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
24-08-2014, 07:26 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(24-08-2014 07:16 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(24-08-2014 07:09 AM)morondog Wrote:  And that will magically stop them from being sociopaths, yes?

Rolleyes Christ.
No, that will magically stop them from starting wars against countries, drugs and terrorism. Let's get that off our neck first and the resources freed up in this way will allow for new solutions that we can't think of yet.

Well at least you admit that it'd require magic. Thumbsup

... On a side-note; 'Non-Aggression Principle' talk don't mean much from a guy who advocated shooting IRS agents....

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Free Thought's post
24-08-2014, 07:36 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(24-08-2014 04:34 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(23-08-2014 10:22 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Yup first time I was ever called a Statist I was floored. I am so not an authoritarian type. One of the big reasons I hate Communism is because it always ends up as a Stalinist nightmare.
So you are a minarchist? Or is it a slim form of democracy where people can't vote themselves more money and power, because the constitution says so?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism

I would not consider myself a minarchist but mainly because I feel a few other things are "big" enough that they require a collective response. Healthcare for instance, I am in favor of government run single payer model with a sidecar for private insurance in addition if you want it. Also Laissez-faire economics is the opposite of successful so there's that. Not all regulations are good but on the whole they improve more than they inhibit. I guess if I had to pick a party/system I'd be a social Democrat as I am very much in favor of a strong social safety net and am willing to pay higher taxes for a well functioning one. A good investment for society.

(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
[+] 3 users Like Revenant77x's post
24-08-2014, 07:43 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(24-08-2014 07:26 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  ... On a side-note; 'Non-Aggression Principle' talk don't mean much from a guy who advocated shooting IRS agents....

Because that claim is as transparently self-serving as the rest of his raving. He's fine and dandy will all sorts of violence and coercion so long as it's in his favour.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
24-08-2014, 07:48 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(24-08-2014 07:36 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(24-08-2014 04:34 AM)Luminon Wrote:  So you are a minarchist? Or is it a slim form of democracy where people can't vote themselves more money and power, because the constitution says so?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism

I would not consider myself a minarchist but mainly because I feel a few other things are "big" enough that they require a collective response. Healthcare for instance, I am in favor of government run single payer model with a sidecar for private insurance in addition if you want it. Also Laissez-faire economics is the opposite of successful so there's that. Not all regulations are good but on the whole they improve more than they inhibit. I guess if I had to pick a party/system I'd be a social Democrat as I am very much in favor of a strong social safety net and am willing to pay higher taxes for a well functioning one. A good investment for society.

Indeed. A pure unregulated market-based solution for things like healthcare will inevitably fuck some people over. Ask ol' Lumi about people being priced out of the markets for essential services and he'll feebly mutter something about "charity" - I guess we're to presume it's of the magical sort, that will always be perfect in every situation. Ol' Lumi seems not to have read any market theory - that, and his apparent idea that some people just deserve to be miserable and suffering. Because they're not equal, don't you know.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2014, 08:00 AM (This post was last modified: 24-08-2014 08:17 AM by Luminon.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(24-08-2014 07:36 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  I would not consider myself a minarchist but mainly because I feel a few other things are "big" enough that they require a collective response. Healthcare for instance, I am in favor of government run single payer model with a sidecar for private insurance in addition if you want it. Also Laissez-faire economics is the opposite of successful so there's that. Not all regulations are good but on the whole they improve more than they inhibit. I guess if I had to pick a party/system I'd be a social Democrat as I am very much in favor of a strong social safety net and am willing to pay higher taxes for a well functioning one. A good investment for society.
Thank you for the confidence. You used the word "feel" there. Don't worry, I won't freak out, that's what democracy is about Sad
Yes, I have read about the national interests which are "too big to not be centralized". But then libertarians told me, compared to what? Who are we to tell what is too big and what isn't? Everyone wants to eat too, does that mean food should be centralized? If it really is most efficient to have a nation-wide healthcare, it should evolve naturally, companies would just fuse together to save costs. I had to accept this argument.
It's good that people can sign up for the national security and others can sign up for private service. But I'd wish that people who'd go for the private choice would have their taxes returned to make it a fair choice. Otherwise it's like paying double for the private services.

Laissez-faire economics has its costs. Government services have its costs too. I believe we can afford one or the other, but not the two together. The problem with government services is, they're all pre-paid, public sector workers get their salaries no matter what happens, whether their services are wanted or not. Laissez-faire economics always collects scraps after government finances the whole public sector, that's why it's such a failure. As long as it's a sidecar of the Bismarck system, it can never run properly.

Every system has its advantages and disadvantages, but chimera system (socialism, market, democracy) is the most expensive of all. I believe there are systems which can please everyone, but the chimera system only makes promises to please everyone that it can't fulfill, because it disrupts private sector productivity and its costs grow faster than its benefits.
The more elements there are, the more regulation they require to keep apart (anti-corruption measures, wall between church and state, etc) and regulation is costly in itself. The costs of regulation grow over time as people specialize on milking the system and not producing. Then the whole thing gets so expensive and in debt that the economy that pays for it all comes to halt, the poor start rioting and they're blamed for being too greedy. Revolution cuts the state and it starts again as a small liberal social democracy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2014, 08:18 AM (This post was last modified: 24-08-2014 10:08 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(24-08-2014 06:49 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(24-08-2014 06:00 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Okay, so shit rolls downhill with baboons as well, not an earth shattering revelation by any means.

Also, within the first minute "...insofar as a huge component of stress is lack of control, lack of predictability.". So how is this stressor decreased by eliminating social safety nets? How is this stressor decreased by eliminating regulations on safety, health, food, and the environment (remember, magic and feels don't count)?
You seem to equate a dominant power that can redistribute property with a safety net. In my view, they are two different things.
Safety nets can and do exist in absence of dominant power, they're called friendly societies and charities (and families).

They can, and do exist; and have utterly failed to pick up the necessary slack. Not only that, but charities run by donations dry up whenever things are at their worst. During the Great Depression, the inflow of money to charities simply stopped, and thus the charities collapsed. That has always been the problem with charity, it fails when it is needed the most.



(24-08-2014 06:49 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Redistribution is not a guarantee of safety, it is a guarantee of unsafety, that someone will take a part of your money and use it arbitrarily to support his own political power, plus give something away to the poor, also arbitrarily.

Fuck you. People voted for FDR, and after he passed Social Security, they continued to vote for him in show of their support of his policies. There is a reason the most popular President in American history was arguable the most socialist. He was popular with the citizens because he helped to take care of the citizens. His popularity and unprecedented 4 terms in office was a testament to that, and an endorsement of his social policies.



(24-08-2014 06:49 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Dumping money on the poor keeps them poor, they learn how to milk the system, not how to be productive and self-sufficient. Charity must be like a scalpel, not bombardment.

There will always be people that game the system, but that hasn't stopped capitalism now has it? The overall improvement for the vast majority of hard working people who need the help (protip: Americans are the hardest working people in the developed world), and in return do manage to better themselves and society, are well worth a few deadbeats milking the system.



(24-08-2014 06:49 AM)Luminon Wrote:  The modern social security system was invented by Otto von Bismarck to shut up the socialists and divide them internally. In practice, not that many people qualified for it. But it was later voted into a big system. Only it never was sustainable. In the present, government social security systems are rolling about 300 % debts. If the debt is kept small, it is at the price of stunting economic growth and pitting the old against the young.

Once again Lumi, some peoples have decided that taking care of the needy is more important than maximal gains in GDP... Facepalm



(24-08-2014 06:49 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I am all for social security, but my Economics lessons said that Bismarck's model is unsustainable, it's a huge Ponzi scheme. I believe low or no taxes will allow the people to build an ecosystem of private retirement funds, friendly societies and charity.

Charities fail, and private businesses lie; so let's deregulate them further and make them the primary providers for retirement. Look at the sham that is 401K's, as their value crashes along with the markets they're built on...



(24-08-2014 06:49 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Also, families will be more able to care for the old and more able to donate to charities. People will stick together instead of standing alone and helpless against the big state.

Yeah, more able to take care of the old, when? No minimum wage, no mandated vacations or sick leave, no mandated maternity leave; what makes you think that this will be possible for anything close to everyone that needs it? Oh right, magic...



(24-08-2014 06:49 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(24-08-2014 06:00 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  At the end, we're left with a baboon troop who bucked the trend through accident, and now prospers under a more egalitarian direction. They have less stress, and appear for all intents and purposes to be happier and healthier; confirming what we already know about humans, that less stress is healthier. Also notice that they didn't become IRS shooting isolationist as soon as the Alpha's died. They refocused their family and group bonds, becoming more of a inclusive and mutually supportive community; hardly a model for your Libertarian anarcho-capitalist utopia.
No, this is exactly what I mean. This is the ancapistan, this is the Non-Aggression Principle. I am very much for high-quality family and group bonds or whatever else people choose voluntarily.
Capitalism isn't aggression, it is respecting people (and their property) and paying or asking them nicely to donate, not taxing or nationalizing them, when it is in "public good". Capitalism happens when you leave people alone.

Right, and when that peaceful group of baboons finds itself in a tight spot and must directly compete for resources with the far more aggressive alpha males of other troops or else face starvation? They'll do whatever they need to survive, or they will die; and that no-aggression principle goes out the fucking window. You fail to realize this, that in doing nothing to try to maintain a minimum standard of living (except assuming that the magic of families and charities will always be enough), it is inevitable that people will be placed in situations where they can and will do whatever they need to survive. You cannot rely on your vaunted non-aggression principle whenever you leave this massive gaping hole in your plan.

You're still advocating for tribalism, instead of humanism. Seeing everyone on the level of the family or the tribe, instead of seeing us on a worldwide species level; and how well has that worked out for us in the past? Even now, it is tribalism that is one of our greatest roadblocks to peace in much of the world. Because tribes will try to take care of their own, at the expense of others if need be.



(24-08-2014 06:49 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(24-08-2014 06:00 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I imagine that what you took away from this video was something along the lines of "we can and should change" as somehow an endorsement of changing to your particular worldview. As opposed to what I got out of it, "life is better for everyone with less selfish assholes around". Which when you zoom out and look big picture, who's the one who endorses unfettered capitalism and rampant greed, hoping that there will be enough Gate's or Tesla's to make it all worthwhile? Who has been the one who explicitly stated "fuck equality"? I know you'd like to equate the state to those Alpha Males, but the analogy simply won't work. These baboons where poster children of socialist hippy communes if anything... Drinking Beverage
Well, the state is socialism. Small state is small socialism.
But the truth is, warlords didn't take over. They didn't set up an ISIS style theocracy after the leading sociopaths were gone.

Yes, fuck equality. We can not be forced to be equal, that creates the worst kinds of inequality. We are not equal in anything except rights and dignity. And we do not have rights to other people's property, because they have property rights too! Other people and their money are not your or government property. They belong to themselves. There is nothing no *just right* amount of money to have, it's not for others to decide.

People don't have rights to anything, except what we as a particular society decide we have rights to. Women have the right to free speech and association in the United Sates, they do not have this right in Saudi Arabia; not because the rules of the universe or cosmos are different, but because different societies bestow different rights in different contexts. Stop pretending like your property rights bullshit is some unchanging law of the universe, like the inverse square law of gravity or something.




(24-08-2014 06:49 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Also, creating equality through forced redistribution is putting a cart in front of the horse. Just because a government can make switcharoo, take from the rich, give to the poor and make everyone have the same number on bank account, what do you think happens?

How about Equality of Opportunity?



(24-08-2014 06:49 AM)Luminon Wrote:  A disaster. The poor will not know how to make good use of the money skillfully, because they did not obtain the money skillfully.

Public education; Equality of Opportunity.



(24-08-2014 06:49 AM)Luminon Wrote:  The rich will lack the money they need to set up large scale productive enterprise that keeps everyone materially secure.
Equality is this mystical concept that is hard to define. Equality, compared to what?

Compared to your laissez faire, fuck everyone who isn't lucky enough to have been born to successful parents bullshit.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
24-08-2014, 08:28 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(24-08-2014 08:18 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Stop pretending like your property rights bullshit is some unchanging law of the universe, like the inverse square law of gravity or something.

Quoted for motherfucking truth.

But there's no point, EK. The True Believers literally can't understand the difference.

(24-08-2014 08:18 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(24-08-2014 06:49 AM)Luminon Wrote:  A disaster. The poor will not know how to make good use of the money skillfully, because they did not obtain the money skillfully.

Public education; Equality of Opportunity.

Come on, EK, weren't you listening to ol' Lumi? If poverty stems from a combination of having few opportunities for improvement and lacking the knowledge to make use of those which do arise, then clearly the solution is to do absolutely nothing to improve education or provide more opportunities.

Makes sense.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
24-08-2014, 08:55 AM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(24-08-2014 08:00 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(24-08-2014 07:36 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  I would not consider myself a minarchist but mainly because I feel a few other things are "big" enough that they require a collective response. Healthcare for instance, I am in favor of government run single payer model with a sidecar for private insurance in addition if you want it. Also Laissez-faire economics is the opposite of successful so there's that. Not all regulations are good but on the whole they improve more than they inhibit. I guess if I had to pick a party/system I'd be a social Democrat as I am very much in favor of a strong social safety net and am willing to pay higher taxes for a well functioning one. A good investment for society.
Thank you for the confidence. You used the word "feel" there. Don't worry, I won't freak out, that's what democracy is about Sad

Yes it is a subjective thing values. One can base their values on anything really, I prefer data and history, what works over what we have always done. Not everyone is going to agree 100% of the time, that's life. It is also why we hold elections because that has proven to be the fairest way to handle these disagreements, more so than your idea of "Fuck anyone who isn't rich enough to buy their way out of problems".


(24-08-2014 08:00 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Yes, I have read about the national interests which are "too big to not be centralized". But then libertarians told me, compared to what? Who are we to tell what is too big and what isn't? Everyone wants to eat too, does that mean food should be centralized? If it really is most efficient to have a nation-wide healthcare, it should evolve naturally, companies would just fuse together to save costs. I had to accept this argument.

But we don't live in a bubble we have tried many things including market based healthcare. It is an unmitigated disaster. The #1 cause of bankruptcy in the richest country in the history of the world is medical bills. If you don't see what the problem with that is then there is no getting through to you.

(24-08-2014 08:00 AM)Luminon Wrote:  It's good that people can sign up for the national security and others can sign up for private service. But I'd wish that people who'd go for the private choice would have their taxes returned to make it a fair choice. Otherwise it's like paying double for the private services.

Sorry that is not how it works. Nor should it be. That would be a clusterfuck system that would collapse under it's own weight and the bureaucracy that would be needed to go through everyone's tax return to see what they want funded with their money vs what they don't would double the size of the government. Unworkable.


(24-08-2014 08:00 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Laissez-faire economics has its costs. Government services have its costs too. I believe we can afford one or the other, but not the two together. The problem with government services is, they're all pre-paid, public sector workers get their salaries no matter what happens, whether their services are wanted or not. Laissez-faire economics always collects scraps after government finances the whole public sector, that's why it's such a failure. As long as it's a sidecar of the Bismarck system, it can never run properly.

Laissez-faire has been tried before several times in several places it is a failure. It is the most exploitative form of capitalism and is parasitic. It causes tons of problems that it has no way to solves. Unmitigated Greed is bad.


(24-08-2014 08:00 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Every system has its advantages and disadvantages, but chimera system (socialism, market, democracy) is the most expensive of all. I believe there are systems which can please everyone, but the chimera system only makes promises to please everyone that it can't fulfill, because it disrupts private sector productivity and its costs grow faster than its benefits.
The more elements there are, the more regulation they require to keep apart (anti-corruption measures, wall between church and state, etc) and regulation is costly in itself. The costs of regulation grow over time as people specialize on milking the system and not producing. Then the whole thing gets so expensive and in debt that the economy that pays for it all comes to halt, the poor start rioting and they're blamed for being too greedy. Revolution cuts the state and it starts again as a small liberal social democracy.

Too bad that does not seem to play out in the real world. The states that are most likely to break down into anarchy are the ones run closest to your free market system. Again the countries with the highest standard of living follow the plan that is in complete contrast with everything you preach and by doing so are the most successful societies humanity has ever known. The proof is in the pudding as they say and free market only is a stomach turning dish.

(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
[+] 4 users Like Revenant77x's post
24-08-2014, 03:28 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
(24-08-2014 08:18 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  They can, and do exist; and have utterly failed to pick up the necessary slack. Not only that, but charities run by donations dry up whenever things are at their worst. During the Great Depression, the inflow of money to charities simply stopped, and thus the charities collapsed. That has always been the problem with charity, it fails when it is needed the most.
What if they didn't fail to pick up the slack, but there is just not enough purchasing power left in society, after the taxes that pay the public sector?

(24-08-2014 08:18 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Fuck you. People voted for FDR, and after he passed Social Security, they continued to vote for him in show of their support of his policies. There is a reason the most popular President in American history was arguable the most socialist. He was popular with the citizens because he helped to take care of the citizens. His popularity and unprecedented 4 terms in office was a testament to that, and an endorsement of his social policies.
More evidence that citizens don't understand economy Sad Socialism sounds good and feels good for about the first generation, three generations if it's Sweden or a global empire. Then you run out of other people's money.

(24-08-2014 08:18 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  There will always be people that game the system, but that hasn't stopped capitalism now has it? The overall improvement for the vast majority of hard working people who need the help (protip: Americans are the hardest working people in the developed world), and in return do manage to better themselves and society, are well worth a few deadbeats milking the system.
In capitalism everything has its costs, even cheating. Politicians cheat without costs, because they want to get rich in short term, election term.

