Poll: Allah, Yahweh, atheist? Left wing, right wing, no wing?
Left wing
Right wing
No wing
[Show Results]
 
No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-09-2014, 05:53 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(21-09-2014 02:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-09-2014 02:39 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  I used to think that too. But when you let go of your illusions you realize that without force to back them up, rights are just words on paper. In order to defend them you need a nation state. If you have too little nationalism then freedom with be destroyed by foreign forces. And to keep the nation state on the right track you need armed citizens ready to guide it. You need some democracy, but also legal protection for unpopular opinions and rights. Without the nation state you will not be able to maintain this, and without nationalism you will not be able to maintain the nation state.

A little bit of nationalism goes a long way.


A little more goes too far. Drinking Beverage

I would actually agree. Nationalism is good, ultranationalism is to be killed with fire. Too much of a good thing is never good.

Paleoliberal • English Nationalist • Zionist • Rightist • Anti-Islam • Neoconservative • Republican • Linguistic Revivalist and Purist

Happily Divorced from the Left!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2014, 05:54 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(21-09-2014 05:12 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-09-2014 04:54 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Alternatively, free market can try any approach that turns out to be functional, there are no limits on that. If you can think of a better solution than DROs, or a better policy for a DRO of your own, you'd be free to try that and get rich if your approach is better.

Maybe the market has already chosen, and that choice is democratic republics. Drinking Beverage

Do you mean democratic republics or Democratic Republics?

Paleoliberal • English Nationalist • Zionist • Rightist • Anti-Islam • Neoconservative • Republican • Linguistic Revivalist and Purist

Happily Divorced from the Left!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2014, 05:57 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(21-09-2014 05:54 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  
(21-09-2014 05:12 PM)Chas Wrote:  Maybe the market has already chosen, and that choice is democratic republics. Drinking Beverage

Do you mean democratic republics or Democratic Republics?


Definitely democratic republics.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2014, 05:58 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(21-09-2014 05:54 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  
(21-09-2014 05:12 PM)Chas Wrote:  Maybe the market has already chosen, and that choice is democratic republics. Drinking Beverage

Do you mean democratic republics or Democratic Republics?

Western-style democracies. You know, the ones with the highest standard of living, greatest happiness, and healthiest populations.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2014, 06:02 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(21-09-2014 05:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-09-2014 05:54 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  Do you mean democratic republics or Democratic Republics?

Western-style democracies. You know, the ones with the highest standard of living, greatest happiness, and healthiest populations.

Ok, I thought for a second there you meant the communist types.

Paleoliberal • English Nationalist • Zionist • Rightist • Anti-Islam • Neoconservative • Republican • Linguistic Revivalist and Purist

Happily Divorced from the Left!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2014, 06:10 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(21-09-2014 06:02 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  
(21-09-2014 05:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  Western-style democracies. You know, the ones with the highest standard of living, greatest happiness, and healthiest populations.

Ok, I thought for a second there you meant the communist types.

Nah, the only good Commie is a dead Commie. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2014, 06:15 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(21-09-2014 04:54 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(21-09-2014 01:21 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  FacepalmNo Does your idiocy extend to twisting words?

Accounting in the business world is FINANCIAL. Not SOCIAL accountability.

And again, you contradict yourself; you say no need for accountability but then you argue for accountability of business. Self-accountability doesn't work as an argument as it is magical thinking that they will follow what is considered good ethics.
Today there is a prejudice to things financial. But really finances are extension of government, due to violent manipulations and privileges, as economists knew since Adam Smith and later Frederic Bastiat.

In a free society finances would be simply an extension of every person, like our hands, feet and instruments.

You put up a nice word salad there coupled with name-dropping to give an appearance that you're intelligent. But you're not. And you've done this before.

Those people you are quoting don't support your position or even GIVE evidence that supports your argument. Frederic Bastiat argues that the government and it's laws give a 'free society'. Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" gives a layout as to how government maintains economic growth.

If I get what you're saying, you're saying that finances would be equivalent to a person's vote? That's definitely not true... SuperPACs being a counter example as it allows corporations to give as much money to politicians as needed. Another example would be ISPs having a monopoly in many areas, and, despite such shit service they tend to give, people have no other method to obtain internet service than paying them for throttled connections. So, no, giving money != accountability from people.

(21-09-2014 04:54 PM)Luminon Wrote:  And by the way, keep calling me an idiot or worse, that's how you will win an argument. You actually won't, you will only end it, but most people here will assure you that you did. If I don't call you names, what gives you the idea that you can?

Work on explaining what you mean here; you contradict yourself with the bolded passages. I understand what you mean though, ad hominems aren't a way to win an argument.

Anyways, I wasn't directly calling you an idiot; I was pointing out your ignorance. But, I can call you an idiot if you'd like. Thumbsup

In any case, ad hominems are useless in making arguments, but they don't take away from what I've said.

(21-09-2014 04:54 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(21-09-2014 01:21 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  Ah, blissful ignorance. It must be fun to not have to explain yourself to others clearly and ignore criticism.
I will accept criticism when people learn to distinguish violent economic manipulation from a real economy. Violent redistribution turns the laws of economic reality upside down. What is a natural liability, becomes an asset in the government system and vice versa, of course at a real expense of the poorer and middle classes.

So you will never accept any criticism because of your word games. Great. Dodgy

(21-09-2014 04:54 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(21-09-2014 01:21 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  And you're right, government is not a society. It is a structure of society, or a societal structure. People establish and support it for reasons such as building standard roads. Eliminating it unleashes a whole lot of issues such as a lack of accountability for corporations, of which you are deliberately pushing aside as a non-issue. You think that a corporation or corporations will simply pick up the tab of building roads AND create a standard that everybody will follow inherently AND allow a voice for people in how the roads are maintain or constructed AND be fair to others?
Government is a corporation too, the worst of all, because it habitually uses violence.
By the way, who builds roads today? I don't see any clerks or deputies dirtying themselves with asphalt. All I see are corporations, government merely serves as an involuntary intermediary between the tax cattle and road-building corporations.

No, a government isn't a corporation because it isn't working for financial profit. It works for the society (or sometimes it doesn't at times with corruption). Have you not noticed how our government is working in the red? And have you heard of government contracting, where the government contracts a business to build a road under their strict specifications?

(21-09-2014 04:54 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(21-09-2014 01:21 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  Uh... Lumi, you just presented it as true. Shocking You said: "If people can't even rule themselves, how can they rule a nation of a few hundreds of million?" You're presenting it as an argument here. So now you're backtracking on your argument?

I mean, wtf, you're willing to go through contradicting yourself just to support your idea of libertarian anarchy. You are making a fool of yourself, and that is very sad.
I don't contradict myself. I don't say people are incapable of ruling themselves, any more than Epicurus believed in God when he introduced the problem of evil.
This argument has two sides. The second one is, if people are capable of ruling themselves, why do we need government?
Of course you could say that some people can rule themselves and some can't. But nobody has an objective way of telling who should or shouldn't be ruled.

Oh ok, word games. People ruling themselves could mean a governing body ruling over people OR everybody managing themselves. You must choose one or the other for your argument here, and they don't support both of your stated conditions.

(21-09-2014 04:54 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(21-09-2014 01:21 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  And... I don't see how this supports your argument. People will do whatever the fuck they want if they see it as beneficial to them if there is no accountability. Example: robbers during post-Katrina stealing goods from stores just to get by, or take advantage of a chaotic situation.
No, people in overwhelming majority will do whatever they think is a good, moral thing to do. They thought going to Iraq and supporting the troops is a good thing, even though it's extremely unpleasant, expensive and completely idiotic thing to do. Over a million of troops invaded the country and many of them after return committed suicide or became homeless - and yet people still think that was right.
And I was pointing out in your fantasy that anarchy WON'T be able to have ANY accountability whatsoever. There is accountability in the government of today, and of course it isn't perfect. But it beats the hell out of having a society with no accountable body that has people, groups of people, corporations, etc, doing whatever the fuck they want with no repercussions.

(21-09-2014 04:54 PM)Luminon Wrote:  But an example closed to home - people go to Church to worship a deity that isn't even visible or audible and they have to conform to many weird rituals - and the less beneficial things are, the more eager people are to do them!

That's what you think, but they beg to differ on how it is beneficial. They believe in worshiping a God because it was what they were taught: there is a benevolent sky fairy up there protecting them.

Point being: there isn't an objective moral code, and you can't really force your own on people without any overarching governing force to do your bidding. So, your fantasy isn't attainable as it is because people believe in different things.

(21-09-2014 04:54 PM)Luminon Wrote:  "People do whatever they want to do" is a tautology, a meaningless statement.
Here we go again. It's implicitly pointing out people having the ability to exercise their freedom. You deliberately cut off everything after it in order to attack me on a supposed tautological statement.

(21-09-2014 04:54 PM)Luminon Wrote:  You can't say such things.
Oh, but I will. Big Grin

(21-09-2014 04:54 PM)Luminon Wrote:  There are real but flexible limits in human behavior that are set in childhood. If people are anything, they are malleable. They reflect their childhood environment. Childhood violence produces adult violence.

CITATION NEEDED.

Abuses as a child CAN create a criminal adulthood, but it doesn't necessarily mean it WILL. There are plenty of other factors that go into how we turn out as adults.

(21-09-2014 04:54 PM)Luminon Wrote:  So much for the culture of the state and public education, which produced such people. About this black woman I would say, she likely comes from a black community which was impacted by the "No man in the house" welfare policy. This policy created ghettos, single moms, gang culture, drug problem and of course, criminality. Things don't just happen, everything has a cause that can be researched.

Blink Great job on creating a story behind a picture, I guess. Though, you do know that Hurricane Katrina just hit and a lot of them were looting not because of education or some boogeyman you want to use to explain it, but because of their need to survive in a wasteland cause by a hurricane. Some were doing it merely because there isn't any governing forces in the area to stop them and they took advantage of it.

Also, noticed you spoke of public education. Now, how would that even come about in your anarchist fantasy?

(21-09-2014 04:54 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(21-09-2014 01:21 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  Oh, so we shouldn't have a state fail or fall apart in the first place. Good to know. Thumbsup
Good luck with that, have you ever seen the American federal debt? And the estimates of unfunded liabilities? About 60 of large American cities (except Washington D.C.) have debts comparable to Detroit. I think Detroit is a first swallow of the American Spring, so to speak.

Laugh out load You ignored my point. You said that dysoptian anarchies were caused by failed governments. Well, how would you even GET an anarchy without breakdown of the government, hm?

(21-09-2014 04:54 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(21-09-2014 01:21 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  Yes, so putting eggs into multiple baskets that can't be held accountable by those who gave them those eggs (power) is SUCH A GREAT IDEA!!!! Hobo
Accounting.
... You don't even understand wth accounting is in business. No

I will say this again: accounting is about financial tracking in businesses, not social acountability. Even the Wikipedia article says that.

(21-09-2014 04:54 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(21-09-2014 01:21 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  Facepalm

I get what you're trying to say here. However, branches of power involves DISTINCT SETS OF POWER.

In any case, can you imagine the headache of trying to stop people from abusing their own power if there is no accountable body?

But no, guys, taxes and such are bad. Yes
Why stop? Let them do what they think is best! Today many businessmen abused their power as factory owners to get some of my money under the pretense of "groceries".
And, despite your example, where would anarchy stop these abuses of power from corporations? Are you actually endorsing a monopoly?

(21-09-2014 04:54 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(21-09-2014 01:21 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  So murdering others is not an abuse of power under anarchy, right?

I mean, take a second and THINK. When someone's exercise of freedom oversteps and limits or destroys other people's freedom, wouldn't you want to have some sort of governing body to examine and punish the person committing those acts?

I do have one other question that you haven't provided a satisfactory answer to: How would power be held accountable in your society? Wishful thinking doesn't count.
There is a model of Dispute Resolution Organizations, which is the closest equivalent to what you mean. If you are interested, the books from which it is quoted, are free. If you are truly interested, you will read them. Don't expect that a Wikipedia article will make everything clear to you. This is another of these things that you can't learn just like that, it is like going on a journey during which you gain a whole new perspective.

On free market you can try any approach that turns out to be functional, there are no limits on that. If you can think of a better solution than DROs, or a better policy for a DRO of your own, you'd be free to try that and get rich if your approach is better. For example, there is a very successful private security company in Detroit, which operates since the 1990's when the city wasn't quite ruined yet.
http://www.threatmanagementcenter.com/History.html

I'm not sure what do you mean by "power" as such. Power to do what? The purchasing power is governed by voluntary exchange, employers need workforce and employees need money and everyone needs products and nobody can make most of the products alone. And the products can't be made violently, that leads to capital flight and bankrupcy.

The problem with power today is, governments can gain extreme amounts of power, weaponry and mercenaries by printing money. Then they force the population to use this printed fiat currency by demanding that taxes be paid in this currency. This is how bullshit fiat money gain value. Then the government prints more of them and uses them as leverage to make even greater loans and to finance wars. Wars are health of the state. the U.S. were in a state of almost perpetual war or military intervention for the most of 20th century. The printed money go to various crony structures, such as the ridiculously bloated prison sector or the military-industrial sector.
That is what the word "power" really means today, a weird technical mix of violence and economics. And despite of their many shortcomings or flaws, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin completely eliminate this kind of power, they make it technically impossible. Bitcoin eliminates financing of wars and public policies, as we know them. A free society and free currency is a completely different paradigm, in which your notion of "power" has no equivalent. Imagining a different paradigm is of course almost impossible from the outside. It is like a whole new language, you need to learn it from scratch, then you can compare it to your current. worldview. It makes sense internally and towards reality, but it is like German to your English. There are some similar words, but not quite the same.

It's been pointed out again and again and AGAIN: your DROs can't enforce shit if the people that go to it don't have to comply and could even escape with a crime against another. What if the DRO comes up with a solution none of the supporting businesses like? They don't have to oblige to it! But no, you won't accept the criticism simply because we don't accept your 'violent taxation' shtick.

And bitcoins are susceptible to fraud and ponzi schemes, none of which can be resolved in your anarchy.

Bottom line: your anarchy won't have overarching structure to actually depend on for justice, laws, etc.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Kaepora Gaebora's post
21-09-2014, 07:28 PM (This post was last modified: 21-09-2014 07:32 PM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(21-09-2014 06:15 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  You put up a nice word salad there coupled with name-dropping to give an appearance that you're intelligent. But you're not. And you've done this before.

Those people you are quoting don't support your position or even GIVE evidence that supports your argument. Frederic Bastiat argues that the government and it's laws give a 'free society'. Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" gives a layout as to how government maintains economic growth.

If I get what you're saying, you're saying that finances would be equivalent to a person's vote? That's definitely not true... SuperPACs being a counter example as it allows corporations to give as much money to politicians as needed. Another example would be ISPs having a monopoly in many areas, and, despite such shit service they tend to give, people have no other method to obtain internet service than paying them for throttled connections. So, no, giving money != accountability from people.
Money are not the same thing technically with and without government. You can't compare the world before and after the violent monopoly. That's like trying to talk different languages at each other.

(21-09-2014 06:15 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  No, a government isn't a corporation because it isn't working for financial profit. It works for the society (or sometimes it doesn't at times with corruption). Have you not noticed how our government is working in the red? And have you heard of government contracting, where the government contracts a business to build a road under their strict specifications?
Government isn't working for financial profit, true. It is working for something much worse than that, for power over the lives of citizens. It doesn't need profit, it can print money. But control over the money is something greater and more sinister.

(21-09-2014 06:15 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  Oh ok, word games. People ruling themselves could mean a governing body ruling over people OR everybody managing themselves. You must choose one or the other for your argument here, and they don't support both of your stated conditions.
What? No, government makes no sense either way. What does government consist of? People. People, who reputedly can't even rule themselves. And if they can, well, let them.

(21-09-2014 06:15 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  And I was pointing out in your fantasy that anarchy WON'T be able to have ANY accountability whatsoever. There is accountability in the government of today, and of course it isn't perfect. But it beats the hell out of having a society with no accountable body that has people, groups of people, corporations, etc, doing whatever the fuck they want with no repercussions.
I don't see any accountability in government whatsoever. Empirically, of course. I know there are words on paper that this institution is supposed to watch that, but it never works.
If it can't stop a war, it doesn't work.
For the record, what do you mean by accountability? Clearly it's not the same accountability as legal accountability for crimes, that gets people into jail, or shot if they resist arrest. There is a political immunity at play, which I consider the very antithesis of accountability (i.e. douchebaggery of proportions comparable to the doctrine of papal infallibility).

(21-09-2014 06:15 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  That's what you think, but they beg to differ on how it is beneficial. They believe in worshiping a God because it was what they were taught: there is a benevolent sky fairy up there protecting them.

Point being: there isn't an objective moral code, and you can't really force your own on people without any overarching governing force to do your bidding. So, your fantasy isn't attainable as it is because people believe in different things.
No, there isn't an objective moral code. However, there is an objective code of judging any moral codes that people come up with. I have read it, I understood it and I accept it. And I point out which supposedly moral codes (such as laws) are in conflict with it. I came to understand that this code of judging moral codes is so fundamental, that it can not be logically disproven, it is an application of logic and consistency itself to any rules or proposals.
Damn, that's the second book I'd wish you to read.

(21-09-2014 06:15 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  Here we go again. It's implicitly pointing out people having the ability to exercise their freedom. You deliberately cut off everything after it in order to attack me on a supposed tautological statement.
Don't worry, I don't consider that a victory of any kind.

(21-09-2014 06:15 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  
(21-09-2014 04:54 PM)Luminon Wrote:  There are real but flexible limits in human behavior that are set in childhood. If people are anything, they are malleable. They reflect their childhood environment. Childhood violence produces adult violence.
CITATION NEEDED.

Abuses as a child CAN create a criminal adulthood, but it doesn't necessarily mean it WILL. There are plenty of other factors that go into how we turn out as adults.
I don't know about any such factors. Childhood abuse is strongly correlated with practically every known pathological state of society, mind and body.
http://www.fdrurl.com/tn_abuse1
That's a heap of citations to go through, I suggest you watch the video series...

(21-09-2014 06:15 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  Blink Great job on creating a story behind a picture, I guess. Though, you do know that Hurricane Katrina just hit and a lot of them were looting not because of education or some boogeyman you want to use to explain it, but because of their need to survive in a wasteland cause by a hurricane. Some were doing it merely because there isn't any governing forces in the area to stop them and they took advantage of it.

Also, noticed you spoke of public education. Now, how would that even come about in your anarchist fantasy?
So, you say that without government there would be no education?
My lessons included something about prof. James Tooley, who researched private education in the third world. These schools go unnoticed, because they are not counted or financed by governments, but people choose them over government schools, because the education there is much better. 'Why are parents paying fees to go to private schools when they could get government schools for free?'
Government schools are cleaner and "free", ...but the quality is low and there's very little accountability.
http://www.povertycure.org/voices/james-tooley/
http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files...tooley.pdf

http://mises.org/daily/2937/What-If-Publ...-Abolished

(21-09-2014 06:15 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  Laugh out load You ignored my point. You said that dysoptian anarchies were caused by failed governments. Well, how would you even GET an anarchy without breakdown of the government, hm?
Through peaceful parenting and outgrowing the government power the same way that rationality outgrew the Church power.

(21-09-2014 06:15 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  
(21-09-2014 04:54 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Accounting.
... You don't even understand wth accounting is in business. No

I will say this again: accounting is about financial tracking in businesses, not social acountability. Even the Wikipedia article says that.
What is the social accountability again? Apparently, it is not something that government-run schools have, as the Tooley document says.

(21-09-2014 06:15 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  And, despite your example, where would anarchy stop these abuses of power from corporations? Are you actually endorsing a monopoly?
Do you know what a corporation is? It is a legal fiction of limited liability in court or in case of bankrupcy. Government maintains this legal fiction. In anarchy, all the corporations would be just a bunch of people together, with full personal liability. They would still have a name and a logo, but that would be purely for convenience.

(21-09-2014 06:15 PM)Kaepora Gaebora Wrote:  It's been pointed out again and again and AGAIN: your DROs can't enforce shit if the people that go to it don't have to comply and could even escape with a crime against another. What if the DRO comes up with a solution none of the supporting businesses like? They don't have to oblige to it! But no, you won't accept the criticism simply because we don't accept your 'violent taxation' shtick.

And bitcoins are susceptible to fraud and ponzi schemes, none of which can be resolved in your anarchy.

Bottom line: your anarchy won't have overarching structure to actually depend on for justice, laws, etc.
DROs don't have to enforce anything. They need to run a public database of people who violated their conditions and refused to pay. All the other business then would refuse service to people on the list. A business that caters to criminals would lose its contract with a DRO. Without a contract with a DRO (which would be very cheap because everyone would need it, creating a great competition) there would be no guarantee of contract insurance. Anyone could break their word to someone without a DRO, without consequences. Not having an insurance from a DRO would be the most suspicious thing ever and nobody would do business with such a person.

DROs gain profit if they represent well-behaved citizens, just like health insurance companies gain profit if clients are healthy. Therefore they are motivated to keep them well-behaved.

Btw, if Bitcoin is susceptible to fraud, why is it so popular and rising in price? For the first time the market got a choice between government currency and a free currency - and it works despite of taxes and public sector that slow it down. Yes, there were a few errors in software, but they were corrected. And if someone gives their bitcoins away to a fraud, that's their mistake. Anything can be stolen if some fool gives it away to a third party.
Still, the government is doing so badly (wars, poverty, debt) that glitches in Bitcoin are easy to live with. If not, there are other, more modern cryptocurrencies. I think they will prevail no matter what, because they automate the work that banks and stock market brokers are doing, even some of the lawyer work, with advanced programming. Imagine it, the richest jobs are being automated away like the Luddite textile workers. Marvelous Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2014, 07:33 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(21-09-2014 05:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  Western-style democracies. You know, the ones with the highest standard of living, greatest happiness, and healthiest populations.
Forced redistribution of wealth? Disastrous government programs that increase whatever they are meant to decrease? Perpetually in war, including the war on drugs? Public sector ever getting bigger and deeper into debt? Bismarck-designed retirement system, which is basically a big Ponzi scheme?

Western-style democracies are monstrous patchwork of socialism powered by limited free market. At least pure socialism is so unproductive, that it can not start wars abroad, not on the other side of the globe, anyway.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2014, 07:35 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Premiss 1: Child Abuse causes people to become criminals

Premiss 2: Luminon claims to have been abused

Conclusion: Luminon is a criminal.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Revenant77x's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: