It was an observation from many of my buds and I in high school that the system was set up completely to defend bullies. Go tell on them? The incompetent, stupid school administration, whom probably feel a type of kindred with the bullies, do absolutely NOTHING and the second the inexperienced nerd fights back (not knowing the proper ways to get around the system) is the one whom gets in trouble.
My school had a 3-hits-in-the-head rule before you could strike back. I was hit in front of teachers, all sorts of things, they never did jack squat.
I'll provide a service of peeing into people's mouths upon request. Some people have that fetish. Sure, you may not want to use it, but it's all just like cars and roads, right? It's available, and you should do your civic duty and pay me for government-provided mouth-peeing.
Why yes Mr. Mugger, I'll give you my wallet, and I'll give you a blowjob, too, because your life is worth more than both combined! Would you like one or two fingers up the ass?
So , if you just have some potatoes in your garden , it's ok as long as you don't sell them in large quantities. Because then , the government needs it's share.
There's something incredibly sensible about regulating and taxing things the government has no business dealing with in the first place. OH, other governments do it, therefore, it's right, right?
I guess if the rest of the world had a problem with potatoes you'd fawn over the "sensibility" of regulating and taxing potatoes and only allowing people to own potatoes in small amounts, right?
But maybe in your opinion, laissez-faire is the way of life and Al Capone was also punished for being successfull. Ignoring Al Capone's violence, are you suggesting that jailing people that broke the Prohibition laws was just, simply because it was the law...?
Since I use Kubuntu Jaunty Jackalope, can someone outline the big differences between that and Mandriva? It's been a long time since I used Mandriva, way back since it was still called Mandrake.
Yep, on principle and that if it's truly universally wanted, then there should be no problem forming a co-op in the first place. There should be no reason why the law should be doing this.
Anyway, in the future they always could (probably would) tax and protect it.
Hearing perspectives and having those perspectives challenged and evaluated by your professors and fellow students is an integral component of the college experience.
"What? You didn't support Obama last election? Get out of my classroom, you crypto-fascist son of a bitch!"
"What!" you scream. "No way. This doesn't sound like effective education."
But I say, "Ah, does that matter? It's cheaper, and the current generation is probably universally going to grow up to go to college, so resources will be strung out a bit more."
Given that no one chooses the society they're born into and raised in, I don't know how you get to a place where you have a system that is based entirely on consent. Maybe some kind of world-citizenship choice where you can pick the society you want to be a part of when you reach a certain age? I don't know. I suppose that's more or less immigration... which obviously won't work smoothly for everyone for a wide variety of social and practical reasons.
I think it's actually inevitable: unless you choose the cabin in the wilderness route (and sometimes even then), you're going to be part of a society which makes some impositions on you. If you're lucky, you're part of a society that allows you to be a part of the conversation and decisions about what those impositions will be, and it's certainly fair to argue there should be fewer, but it's not particularly reasonable to expect there won't be any or that it's particularly unfair if most people decide on impositions you disagree with.
I agree with this. It's as unavoidable as death and disease. This is my main criticism on whether anarchism can even exist, not that I don't sympathize with anarchism.
I doesn't have a strict solution that's maximally unbounded, that's for sure. On the other hand, modern industrial democracies, whether social democrat or democratic republic, seem to have done a pretty decent job of providing a rising standard of living combined with a high if not unbounded level of personal freedom. I certainly don't think the balance is perfect, but it's hard for me to agree that we're as far away from it as either the pure libertarians (or the pure socialists, for that matter) seem to think we are.
I disagree with you entirely over our personal freedom. Life is, and I think, always will be, coloring within the lines, on a paint-by-numbers scheme.
---- I have other criticisms of libertarianism, too, that apply to most other ethical systems. If you're familiar with theory of mind materialistic monism and agree that the concept of "self" is illusory and take these things to their logical extensions, sort-of breaks down the concept of justice entirely, leaving us with a cold, bleak world... but still, I can't help but sympathize with libertarianism fully.
"Most famous" is because they -are- rich. Almost everyone famous is rich! Your argument is laughable. If you want to go with that argument, I can just say that liberalism is something for the naive wealthy people, and point to Hollywood. I'd be able to come up with far more and far better examples than you would, believe me.
Slashdot Mirror
Jesus, right on the mark.
It was an observation from many of my buds and I in high school that the system was set up completely to defend bullies. Go tell on them? The incompetent, stupid school administration, whom probably feel a type of kindred with the bullies, do absolutely NOTHING and the second the inexperienced nerd fights back (not knowing the proper ways to get around the system) is the one whom gets in trouble.
My school had a 3-hits-in-the-head rule before you could strike back. I was hit in front of teachers, all sorts of things, they never did jack squat.
So being able to vote means you're being represented?
I'll provide a service of peeing into people's mouths upon request. Some people have that fetish. Sure, you may not want to use it, but it's all just like cars and roads, right? It's available, and you should do your civic duty and pay me for government-provided mouth-peeing.
Why yes Mr. Mugger, I'll give you my wallet, and I'll give you a blowjob, too, because your life is worth more than both combined! Would you like one or two fingers up the ass?
I'm going to go into your house tonight and take anything I don't think you use properly.
The guy holding your leash, apparently... :/
So does Tony Soprano. Your point being...?
Ah, someone that speaks from experience.
There's something incredibly sensible about regulating and taxing things the government has no business dealing with in the first place. OH, other governments do it, therefore, it's right, right?
I guess if the rest of the world had a problem with potatoes you'd fawn over the "sensibility" of regulating and taxing potatoes and only allowing people to own potatoes in small amounts, right?
Fucking aspirin peddlers.
But maybe in your opinion, laissez-faire is the way of life and Al Capone was also punished for being successfull.
Ignoring Al Capone's violence, are you suggesting that jailing people that broke the Prohibition laws was just, simply because it was the law...?
the ol' rm -rf * in the wrong directory eh?
Hah! Couldn't have said it better myself.
Since I use Kubuntu Jaunty Jackalope, can someone outline the big differences between that and Mandriva? It's been a long time since I used Mandriva, way back since it was still called Mandrake.
Yep, on principle and that if it's truly universally wanted, then there should be no problem forming a co-op in the first place. There should be no reason why the law should be doing this.
Anyway, in the future they always could (probably would) tax and protect it.
So your solution is an even bigger monopoly? I've followed your posts, jcr, here and digg, and this is the first time you've really disappointed me.
tl;dr: the communist manifesto
Because the cop-op ISN'T government. Co-ops don't take taxes, co-ops don't pass legislation (that would protect its own interests), etc.
You raise a good question. Why don't they just form a co-op in their town instead, instead of mandating it through government?
I laughed too. I think he's in high school still taking his civics class and hasn't seen the real world.
What free market?
"What? You didn't support Obama last election? Get out of my classroom, you crypto-fascist son of a bitch!"
This does seem likely.
"What!" you scream. "No way. This doesn't sound like effective education."
But I say, "Ah, does that matter? It's cheaper, and the current generation is probably universally going to grow up to go to college, so resources will be strung out a bit more."
Given that no one chooses the society they're born into and raised in, I don't know how you get to a place where you have a system that is based entirely on consent. Maybe some kind of world-citizenship choice where you can pick the society you want to be a part of when you reach a certain age? I don't know. I suppose that's more or less immigration... which obviously won't work smoothly for everyone for a wide variety of social and practical reasons.
I think it's actually inevitable: unless you choose the cabin in the wilderness route (and sometimes even then), you're going to be part of a society which makes some impositions on you. If you're lucky, you're part of a society that allows you to be a part of the conversation and decisions about what those impositions will be, and it's certainly fair to argue there should be fewer, but it's not particularly reasonable to expect there won't be any or that it's particularly unfair if most people decide on impositions you disagree with.
I agree with this. It's as unavoidable as death and disease. This is my main criticism on whether anarchism can even exist, not that I don't sympathize with anarchism.
I doesn't have a strict solution that's maximally unbounded, that's for sure. On the other hand, modern industrial democracies, whether social democrat or democratic republic, seem to have done a pretty decent job of providing a rising standard of living combined with a high if not unbounded level of personal freedom. I certainly don't think the balance is perfect, but it's hard for me to agree that we're as far away from it as either the pure libertarians (or the pure socialists, for that matter) seem to think we are.
I disagree with you entirely over our personal freedom. Life is, and I think, always will be, coloring within the lines, on a paint-by-numbers scheme.
----
I have other criticisms of libertarianism, too, that apply to most other ethical systems. If you're familiar with theory of mind materialistic monism and agree that the concept of "self" is illusory and take these things to their logical extensions, sort-of breaks down the concept of justice entirely, leaving us with a cold, bleak world... but still, I can't help but sympathize with libertarianism fully.
You should never assume anything will be confidential, particularly on the internet.
"Most famous" is because they -are- rich. Almost everyone famous is rich! Your argument is laughable. If you want to go with that argument, I can just say that liberalism is something for the naive wealthy people, and point to Hollywood. I'd be able to come up with far more and far better examples than you would, believe me.