(24-08-2014 08:18 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Once again Lumi, some peoples have decided that taking care of the needy is more important than maximal gains in GDP... Facepalm
Sorry, I don't believe in GDP. Politicians calculate GDP as private sector + public sector, while it really should be private - public sector. Tax and public services are not gain, they are pure loss, because they are not alternatives, they are forced choices. Money get more purchasing power by offering alternatives, not paying the government in advance and removing the money from economy.

(24-08-2014 08:18 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Charities fail, and private businesses lie; so let's deregulate them further and make them the primary providers for retirement. Look at the sham that is 401K's, as their value crashes along with the markets they're built on...
Governments fail too and politicians lie too. But they don't bear any consequences, they have immunity, it's all for our money.

(24-08-2014 08:18 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Yeah, more able to take care of the old, when? No minimum wage, no mandated vacations or sick leave, no mandated maternity leave; what makes you think that this will be possible for anything close to everyone that needs it? Oh right, magic...
Believe it or not, business actually needs people and must compete for them by offer better working conditions. Rich people don't want poor suburbs and ghettos, they want to exploit and employ the hell out of them. Incidentally, that's how they get to middle class. But they can't, because unions forbid that.
Minimum wage does not make rich assholes pay more money for work, it just makes them hire less people and only the very best. It takes away the bottom rungs of social ladder.

And do not look at the number on paycheck, look at purchasing power. Today in USA even with the minimum wage, the purchasing power is half compared to the 1950's purchasing power of minimum wage, even though it's 3 times as high. Why? Because government fuckin' prints money.
If someone paid me with infinitely printed money, I'd kick him in the balls, not vote for him.

(24-08-2014 08:18 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Right, and when that peaceful group of baboons finds itself in a tight spot and must directly compete for resources with the far more aggressive alpha males of other troops or else face starvation? They'll do whatever they need to survive, or they will die; and that no-aggression principle goes out the fucking window. You fail to realize this, that in doing nothing to try to maintain a minimum standard of living (except assuming that the magic of families and charities will always be enough), it is inevitable that people will be placed in situations where they can and will do whatever they need to survive. You cannot rely on your vaunted non-aggression principle whenever you leave this massive gaping hole in your plan.

You're still advocating for tribalism, instead of humanism. Seeing everyone on the level of the family or the tribe, instead of seeing us on a worldwide species level; and how well has that worked out for us in the past? Even now, it is tribalism that is one of our greatest roadblocks to peace in much of the world. Because tribes will try to take care of their own, at the expense of others if need be.
Assuming the other tribe is also capitalistic, there will be a mutually productive trade. Yay, new market! New customers! Make trade, not war!

(24-08-2014 08:18 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  People don't have rights to anything, except what we as a particular society decide we have rights to. Women have the right to free speech and association in the United Sates, they do not have this right in Saudi Arabia; not because the rules of the universe or cosmos are different, but because different societies bestow different rights in different contexts. Stop pretending like your property rights bullshit is some unchanging law of the universe, like the inverse square law of gravity or something.

Well, there's something about property rights in constitution. Their words, not mine. What if a state makes mutually contradictory rules? Property rights for some, but no property rights for others, completely willy-nilly. That sounds dangerous to me.

BTW, how do people know what rights should be written down? Where do they take that idea from?

(24-08-2014 08:18 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  How about Equality of Opportunity?

Again, compared to what? How much equality and what kind of opportunity for what kind of people? Should a 80-years old woman have equal opportunity to deliver a healthy baby? Should a woman named Laquaqueeshitoqua Hicks have an equal opportunity to represent an international corporation during business negotiations? And then go on maternity leave and then return to the same job position after 4 years?

(24-08-2014 08:18 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Public education; Equality of Opportunity.
Laugh out load Oh, you devil. Did they teach you that in public education?

(24-08-2014 08:18 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Compared to your laissez faire, fuck everyone who isn't lucky enough to have been born to successful parents bullshit.
Well, it's called freedom. Freedom means you are free to get anywhere, but nobody is going to drive you there in a limousine. I think that's a fair deal. You get your hands untied and you don't have to drag the Bismarck social Ponzi scheme behind you and that is a huge boost in productivity, that's what the free society is.
Taxes and redistribution is like killing the goose that lays golden eggs by feeding parts of the goose to the goose. Only more violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2014, 03:54 PM
RE: No wing: political equivalent to atheism?
Rolleyes Can we write pseudocode for a Lumi response?

<Ignore poster's points>
<Assert poster has mental problems / doesn't really understand economics / politics / is stupid>
<Pick random sentence from poster's response and reassert some earlier bullshit as an "answer">
<Reiterate that taxation is violence>
<Be smug about how intelligent you are, pat other poster on the head>

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like morondog's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: