whether the minimal state is absolutely necessary for the maximization of freedom. Lost in this dispute is the question of whether man is capable of getting out of anarchy at all. Can we really abolish anarchy and set up a Government in its place? Most people, regardless of their ideological preferences, simply assume that the abolition of anarchy is possible, that they live under Government and that anarchy would be nothing but chaos and violence. The purpose of this paper is to question this venerated assumption and to argue that the escape from anarchy is impossible, that we always live in anarchy, and that the real question is what kind of anarchy we live under, market anarchy or non-market (political) anarchy.”


    • “Government is an agent external to society, a “third party” with the power to coerce all other parties to relations in society into accepting its conceptions of those relations. … However, that the idea of Government exists is no proof of its empirical existence. … That societies may have some form of organization they call the “government” is no reason to conclude that those “governments” are empirical manifestations of the idea of Government. … A closer look at these earthly “governments” reveals that they do not get us out of anarchy at all. They simply replace one form of anarchy by another and hence do not give us real Government. Let’s see how this is so…”

    (Source: mises.org)
    “I will be as harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice... I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard.” ~ William Lloyd Garrison

    Quote Originally Posted by TGGRV View Post
    Conza, why do you even bother? lol.
    Worthy Threads:

  6. #815
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    If it is what happens when nobody stops it then it is the natural state.
    Because of the existence of corrupt men tyranny is the natural state of man.
    No. Given:

    Suppose, for example, that we were all suddenly dropped down on the earth de novo and that we were all then confronted with the question of what societal arrangements to adopt. And suppose then that someone suggested: “We are all bound to suffer from those of us who wish to aggress against their fellow men. Let us then solve this problem of crime by handing all of our weapons to the Jones family, over there, by giving all of our ultimate power to settle disputes to that family.

    In that way, with their monopoly of coercion and of ultimate decision making, the Jones family will be able to protect each of us from each other.” I submit that this proposal would get very short shrift, except perhaps from the Jones family themselves. And yet this is precisely the common argument for the existence of the state.

    When we start from the zero point, as in the case of the Jones family, the question of “who will guard the guardians?” becomes not simply an abiding lacuna in the theory of the state but an overwhelming barrier to its existence.
    Murray Rothbard, Society Without A State

    Whatever the case, it is irrelevant - the existence of a state (monopoly etc.) makes thigns worse, whatever the nature of man.

    You are regurgitating the Hobbesian myth.

    The myth of collective security can also be called the Hobbesian myth. Thomas Hobbes, and countless political philosophers and economists after him, argued that in the state of nature, men would constantly be at each others’ throats. homini lupus est. Put in modern jargon, in the state of nature a permanent underproduction of security would prevail, each individual, left to his own devices and provisions, would spend too little on his own defense, and hence, permanent interpersonal warfare would result.

    The solution to this presumably intolerable situation, according to Hobbes and his followers, is the institution of a state. In order to institute peaceful cooperation among themselves, two individuals, A and B, require a third independent party, S, as ultimate judge and peacemaker. However, this third party, S, is not just another individual, and the good provided by S, that of security, is not just another “private” good. Rather, S is a sovereign and has as such two unique powers. On the one hand, S can insist that his subjects, A and B, not seek protection from anyone but him; that is, S is a compulsory territorial monopolist of protection. On the other hand, S can determine unilaterally how much A and B must spend on their own security; that is, S has the power to impose taxes in order to provide security “collectively.”

    In commenting on this argument, there is little use in quarreling over whether man is as bad and wolf-like as Hobbes supposes, except to note that Hobbes’s thesis obviously cannot mean that man is driven only and exclusively by aggressive instincts. If this were the case, mankind would have died out long ago. The fact that he did not demonstrates that man also possesses reason and is capable of constraining his natural impulses. The quarrel is only with the Hobbesian solution. Given man’s nature as a rational animal, is the proposed solution to the problem of insecurity an improvement? Can the institution of a state reduce aggressive behavior and promote peaceful cooperation, and thus provide for better private security and protection? The difficulties with Hobbes’s argument are obvious. For one, regardless of how bad men are, S—whether king, dictator, or elected president—is still one of them. Man’s nature is not transformed upon becoming S. Yet how can there be better protection for A and B, if s must tax them in order to provide it? Is there not a contradiction within the very construction of s as an expropriating property protector?

    In fact, is this not exactly what is also—and more appropriately—referred to as a protection racket? To be sure, S will make peace between a and B but only so that he himself in turn can rob both of them more profitably. Surely S is better protected, but the more he is protected, the less A and B are protected from attacks by S. Collective security, it would seem, is not better than private security. Rather, it is the private security of the state, S, achieved through the expropriation, i.e., the economic disarmament, of its subjects. Further, statists from Thomas Hobbes to James Buchanan have argued that a protective state S would come about as the result of some sort of “constitutional” contract.[1] Yet, who in his right mind would agree to a contract that allowed one’s protector to determine unilaterally—and irrevocably—the sum that the protected must pay for his protection; and the fact is, no one ever has![2]

    (Source: mises.org)
    “I will be as harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice... I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard.” ~ William Lloyd Garrison

    Quote Originally Posted by TGGRV View Post
    Conza, why do you even bother? lol.
    Worthy Threads:

  7. #816
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    The Trump stuff can be a bit much. That said, this thread is defining statism as just people who want any government at all.
    Nope. Not even close.

    Government is not the state

    ”Government is not the state any more than roads or education are the state. The state coopts institutions but this does not make them inherently or necessarily part of the state. Libertarians are against the state–the institutionalized monopoly on law and force–but not against the governing institutions of society, i.e. law.
    The reason this matters: supporters of the state (such as minarchists) will use equivocation to try to trap you – they assume there must be a state, in order for there to be law and order (“government”), just like mainstreamers think there must be a state, in order for there to be education or roads. And so they equate law and order with the state. They ask you if you support law and order, and you say “yes”; they then say “okay well then you believe in government.” Which means state. To them. I’ve seen this trick thousands of times.

    The solution is to make clear what you mean by the state, and by government. By state we mean a territorial monopolist of law and violence. We libertarians oppose this *because we oppose aggression*—and states must commit aggression to either tax and/or to outlaw competing agencies.

    Now if by government you mean “state"—then we oppose that too, and for the same reasons. But if by government you mean governing institutions of society — law and order, courts, security etc. — then no, we don’t oppose this. In fact we count on this. We think the state undermines "government” in this conception. (Left-libertarians may differ, since they seem to hate “authority” and “hierarchies” of all kinds, but this is not normal libertarianism, if it is libertarianism at all.)

    Nock saw this long ago:

    “As far back as one can follow the run of civilization, it presents two fundamentally different types of political organization. This difference is not one of degree, but of kind. It does not do to take the one type as merely marking a lower order of civilization and the other a higher; they are commonly so taken, but erroneously. Still less does it do to classify both as species of the same genus — to classify both under the generic name of "government,” though this also, until very lately, has been done, and has always led to confusion and misunderstanding.

    […]

    It may now be easily seen how great the difference is between the institution of government, as understood by Paine and the Declaration of Independence, and the institution of the State. … The nature and intention of government … are social. Based on the idea of natural rights, government secures those rights to the individual by strictly negative intervention, making justice costless and easy of access; and beyond that it does not go. The State, on the other hand, both in its genesis and by its primary intention, is purely anti-social. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him. It has always made justice costly and difficult of access, and has invariably held itself above justice and common morality whenever it could advantage itself by so doing.“
    Stephan Kinsella
    “I will be as harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice... I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard.” ~ William Lloyd Garrison

    Quote Originally Posted by TGGRV View Post
    Conza, why do you even bother? lol.
    Worthy Threads:



  8. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  9. #817
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    My argument is that statism is like air, it exists everywhere. Within any geographic location there's going to be some person or group with the most force that makes the decisions. Therefore the best use of your time is to minimize statism or control it as best as possible. Not eliminate it, because that's impossible.
    Aggression will always exist (murder etc.) its institutionalisation though, need not be the case. Eliminating anarchy is impossible. See: this .

    Once one concedes that a single world government is not necessary, then where does one logically stop at the permissibility of separate states? If Canada and the United States can be separate nations without being denounced as being in a state of impermissible “anarchy,” why may not the South secede from the United States? New York State from the Union? New York City from the state? Why may not Manhattan secede? Each neighborhood? Each block? Each house? Each person? But, of course, if each person may secede from government, we have virtually arrived at the purely free society, where defense is supplied along with all other services by the free market and where the invasive State has ceased to exist.


    Murray N. Rothbard
    “I will be as harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice... I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard.” ~ William Lloyd Garrison

    Quote Originally Posted by TGGRV View Post
    Conza, why do you even bother? lol.
    Worthy Threads:

  10. #818
    Quote Originally Posted by Conza88 View Post
    Nope. Not even close.
    I just got slightly dumber after reading your link.

