by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .90919293949596. . .269270»

Conglomerate of iron

Yay war. How about no more of it?

Conglomerate of iron wrote:Yay war. How about no more of it?

From your mouth to God's ears. But, just in case you have not noticed, there is some significant fraction of Islamic fanatics that are already making war on the "infidels."

Short of genocide, I'm not seeing any end to this anytime in the near future.

Principality of zundrbar wrote:To begin with- a question, why is taxation not theft? If a thief comes up to your house and demands a certain portion of the money you make, and pays for "good" services, like fire fighting, is that not theft?

If you really want to break out the dictionary and get technical, theft is defined as the unlawful taking of property or a service. Taxes are not illegal.

The fact is that unless compelled to pitch in, people will not voluntarily pay. The government would crumble. We would have no defense and be forced into Islam by dinner time.

This is the same mistake that liberals make when pushing socialism and communism. They overlook that one basic law of human behavior. No amount slogans and laws are going to to stop people from being people.

Principality of zundrbar wrote:For example, I am a pro-lifer (not very many ancaps are) and I don't support my taxpayer dollars going to support abortion, but I don't get a say in what my money goes towards.


I don't like my tax money going toward welfare. But you are wrong, you do indeed have a say in things. You vote for the people that decide these things. I believe your problem lays with the way the vote comes out. (Mine too.)

Principality of zundrbar wrote:Fourth point- People are financially incentivized to have good building codes. <<<SNIP>>>

You said all that before. Now go back read my response again. Then tell me what you think your rights should be when your neighbor's structure threatens your property. (Chicago Fire. San Francisco Fire. Badly built high rise or radio tower next door to you. Etc. Etc.)

Principality of zundrbar wrote:ExxonMobil can call Blackwater/Xe/Academi, and pay them to defend their service from the Russian invaders. Russia gets mad about the loss of Russian lives by the operations of Blackwater/Xe/Academi, and chooses to invade the United States as a whole. First off, they have to face the same thing the Japanese had to face- a gun behind every blade of grass, who are defending their property in the interest of freedom. After that, they have to face the corporate militaries who are defending their property in the interest of profit. Remember, the colonists in America were able to defeat England.

It is clear you did not think this through. There are so many holes in your statement, to save time and bandwidth I'm going to focus on one.

Clearly this is not 1941 anymore. While ground troops are still an essential part of any military, the scope of battle changed dramatically over the years. How many of those blades of grass are going to have F-18's or F-22's behind them? One of the things that used to keep Russia (and the rest of the world) in line was air superiority and a leader that would use it if push came to shove. (We need a leader like that again.)

Some of the other holes in your argument are:
- Training of a full time soldier vs. every one grab a gun and start shooting.
- A vast difference in budgets leading to a lopsided arms and ammunition ratio.
- Not all that many people are going to have an tank or artillery in their garage.
- If Russia finds a place too hard to deal with they will simply nuke it. Or nuke their supply chain if there is something in that region they want.
- Not many private enterprises are going to fund long range military ops like ICBM's, a deep water navy and long rage air force. Those that do will not have a lot of cash to throw at the enterprise. That would effectively prevent anything but a defensive war. As a result, their is no disincentive for Russia or anyone else to give it a shot. Even if we successfully stave of one or two attacks, eventually we would crumble.
- With out that long range capability no one will be able to protect off shore interests. Security will be limited what ever we can can produce and make here. At least until someone decides to come and take it away from us. (See above.)

Conglomerate of iron

I am sorry, I was laughing at the Islam part of the above statement. Islamophobia much?

It isn't about religion, it is about US intervention in the Middle East and freedom fighters rebelling against US hegemony.

Conglomerate of iron

Also, taxation is theft. The law of natural rights supercedes all laws of government. My right to property supercedes government law of taxation.

Principality of zundrbar

I agree that it isn't about religion- I don't care about that. I care about American property being stolen by means of nationalization and Iran's constant property violations of American citizens.

Greetings fellow region dwellers,

Sorry about the delay. RL work and all. Speaking of religious stress, here's the new poll topic:

The United States Supreme Court is going to stop dancing around the edges and rule directly on gay marriage.[1] This week's poll is simple. If you were a justice on the high court, what would you rule?

--------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/16/supreme-court-gay-marriage/21867355/

Principality of zundrbar

My ideas regarding the poll: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxtHof4iNB4

She didn't go far enough. She specified two adults. I think that any number of adults should be able to enter any family arrangement they choose. The only caveats are that everyone is over the age of consent, no one is being forced or coerced in any way and no one is of diminished mental capacity.

The government should butt out of the marriage business completely. If people feel they need some kind of official recognition of their union or protection of assets, then they can pay a lawyer to draw up a contract.

Now that I reread the poll, I should have added another option: Government should butt out and no one can be forced to perform or host a wedding ceremony.

That is the one I would have picked. Gays should have the right to marry and enjoy all the rights and privileges (and misery?) that go with it. That said I do not believe for an instant that a gay couple should be able to waltz into a Catholic church, demand a full church wedding and then sue when the priest says no.

Conglomerate of iron wrote:Also, taxation is theft. The law of natural rights supercedes all laws of government. My right to property supercedes government law of taxation.

I've been meaning to get back to this.

If you really feel that way, go ahead and live by that credo. In the mean time I will start a betting pool on how long it takes for you to get locked up. Maybe a second pool on how long you remain a guest of the state.

We need to stay real here. The reality is that many a person tried that "higher law" thing over the this nation's history. Usually it is a religious credo that gives them that "higher law." But a few found a "higher law" from other sources like misinterpreting the Constitution, some non-existent loophole or even falling victim to a con man.

Without exception, they either landed in jail or the morgue. Your call.

Principality of zundrbar

I'm not sure if it's about Natural Law, or can simply be expressed as the right to one's own property. I'm not quite sure how your argument works Free Land (I'm not well versed in Natural Law), but fundamentally- the money that one makes is one's own property. Theft is a violation of property rights for the same reason- at what point does theft end and taxation begin? Just because the state uses taxation for uses that one may view as legitimate (e.g. roads), it is still theft- in the same way that if a criminal came to one's house and stole a portion of one's money, but then spent it on feeding the poor- it'd still be theft. Theft is theft, regardless of how the money gets used.

Also, another question- at what point is a government that has monopolies on law enforcement, courts, and defense, no longer socialist?

Principality of zundrbar

Sorry for straying a bit off topic here, but do we have a regional newspaper?

Principality of zundrbar wrote:Sorry for straying a bit off topic here, but do we have a regional newspaper?

Never set one up. Do you want one?

Principality of zundrbar

Not sure, it would provide good role-play opportunities for the community provided that people use it.

Islam has been waging war on the West for more than a thousand years. And both Sunni and Shia Islam are hostile.

War is not optional for the "infidel" world - as to what tactics should be used (too much for a comment).

On "gay marriage" if two or more men want to call each other husband and wife that is nothing to do with anyone else - as long as no one is forced to "recognise" it.

Principality of zundrbar

I just find a lot of Islam to be totalitarian in nature. Of course- there are a lot of problems in Christianity too- extremists like Santorum and a lot of what's written in the Bible isn't exactly "good." But I draw a strong line between the two- if you look at European countries and the United States, they don't execute homosexuals for being homosexuals, nor do they stone women when their husbands cheat on them.

However, I think that there are some changes being made for the better in the Islamic world (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/01/egypt_al_sisi_calls_religious_revolution_islam.html), but Islamic totalitarianism is still largely prevalent in the governments of the Middle East. I care more about the oil than about their religion though- they nationalized oil that was the private property of Americans, and therefore it is a violation of property rights.

Christians hold that the New Testament trumps the Old Testament - hence the old line "what would Jesus do?" when someone picks up a stone to throw at someone who has committed adultery or some such.

Jews believe that the Torah (the law books of the old Testament) can only be understood after long study of the Talmud - the learned discussions of the Jewish philosophers.

Islam rejects both of the above positions - it scripture says X, then X is what you do (according to Islam).

And the question "what would Mohammed do?" is a bit of a problem - considering what Mohammed actually did do (such as approving the murder of an old blind poet who had mocked him - and then approving of the murder of a pregnant female poet who had protested about the murder of the old blind poet).

Reed audio wrote:And the question "what would Mohammed do?" is a bit of a problem - considering what Mohammed actually did do (such as approving the murder of an old blind poet who had mocked him - and then approving of the murder of a pregnant female poet who had protested about the murder of the old blind poet).

Now, now... That there's what we all call the religion of peace.

Recently parents of two children in Maryland found themselves under investigation Montgomery County Child Protective Services for the sin of letting their children walk home from a park, roughly a mile away. About halfway home someone reported the unattended pair, 10 and 6 years old, to police. Police contacted the children and brought them home.[1]

Apparently those same police notified CPS because about two hours later, a social worker showed up on their door step. After some discussion about what the parents call "free range children" the social worker asked the parents to sign an agreement that they would not allow their children unescorted freedom until child protective services could get back with them the following Monday.

When the mother objected, indicating she wanted to consult a lawyer, the social worker said if they did not sign right then and right there, they would take the kids right then. (Got to wonder if that would stand up in court...)

Silver Spring, MD, where this occurred is an urban area right up against the Maryland-DC line. We are not talking out in the country or small town Smallville, KS where everyone knows everyone.

What do you think? Is this an overreach by government? Does government need to step in and protect children from an unusual, but so far harmless parenting philosophy? Or is this just a statement as to how bad the neighborhoods around our nation's capital really are?

New poll is up.

---------------------------------------------
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/maryland-couple-want-free-range-kids-but-not-all-do/2015/01/14/d406c0be-9c0f-11e4-bcfb-059ec7a93ddc_story.html

Greetings fellow region dwellers. I have a long and tedious job coming up Phoenix. So I may be scarce for the next week or so.

Carry on.

Principality of zundrbar

IMO- this sounds like a load of bull. Lots of parents are careless, I get that and I see that as a problem. But seriously- threatening to take away someone's kids because they let them walk unattended from the park? I walked home unattended from school for about a mile when I was in elementary school (from 3rd grade until 5th grade- when I was 8-10).

I don't understand how the CPS' solution here helps the parent in any way. The goal is to prevent the parents from being neglectful, so that their kids do not get kidnapped- but aren't the kids being kidnapped by the CPS if the parents don't follow the ruling? This is clearly an example of the state overstepping the boundaries.

I see this from both sides. My job sometimes exposes me to missing child tragedies. But on the other hand the government is getting way too deep into the personal decisions that go into child rearing. Were it up to me, I would err on the side of freedom.

I am extremely concerned about the social worker forcing a signature under threat of taking the children. There is no way that agreement can stand up in any US court. The fact that mother asked to consult a lawyer and was summarily threatened with her children indicates that CPS over stepped their bounds. Otherwise CPS would not be troubled with the parents bringing in a lawyer.

Principality of zundrbar

So in an anarcho-capitalist society, the owner of the park could just make a rule that children cannot be left unattended and this type of accident would be avoided. If a person breaks this law, they get fined- taking away someone's children is really extreme for a government action.

They were not alone at the park. They were alone walking home from the park. In your society would the owners of the sidewalk have that much say so over public traffic?

«12. . .90919293949596. . .269270»

Advertisement