by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .3,5883,5893,5903,5913,5923,5933,594. . .3,6073,608»

The liberated territories

Vecherd wrote:Yeah, it's a huge issue. In a world without the welfare warfare state immigration would be viewed as exactly what it is, moving.
Also TLT, Liberalistene did well.. A bad a election one might say, but better than their predecessor. They got 458 votes in the Oslo municipality, translating to roughly 0.16% of the votes

Apparently they got .5% in another poll:

"Liberalistene får 0,5 % i gårsdagens meningsmåling i Aftenposten. Den bekrefter de positive tilbakemeldingene vi får på stand, det økende medlemsantallet, og de positive tilbakemeldingene vi får på e-post og sosiale medier.

Det er stor feilmargin på slike målinger, men vi har en gradvis økning på meningsmålingene hvor vi har blitt inkludert."

James mccosh wrote:It is often forgotten how limited civil liberties actually are in the world.
For example how many nations have a clear statement such as the First Amendment on freedom of speech?
Plenty of places have something that looks (on first glance) to be like the First Amendment - but when one looks at the wording, it because obvious that that the legislature can ban speech (and publication) it does not like.
Americans, quite rightly, condemn the vast growth of government (and to say "the rich" or "the corporations" control the government is Marxist drivel - in reality they pay most of the taxes and many rich people and many enterprises are moving out of the United States), but the First Amendment and the Second Amendment are not to be undervalued.
Sure, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, they are under constant attack - but still they are there, and can be defended, most nations in the world have nothing like the First Amendment (freedom of speech) or the Second Amendment (the right to keep and bear arms).
The rise of "social democratic economics" would inevitably mean a society where such real civil liberties were destroyed.
By the way......
If you want to see a contrast between a big government society and a less big government society - you do not have to leave the United States.
Go to South Dakota (which has the lowest State and local government spending in proportion to its economy) and compare it the Indian Reservations in the State (or elsewhere.
The land under the control of the collective (Tribal Councils) and lots of welfare and "free" health care.
Places like Pine Ridge Reservation are what America would look like under socialism - they are islands of semi socialism.
Prisons are also.
Free food, accommodation, health care...........

Yes but, these "islands of socialism" as you call them, are they explicitly against the tenants of libertarianism? From a philosophical standpoint, welfare and such could be defined as just compensation for the governments mistreatment towards Native Americans. Of course, it's not the best form of restitution (probably worse than hard money), since it merely creates a cycle of dependency, but I am not going to toss out the idea that the First Nations should not be afforded any restitution at all, if not for the actions of their ancestors than at least for the troubles and difficulties they suffer today due to their position.

Plus, they add a further decentralized model to the US, and what's wrong with that?

Also, I think it was Russell Means that said Native American reservations could be a great way to experiment with a truly stateless society, since these reservations are fundamentally treated as a nation within a nation.

The liberated territories wrote:Apparently they got .5% in another poll:
"Liberalistene får 0,5 % i gårsdagens meningsmåling i Aftenposten. Den bekrefter de positive tilbakemeldingene vi får på stand, det økende medlemsantallet, og de positive tilbakemeldingene vi får på e-post og sosiale medier.
Det er stor feilmargin på slike målinger, men vi har en gradvis økning på meningsmålingene hvor vi har blitt inkludert."

Hmm yeah, they have gotten that average as well before, but most people end up not voting for smaller parties if they view they have no chance, even if they only needed about.. 1.75% to get one member in Oslo. So they got roughly 1/10 of the votes they needed.

It is a big issue though(like you pointed out) that they are just a bunch of guys wanking off to Ayn Rand without much of a populist program that can make normal people understand what they want.

The liberated territories

The liberated territories

Vecherd wrote:Hmm yeah, they have gotten that average as well before, but most people end up not voting for smaller parties if they view they have no chance, even if they only needed about.. 1.75% to get one member in Oslo. So they got roughly 1/10 of the votes they needed.
It is a big issue though(like you pointed out) that they are just a bunch of guys wanking off to Ayn Rand without much of a populist program that can make normal people understand what they want.

1.75% is ridiculously easy. Even with the two party duopoly, under that system the LP could score at least one on a good run. I believe they've gained around 3% in some cities like LA, let me check...

Just a quick refresher course 'lest we forget' what has happened to many "friends" of the Clintons.
1- James McDougal - Clintons convicted Whitewater partner died of an apparent heart attack, while in solitary confinement. He was a key witness in Ken Starr's investigation.
2 - Mary Mahoney - A former White House intern was murdered July 1997 at a Starbucks Coffee Shop in Georgetown .. The murder happened just after she was to go public with her story of sexual harassment in the White House.
3 - Vince Foster - Former White House councilor, and colleague of Hillary Clinton at Little Rock's Rose Law firm. Died of a gunshot wound to the head, ruled a suicide.
4 - Ron Brown - Secretary of Commerce and former DNC Chairman. Reported to have died by impact in a plane crash. A pathologist close to the investigation reported that there was a hole in the top of Brown's skull resembling a gunshot wound. At the time of his death Brown was being investigated, and spoke publicly of his willingness to cut a deal with prosecutors. The rest of the people on the plane also died. A few days later the air Traffic controller commited suicide.
5 - C. Victor Raiser, II - Raiser, a major player in the Clinton fund raising organization died in a private plane crash in July 1992.
6 - Paul Tulley - Democratic National Committee Political Director found dead in a hotel room in Little Rock , September 1992. Described by Clinton as a "dear friend and trusted advisor".
7 - Ed Willey - Clinton fundraiser, found dead November 1993 deep in the woods in VA of a gunshot wound to the head. Ruled a suicide. Ed Willey died on the same day his wife Kathleen Willey claimed Bill Clinton groped her in the oval office in the White House. Ed Willey was involved in several Clinton fund raising events.
8 - Jerry Parks - Head of Clinton's gubernatorial security team in Little Rock .. Gunned down in his car at a deserted intersection outside Little Rock Park's son said his father was building a dossier on Clinton He allegedly threatened to reveal this information. After he died the files were mysteriously removed from his house.
9 - James Bunch - Died from a gunshot suicide. It was reported that he had a "Black Book" of people which contained names of influential people who visited prostitutes in Texas and Arkansas
10 - James Wilson - Was found dead in May 1993 from an apparent hanging suicide. He was reported to have ties to Whitewater..
11 - Kathy Ferguson - Ex-wife of Arkansas Trooper Danny Ferguson, was found dead in May 1994, in her living room with a gunshot to her head. It was ruled a suicide even though there were several packed suitcases, as if she were going somewhere. Danny Ferguson was a co-defendant along with Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones lawsuit Kathy Ferguson was a possible corroborating witness for Paula Jones.
12 - Bill Shelton - Arkansas State Trooper and fiancee of Kathy Ferguson. Critical of the suicide ruling of his fiancee, he was found dead in June, 1994 of a gunshot wound also ruled a suicide at the grave site of his fiancee.
13 - Gandy Baugh - Attorney for Clinton's friend Dan Lassater, died by jumping out a window of a tall building January, 1994. His client was a convicted drug distributor.
14 - Florence Martin - Accountant & sub-contractor for the CIA, was related to the Barry Seal, Mena, Arkansas, airport drug smuggling case. He died of three gunshot wounds.
15 - Suzanne Coleman - Reportedly had an affair with Clinton when he was Arkansas Attorney General. Died of a gunshot wound to the back of the head, ruled a suicide. Was pregnant at the time of her death.
16 - Paula Grober - Clinton's speech interpreter for the deaf from 1978 until her deathDecember 9, 1992. She died in a one car accident.
17 - Danny Casolaro - Investigative reporter. Investigating MenaAirport and Arkansas Development Finance Authority. He slit his wrists, apparently, in the middle of his investigation.
18 - Paul Wilcher - Attorney investigating corruption at MenaAirport with Casolaro and the 1980 "October Surprise" was found dead on a toilet June 22, 1993, in his WashingtonDC apartment. Had delivered a report to Janet Reno 3 weeks before his death.
19 - Jon Parnell Walker - Whitewater investigator for Resolution Trust Corp. Jumped to his death from his Arlington , Virginia apartment balcony August 15, 1993. He was investigating the Morgan Guaranty scandal.
20 - Barbara Wise - Commerce Department staffer. Worked closely with Ron Brown and John Huang. Cause of death unknown. DiedNovember 29, 1996. Her bruised, nude body was found locked in her office at the Department of Commerce.
21 - Charles Meissner - Assistant Secretary of Commerce who gave John Huang special security clearance, died shortly thereafter in a small plane crash.
22 - Dr. Stanley Heard - Chairman of the National Chiropractic Health Care Advisory Committee died with his attorney Steve Dickson in a small plane crash. Dr. Heard, in addition to serving on Clinton 's advisory council personally treated Clinton's mother, stepfather and brother.
23 - Barry Seal - Drug running TWA pilot out of Mena Arkansas, death was no accident.
24 - Johnny Lawhorn, Jr. - Mechanic, found a check made out to Bill Clinton in the trunk of a car left at his repair shop. He was found dead after his car had hit a utility pole.
25 - Stanley Huggins - Investigated Madison Guaranty. His death was a purported suicide and his report was never released.
26 - Hershell Friday - Attorney and Clinton fundraiser died March 1, 1994, when his plane exploded.
27 - Kevin Ives & Don Henry - Known as "The boys on the track" case. Reports say the boys may have stumbled upon the Mena Arkansas airport drug operation. A controversial case, the initial report of death said, due to falling asleep on railroad tracks. Later reports claim the 2 boys had been slain before being placed on the tracks. Many linked to the case died before their testimony could come before a Grand Jury.
THE FOLLOWING PERSONS HAD INFORMATION ON THE IVES/HENRY CASE:
28 - Keith Coney - Died when his motorcycle slammed into the back of a truck, 7/88.
29 - Keith McMaskle - Died, stabbed 113 times, Nov, 1988
30 - Gregory Collins - Died from a gunshot wound January 1989.
31 - Jeff Rhodes - He was shot, mutilated and found burned in a trash dump in April 1989.
32 - James Milan - Found decapitated. However, the Coroner ruled his death was due to natural causes".
33 - Jordan Kettleson - Was found shot to death in the front seat of his pickup truck in June 1990.
34 - Richard Winters - A suspect in the Ives/Henry deaths. He was killed in a set-up robbery July 1989.
THE FOLLOWING CLINTON BODYGUARDS ARE DEAD
35 - Major William S. Barkley, Jr.
36 - Captain Scott J . Reynolds
37 - Sgt. Brian Hanley
38 - Sgt. Tim Sabel
39 - Major General William Robertson
40 - Col. William Densberger
41 - Col. Robert Kelly
42 - Spec. Gary Rhodes
43 - Steve Willis
44 - Robert Williams
45 - Conway LeBleu
46 - Todd McKeehan
Quite an impressive list!
The public must become aware of what happens to friends of the Clintons!

James mccosh wrote:It is often forgotten how limited civil liberties actually are in the world.
For example how many nations have a clear statement such as the First Amendment on freedom of speech?
Plenty of places have something that looks (on first glance) to be like the First Amendment - but when one looks at the wording, it because obvious that that the legislature can ban speech (and publication) it does not like.
Americans, quite rightly, condemn the vast growth of government (and to say "the rich" or "the corporations" control the government is Marxist drivel - in reality they pay most of the taxes and many rich people and many enterprises are moving out of the United States), but the First Amendment and the Second Amendment are not to be undervalued.
Sure, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, they are under constant attack - but still they are there, and can be defended, most nations in the world have nothing like the First Amendment (freedom of speech) or the Second Amendment (the right to keep and bear arms).

Go on Facebook and talk about wanting to kill your ex-wife and watch the police arrest you for threatening behavior.

Try printing or speaking out in favor of ISIS and see how soon you are jailed for support of a terrorist organization.

Try printing erotic photos of teenagers and watch your butt going to jail for child porn.

Our legislature has the power and will to ban speech and publication of things it does not like as well.

Elwher wrote:Go on Facebook and talk about wanting to kill your ex-wife and watch the police arrest you for threatening behavior.
Try printing or speaking out in favor of ISIS and see how soon you are jailed for support of a terrorist organization.
Try printing erotic photos of teenagers and watch your butt going to jail for child porn.
Our legislature has the power and will to ban speech and publication of things it does not like as well.

That's the problem. That this is still more free than most, if not all, other nations.

The liberated territories

Apparently, Chris Cantwell has been booted out of Free Talk Live for saying racist stuff.

About time? Personally I don't think he's in any way as smart and righteous as he think he is by saying garbage, just because it goes against public norms. It seems more like crying for attention than anything else.

Thoughts?

The liberated territories wrote:Apparently, Chris Cantwell has been booted out of Free Talk Live for saying racist stuff.
About time? Personally I don't think he's in any way as smart and righteous as he think he is by saying garbage, just because it goes against public norms. It seems more like crying for attention than anything else.
Thoughts?

http://christophercantwell.com/2015/09/19/goodbye-cuck-talk-live/

The liberated territories

Sibirsky wrote:http://christophercantwell.com/2015/09/19/goodbye-cuck-talk-live/

I like how he asks for donations at the end of his rant. Maybe he can get Stormfront to fund him?

And as someone who has browsed racist sites - the language was all too familiar - seeing races in the collective and making stereotypes based on that, blaming this groups for their inability to get ahead when much of the fault can be found in the government's actions past and present (Jim Crow laws to affirmative action and even federal banking), but instead of working against that and calling people racist labels that do nothing to rectify the situation and everything to play into the hands of those in power - those who actually have hierarchy+privilege+power as the common saying goes, and makes it difficult for people to think for themselves and others as individuals by instead focusing on these issues. (Whether there is actually a conspiracy of elites creating devision in society can be debated, but drawing out prejudice just to incite and inflame does nothing for us).

The fact is, at the end of the day, Free Talk Radio is a business, and one that has colored viewers. I don't think it's out of the box to talk about race issues, even though many of the cultural issues are irrelevant to libertarianism or handled in a unique way. But there is nothing anti-libertarian about calling out racists, kicking them out of private organizations, or using what some might deem as "politically correct" if it's in the best interest to do so, indeed in a society dominated by rational interests, racism wouldn't exist, but we haven't got there yet.

Vecherd

The liberated territories

Actually I am wondering if I should drop the label "libertarian" entirely, because it is increasingly been seen in my eyes as shorthand for apology to autocracy with the pro-monarchial sentiments of a lot of libertarians and an irrational hatred of democracy, increasingly associated with racists and other fringe media like Cantwell and to an extent Molyneux, and becoming incredibly principled to the point of inflexibility, among other concerns...

In most cases these things wouldn't bother me, but if I were to actually walk the talk of individualism and freedom, I'd rather become a label spurning hipster, political independent, and not bound to labels to define my political positions. I think I'd feel a lot more freedom if I wasn't bound or associated with dogma - something that turned me away from the even more hyper principled and cultish Objectivism in the first place.

But nah I bet you guys don't care much anyway. Self indulged personal petty problems. hrumf.

The liberated territories wrote:Actually I am wondering if I should drop the label "libertarian" entirely, because it is increasingly been seen in my eyes as shorthand for apology to autocracy with the pro-monarchial sentiments of a lot of libertarians and an irrational hatred of democracy, increasingly associated with racists and other fringe media like Cantwell and to an extent Molyneux, and becoming incredibly principled to the point of inflexibility, among other concerns...
In most cases these things wouldn't bother me, but if I were to actually walk the talk of individualism and freedom, I'd rather become a label spurning hipster, political independent, and not bound to labels to define my political positions. I think I'd feel a lot more freedom if I wasn't bound or associated with dogma - something that turned me away from the even more hyper principled and cultish Objectivism in the first place.
But nah I bet you guys don't care much anyway. Self indulged personal petty problems. hrumf.

There is nothing irrational about hating democracy. It's irrational to support it, or believe it gives people any control of the government.

The liberated territories

Seriy wrote:There is nothing irrational about hating democracy. It's irrational to support it, or believe it gives people any control of the government.

<snipped from a relevant comment in the Economist>

Liberty is an end. Democracy is a means. It's as simple as that.

Democracy, on balance, is a more reliable means to protect the general liberty of the majority [less so for minorities] than autocracy. But it's not foolproof, even here in America, as the continued restriction on gay marriage and the tremendously minority-targeting War on Drugs shows. Even silly things like whether or not you can walk into a store and buy alcohol on Sunday is decided democratically -- and in UT, IN, GA, and possibly others for the negative -- in the States. That is not liberalism, it is -- albeit minor -- tyranny of the majority.

After all, what is the biggest concern about the middle-eastern nations we've "liberated" of late? It's that they're going to democratically elect Islamist governments that will be far less tolerant of individual rights than we here in the West.

In the West, we assume that liberalism and tolerance are synonymous with Democracy. But they are not. American history has proven that if you're a white Christian heterosexual male, democracy works out pretty well for you. It's slowly getting better for everyone else, but democracy has stood in the way of expanded liberty as often or more than it has helped to advance it. Often, in fact, democratically expanding liberty occurs *AFTER* public opinion has already changed, not the the other way around. The civil rights victories of the 1960's didn't begin at the ballot box, although they may have eventually ended there.

Despite what Lind suggests, libertarians recognize that most oppression of minorities occurs with the collusion of democratically-elected governments, not in spite of them. Thus they are very skeptical of Democracy on its own merits, and argue FOR liberalism [the ends] rather than FOR democracy [the means].

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/08/fishing-fascists

No one is advocating for democracy as an ends, but rather the least worst means. It would be neigh impossible to agitate for libertarianism in an autocratic dictatorship, but in a liberal democracy it could, at least, become a reality. I am only against libertarians who think that, like Hoppe, that a monarchy would be in any shape or form better than a liberal democracy, or that if an enlightened libertarian elite was elected then only we could establish libertarianism, something that ignores the history of every tyrant that was ever given unlimited power. There is a lot that democracy can do to help libertarianism as harm it - citizens initiated referenda, fixed parliamentary terms, recall elections, and sunset clauses on legislation. Unless you are against all of that as a means to achieve more net liberty? Tell me Sibirsky, how are you alone are going to educate enough people to bring about utopia? Is there any battleplan?

The liberated territories

I think that any market based governing entity would be indistinguishable from a democratic or semi democratic entity. It is likely that the shareholders of a defense agency would become it's "citizens" voting on the manner of which to utilize it's function. If the membership of a PDA have significant say in the business in which the business is compelled to attack other PDA, then you've just replicated the modern nation-state - the "voters" have encouraged the entity with the significant use of force to do an action that is detrimental to the liberties of others.

Lincoln sydney

The liberated territories wrote:<snipped from a relevant comment in the Economist>
Liberty is an end. Democracy is a means. It's as simple as that.
Democracy, on balance, is a more reliable means to protect the general liberty of the majority [less so for minorities] than autocracy. But it's not foolproof, even here in America, as the continued restriction on gay marriage and the tremendously minority-targeting War on Drugs shows. Even silly things like whether or not you can walk into a store and buy alcohol on Sunday is decided democratically -- and in UT, IN, GA, and possibly others for the negative -- in the States. That is not liberalism, it is -- albeit minor -- tyranny of the majority.
After all, what is the biggest concern about the middle-eastern nations we've "liberated" of late? It's that they're going to democratically elect Islamist governments that will be far less tolerant of individual rights than we here in the West.
In the West, we assume that liberalism and tolerance are synonymous with Democracy. But they are not. American history has proven that if you're a white Christian heterosexual male, democracy works out pretty well for you. It's slowly getting better for everyone else, but democracy has stood in the way of expanded liberty as often or more than it has helped to advance it. Often, in fact, democratically expanding liberty occurs *AFTER* public opinion has already changed, not the the other way around. The civil rights victories of the 1960's didn't begin at the ballot box, although they may have eventually ended there.
Despite what Lind suggests, libertarians recognize that most oppression of minorities occurs with the collusion of democratically-elected governments, not in spite of them. Thus they are very skeptical of Democracy on its own merits, and argue FOR liberalism [the ends] rather than FOR democracy [the means].
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/08/fishing-fascists
No one is advocating for democracy as an ends, but rather the least worst means. It would be neigh impossible to agitate for libertarianism in an autocratic dictatorship, but in a liberal democracy it could, at least, become a reality. I am only against libertarians who think that, like Hoppe, that a monarchy would be in any shape or form better than a liberal democracy, or that if an enlightened libertarian elite was elected then only we could establish libertarianism, something that ignores the history of every tyrant that was ever given unlimited power. There is a lot that democracy can do to help libertarianism as harm it - citizens initiated referenda, fixed parliamentary terms, recall elections, and sunset clauses on legislation. Unless you are against all of that as a means to achieve more net liberty? Tell me Sibirsky, how are you alone are going to educate enough people to bring about utopia? Is there any battleplan?

This would be relevant if we proposed autocracy.

Onloy statists claim that anarchy is utopia. Considering how much anarchist literature deals with crime and law, it is obvious that it is far from any utopia.

You have your utopia.

Lincoln sydney

The liberated territories wrote:I think that any market based governing entity would be indistinguishable from a democratic or semi democratic entity. It is likely that the shareholders of a defense agency would become it's "citizens" voting on the manner of which to utilize it's function. If the membership of a PDA have significant say in the business in which the business is compelled to attack other PDA, then you've just replicated the modern nation-state - the "voters" have encouraged the entity with the significant use of force to do an action that is detrimental to the liberties of others.

Customers would be voters. They vote with their money. The costs of enforcing some laws would outweigh any real or perceived gains. Such as drug possession, and multiple other victimless crimes.

War is expensive and would be far less likely.

I have no idea what Mr Cantwell is supposed to have said - but it is a private business and if his employers saying X (whilst at work - and broadcasting) that is their business - literally.

As for elections - they are a way of getting rid of a government without warfare.

The problem is that "voting the bad guys out" misses the point - it is the size and scope of government itself (not the moral intentions of those in office) that matters.

If the people one votes in do not have concrete plans to reduce the size and scope of government then the elections are pointless.

By the way the stress on "war" and military spending generally is out of date.

Military spending has been a declining proportion of the budget (not just in the United States - but in all major Western nations) for more than 50 years. This is not 1960.

Libertarians must keep up to date with the actual situation - it is the Welfare States that are out of control, it is their expansion that is the basic fact of our times, threatening not just the economy but Civil Society itself (undermining all the voluntary cultural institutions of society - including the family).

To those who doubt ......

Have a look at the Unfunded Liabilities on the Debt Clock.

Lincoln sydney

The liberated territories

Lincoln sydney wrote:This would be relevant if we proposed autocracy.
Onloy statists claim that anarchy is utopia. Considering how much anarchist literature deals with crime and law, it is obvious that it is far from any utopia.
You have your utopia.

Anarchy is not utopia. It treats the non-aggression principle as a suggestion and not as a law, and expects conformity to the principle - something that we know when man pursues his rational self interest to often conflict without a just rule of law.

Lincoln sydney wrote:Customers would be voters. They vote with their money. The costs of enforcing some laws would outweigh any real or perceived gains. Such as drug possession, and multiple other victimless crimes.
War is expensive and would be far less likely.

You far underestimate how much "risk" that corporations would put up to stake in order to defend their clients, and you underestimate the fact that people would easily sign off all their liberties to be slaves if it meant enjoying security. War is expensive, but that has not deterred real life governments, so why would it deter a corporation? And if people do vote with their money, certainly they'd all aggregate to the strongest corporation, leading to a monopoly, and therefore a statelike entity, one that can crush the competition as they grow weaker if they so do desire?

The liberated territories

Could full-reserve banking be a good replacement for fractional reserve banking in the short term? Is it an idea worth pursuing in a libertarian society where other countries still run with central banks with fractional reserve?

The liberated territories wrote:Anarchy is not utopia. It treats the non-aggression principle as a suggestion and not as a law, and expects conformity to the principle - something that we know when man pursues his rational self interest to often conflict without a just rule of law.

No, we do not expect conformity. That is precisely why, so much of anarchist literature deals with these exact things.

The liberated territories wrote:

You far underestimate how much "risk" that corporations would put up to stake in order to defend their clients, and you underestimate the fact that people would easily sign off all their liberties to be slaves if it meant enjoying security. War is expensive, but that has not deterred real life governments, so why would it deter a corporation? And if people do vote with their money, certainly they'd all aggregate to the strongest corporation, leading to a monopoly, and therefore a statelike entity, one that can crush the competition as they grow weaker if they so do desire?

Hahahaha.

So you don't understand the difference between a for-profit corporation with the risk of loss and the death penalty, and a government without such risks? Businesses fail. All the time. Most of them fail.

The US government does not use GAAP. In 2011, when the official deficit was $1.3 trillion, it would have been $5 trillion using GAAP (which every business must use). Between 2004 and 2011, when the deficit totalled $5.6 trillion, it would have been over $33 trillion using GAAP.

A business must generate profit, and in the case of war, send employees to fight, possibly to their death.

A government only needs tax cattle. Tax him. Draft him. Send them to their deaths. Then tax them again. They make the rules.

Your argument is basically, "without a state, a state may form, so we need the state, to protect us from the potential state."

Hahahaha.

https://www.facebook.com/larken.rose.7/posts/1653271194952682

The liberated territories wrote:Anarchy is not utopia.

The liberated territories wrote:Tell me Sibirsky, how are you alone are going to educate enough people to bring about utopia?

Sibirsky wrote:The US government does not use GAAP. In 2011, when the official deficit was $1.3 trillion, it would have been $5 trillion using GAAP (which every business must use). Between 2004 and 2011, when the deficit totalled $5.6 trillion, it would have been over $33 trillion using GAAP.

lol a government doesn't operate like a business, and for good reason

nor is the budget of a business is any way comparable to the budget of a government or a household

you are economically illiterate if you think they are

Atlanticatia wrote:lol a government doesn't operate like a business, and for good reason
nor is the budget of a business is any way comparable to the budget of a government or a household
you are economically illiterate if you think they are

Oh please, Atlanticatia, teach me your economic wisdom.

Sibirsky wrote:

So you don't understand the difference between a for-profit corporation with the risk of loss and the death penalty, and a government without such risks?

«12. . .3,5883,5893,5903,5913,5923,5933,594. . .3,6073,608»

Advertisement