  11. #819
    People are corrupt and will steal from and kill us, so it follows that we need to submit ourselves to the rule of a group of humans that steal from and kill us on a scale unmanageable by individuals.

  12. #820
    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    People are corrupt and will steal from and kill us, so it follows that we need to submit ourselves to the rule of a group of humans that steal from and kill us on a scale unmanageable by individuals.

    You don't "get it." It's the ONLY WAY to insure that people don't steal from and kill us. Or so I'm constantly told by statists.
    Chris

    "Government ... does not exist of necessity, but rather by virtue of a tragic, almost comical combination of klutzy, opportunistic terrorism against sitting ducks whom it pretends to shelter, plus our childish phobia of responsibility, praying to be exempted from the hard reality of life on life's terms." Wolf DeVoon

    "...Make America Great Again. I'm interested in making American FREE again. Then the greatness will come automatically."Ron Paul

  13. #821
    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    People are corrupt and will steal from and kill us, so it follows that we need to submit ourselves to the rule of a group of humans that steal from and kill us on a scale unmanageable by individuals.

    The United States has a population of 320 million people. How many people are clearly wrongly killed by the government each year? Like 15? 25 maybe? Getting killed by the government isn't something that anyone needs to worry about on a daily basis. Even when a cop shoots someone in the hood, let's face it, 98% of the time the people shot brought it on themselves. They usually weren't reading the Ethics of Liberty and all of a sudden got blown away.

    I would rather pay taxes and have a rule of law than live as a serf in anarchotopia. Trust would evaporate without a predictable rule of law. Markets would not work on a grand scale in anarchy. No government would be a much bigger infringement on liberty than taxes are. And far more people would die because of anarchism. You would have "sovereign citizens" with all sorts of crazy ideas of justice.
    Last edited by Krugminator2; 08-05-2018 at 01:21 PM.

  14. #822
    Quote Originally Posted by Conza88 View Post
    Nope. See, there currently exists anarchy still between states...

    For the aspiring Austro-Libertarian: What to read? #4

    I thought I would recommend some of the not so well known but nevertheless mind-blowing journal articles that should be read by everyone in the movement, especially by those outside it. This is the fourth in a series of many.


    Do We Ever Really Get Out of Anarchy? [voluntarism] by Alfred G. Cuzan



    • “A major point of dispute among libertarian theorists and thinkers today as always revolves around the age-old question of whether man can live in total anarchy or whether the minimal state is absolutely necessary for the maximization of freedom. Lost in this dispute is the question of whether man is capable of getting out of anarchy at all. Can we really abolish anarchy and set up a Government in its place? Most people, regardless of their ideological preferences, simply assume that the abolition of anarchy is possible, that they live under Government and that anarchy would be nothing but chaos and violence. The purpose of this paper is to question this venerated assumption and to argue that the escape from anarchy is impossible, that we always live in anarchy, and that the real question is what kind of anarchy we live under, market anarchy or non-market (political) anarchy.”


    • “Government is an agent external to society, a “third party” with the power to coerce all other parties to relations in society into accepting its conceptions of those relations. … However, that the idea of Government exists is no proof of its empirical existence. … That societies may have some form of organization they call the “government” is no reason to conclude that those “governments” are empirical manifestations of the idea of Government. … A closer look at these earthly “governments” reveals that they do not get us out of anarchy at all. They simply replace one form of anarchy by another and hence do not give us real Government. Let’s see how this is so…”

    (Source: mises.org)
    You don't get to redefine anarchy, if there are states then you do not have anarchy.

    Even if we compare the relationships between states to anarchy all that means is that if you are a state or have the power of a state anarchy is possible for you, the rest of us cn't have anarchy because states will arise and take it away from us.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  15. #823
    Quote Originally Posted by Conza88 View Post
    No. Given:
    Suppose, for example, that we were all suddenly dropped down on the earth de novo and that we were all then confronted with the question of what societal arrangements to adopt. And suppose then that someone suggested: “We are all bound to suffer from those of us who wish to aggress against their fellow men. Let us then solve this problem of crime by handing all of our weapons to the Jones family, over there, by giving all of our ultimate power to settle disputes to that family.

    In that way, with their monopoly of coercion and of ultimate decision making, the Jones family will be able to protect each of us from each other.” I submit that this proposal would get very short shrift, except perhaps from the Jones family themselves. And yet this is precisely the common argument for the existence of the state.

    When we start from the zero point, as in the case of the Jones family, the question of “who will guard the guardians?” becomes not simply an abiding lacuna in the theory of the state but an overwhelming barrier to its existence.
    Murray Rothbard, Society Without A State

    Whatever the case, it is irrelevant - the existence of a state (monopoly etc.) makes thigns worse, whatever the nature of man.

    You are regurgitating the Hobbesian myth.
    You are knocking down a straw-man, you can have a state without turning all weapons over to it and it remains the responsibility of the people to alter or overthrow it should it become tyrannical.

    You also have done nothing to disprove the contention that there are corrupt men who will establish tyranny if they are not restrained by a minarchical government created by good men to safeguard society.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  16. #824
    Quote Originally Posted by Conza88 View Post
    Aggression will always exist (murder etc.) its institutionalisation though, need not be the case. Eliminating anarchy is impossible. See: this .
    The answer is that the state can't be eliminated because the corrupt will establish them, the optimal size of a state set up to restrain tyranny is limited on the small send by how large it must be to successfully defend itself and maintain its independence and on the large end by which peoples and areas voluntarily wish to join it and remain part of it.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  17. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  18. #825
    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    People are corrupt and will steal from and kill us, so it follows that we need to submit ourselves to the rule of a group of humans that steal from and kill us on a scale unmanageable by individuals.
    You can limit the theft and killing if you create and control the state, the corrupt individuals will create a state designed to maximize the plunder and murder if you don't.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  19. #826
    Quote Originally Posted by CCTelander View Post
    You don't "get it." It's the ONLY WAY to insure that people don't steal from and kill us. Or so I'm constantly told by statists.
    It's the only way to keep them from creating a state designed to maximize the stealing and killing.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  20. #827
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    The United States has a population of 320 million people. How many people are clearly wrongly killed by the government each year? Like 15? 25 maybe? Getting killed by the government isn't something that anyone needs to worry about on a daily basis. Even when a cop shoots someone in the hood, let's face it, 98% of the time the people shot brought it on themselves. They usually weren't reading the Ethics of Liberty and all of a sudden got blown away.

    I would rather pay taxes and have a rule of law than live as a serf in anarchotopia. Trust would evaporate without a predictable rule of law. Markets would not work on a grand scale in anarchy. No government would be a much bigger infringement on liberty than taxes are. And far more people would die because of anarchism. You would have "sovereign citizens" with all sorts of crazy ideas of justice.
    And it wouldn't last, the corrupt would organize a tyrannical state to take advantage of the vacuum.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  21. #828
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    The United States has a population of 320 million people. How many people are clearly wrongly killed by the government each year? Like 15? 25 maybe? Getting killed by the government isn't something that anyone needs to worry about on a daily basis. Even when a cop shoots someone in the hood, let's face it, 98% of the time the people shot brought it on themselves. They usually weren't reading the Ethics of Liberty and all of a sudden got blown away.

    I would rather pay taxes and have a rule of law than live as a serf in anarchotopia. Trust would evaporate without a predictable rule of law. Markets would not work on a grand scale in anarchy. No government would be a much bigger infringement on liberty than taxes are. And far more people would die because of anarchism. You would have "sovereign citizens" with all sorts of crazy ideas of justice.
    Between wars and killing their own people, states slaughtered well over 300 million people in the 20th century. The crackhead you're terrified of because he's trying to steal your car radio isn't capable of anything like that.

  22. #829
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You can limit the theft and killing if you create and control the state, the corrupt individuals will create a state designed to maximize the plunder and murder if you don't.
    Yes, that is working well.

  23. #830
    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    Yes, that is working well.
    If we didn't try to limit it it would be worse.

    Even if you call our current situation a total failure that doesn't mean that success is impossible or that anarchy would succeed any better.

    As I have already explained anarchy would end up with worse results.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  24. #831
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    And it wouldn't last, the corrupt would organize a tyrannical state to take advantage of the vacuum.
    You mean they wouldn't live happily ever after?

    Last edited by timosman; 08-05-2018 at 03:29 PM.

  25. #832
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    You mean they wouldn't live happily ever after?

    Man began in a state of anarchy and look how things turned out.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  26. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  27. #833
    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    Between wars and killing their own people, states slaughtered well over 300 million people in the 20th century. The crackhead you're terrified of because he's trying to steal your car radio isn't capable of anything like that.
    This^^

    Listen up, bootlickers in this thread. In 2017, the cops murdered 1147 people. There were only 14 days on which someone was NOT murdered by a cop. https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/ Yup, I'd say we have more to fear from our gov'ment Overlords than from run of the mill criminals if you ask me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  28. #834
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    This^^

    Listen up, bootlickers in this thread. In 2017, the cops murdered 1147 people.

    Okay. Well. That's factually wrong. Most of the animals who get shot by police deserved to be shot. That isn't being a statist bootlicker. It is a pure fact that most people cops shoot are subhuman trash. That doesn't mean the cops are good or they don't abuse power. It just means the people they usually shoot are much worse. Watch Flint Town on Netlfix. I would never want to be a cop dealing with the dregs of society. You are dealing with animals.

    12 cops were charged last year. I get that bad cops get acquitted and many don't get charged. Let's say all 12 who were charged were guilty and 13 more cops never got charged. So 25 people were wrongly shot by cops. And most of those people could have avoided it if they weren't mouthy and aggressive. Like the guy who got shot in South Carolina fleeing the cop. The cop should have been convicted but the guy who was shot was running from the cop. The cop got lazy and didn't want to run. But I can't really say I feel bad for the guy who was shot. He was running from a cop.

    Sp 25 (maybe) not 1147. The idea that cops murder over a 1000 people a year is just wrong.

  29. #835
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    This^^

    Listen up, bootlickers in this thread. In 2017, the cops murdered 1147 people. There were only 14 days on which someone was NOT murdered by a cop. https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/ Yup, I'd say we have more to fear from our gov'ment Overlords than from run of the mill criminals if you ask me.

    There are legitimately bad things the police do. Planting evidence. Shooting dogs on raids. Stealing people's money through civil asset forfeiture. Using attack dogs on people who aren't resisting arrest.

    There is no need to make up an outrageous stat that they murder 1150 people.

  30. #836
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Okay. Well. That's factually wrong. Most of the animals who get shot by police deserved to be shot. That isn't being a statist bootlicker. It is a pure fact that most people cops shoot are subhuman trash. That doesn't mean the cops are good or they don't abuse power. It just means the people they usually shoot are much worse. Watch Flint Town on Netlfix. I would never want to be a cop dealing with the dregs of society. You are dealing with animals.

    12 cops were charged last year. I get that bad cops get acquitted and many don't get charged. Let's say all 12 who were charged were guilty and 13 more cops never got charged. So 25 people were wrongly shot by cops. And most of those people could have avoided it if they weren't mouthy and aggressive. Like the guy who got shot in South Carolina fleeing the cop. The cop should have been convicted but the guy who was shot was running from the cop. The cop got lazy and didn't want to run. But I can't really say I feel bad for the guy who was shot. He was running from a cop.

    Sp 25 (maybe) not 1147. The idea that cops murder over a 1000 people a year is just wrong.
    To be fair though, you ARE a statist bootlicker.
    “The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell

    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    In terms of a full spectrum candidate, Rand is leaps and bounds above Trump. I'm not disputing that.
    Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump

  31. #837
    Quote Originally Posted by kcchiefs6465 View Post
    To be fair though, you ARE a statist bootlicker.
    I guess. Or maybe just logical and fair.

  32. #838
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    I guess. Or maybe just logical and fair.

  33. #839
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    I guess. Or maybe just logical and fair.
    Would your ego tell you if you weren't?

    IOW, anyone asked would consider themselves logical, fair, and reasonable.

    When you get into implicitly justifying summary execution for the non-crime of evading code enforcers, well, you certainly aren't fair and after simply scratching the surface of the issue, you aren't quite as logical as you think, or rather as YOU have made YOURSELF to believe.
    “The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell

    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    In terms of a full spectrum candidate, Rand is leaps and bounds above Trump. I'm not disputing that.
    Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump

  34. #840
    Quote Originally Posted by kcchiefs6465 View Post
    Would your ego tell you if you weren't?

    IOW, anyone asked would consider themselves logical, fair, and reasonable.

    When you get into implicitly justifying summary execution for the non-crime of evading code enforcers, well, you certainly aren't fair and after simply scratching the surface of the issue, you aren't quite as logical as you think, or rather as YOU have made YOURSELF to believe.
    Is @Krugminator2 the only one guilty of this or are there other co-conspirators as well ?



  35. Remove this section of ads by registering.
Page 28 of 29 FirstFirst ... 1826272829 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. What is a Statism?
    By fhuxtable in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 08-14-2014, 05:55 PM
  2. Statism 101
    By menciusmoldbug in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 03-29-2014, 11:29 PM
  3. Statism, a sickness
    By heavenlyboy34 in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-13-2011, 11:23 PM
  4. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 05-09-2011, 06:12 PM
  5. Statism
    By Truth Warrior in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-23-2009, 01:36 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •