Red Mosquito

BurtReynolds wrote:What the hell is Spain pre-France? Isn't that when the Inquisition was?

I think it was supposed to be "pre-Franco".

.

turned2black wrote:

4/5 wrote:Remember when this board used to have a strong libertarian, even anarchist, population for a while?

Libertarians tend to know their shit, so I'd guess the discussions were a lot better than they are now.

They were. Plus, it wasn't dominated by them; we had a really good mix of people who were reasonably informed and/or crazy but passionate from a range of ideologies.

I miss PunkDavid, thodoks, glorified_version, little wing, lysander, sun devil, buffalohed, and the others.

4/5 wrote:

turned2black wrote:

4/5 wrote:Remember when this board used to have a strong libertarian, even anarchist, population for a while?

Libertarians tend to know their shit, so I'd guess the discussions were a lot better than they are now.

They were. Plus, it wasn't dominated by them; we had a really good mix of people who were reasonably informed and/or crazy but passionate from a range of ideologies.

I miss PunkDavid, thodoks, glorified_version, little wing, lysander, sun devil, buffalohed, and the others.

Sun devil and I clashed a few times in the NBA threads. Suns fans love blaming the Spurs for their various playoff miseries.

4/5 wrote:

turned2black wrote:

4/5 wrote:Remember when this board used to have a strong libertarian, even anarchist, population for a while?

Libertarians tend to know their shit, so I'd guess the discussions were a lot better than they are now.

They were. Plus, it wasn't dominated by them; we had a really good mix of people who were reasonably informed and/or crazy but passionate from a range of ideologies.

I miss PunkDavid, thodoks, glorified_version, little wing, lysander, sun devil, buffalohed, and the others.

At heart, libertarianism and government constructionism both rely on the existence (at reasonable frequency) of rational actors. Both are thus unavoidably stupid.

McParadigm wrote:

4/5 wrote:

turned2black wrote:

4/5 wrote:Remember when this board used to have a strong libertarian, even anarchist, population for a while?

Libertarians tend to know their shit, so I'd guess the discussions were a lot better than they are now.

They were. Plus, it wasn't dominated by them; we had a really good mix of people who were reasonably informed and/or crazy but passionate from a range of ideologies.

I miss PunkDavid, thodoks, glorified_version, little wing, lysander, sun devil, buffalohed, and the others.

At heart, libertarianism and government constructionism both rely on the existence (at reasonable frequency) of rational actors. Both are thus unavoidably stupid.

I did mean "pre-Franco" and I was wasted.

A compromise could be a socialist democracy, some of the European countries are sort of doing that. The motivation behind labor determines the attitude of the individual. Capitalism is all about the self, a selfish constant competition with your neighbors, co-workers, etc,.. yet the core motivation behind labor in a socialist state is to cooperate, work with your neighbor, coworker, to ultimately create a better place to live, a selfless ideology,. that would change "me" to "we". And for that change to happen, because without it the system won't work.....you just need a few charismatic people with that ideology...to get it going...and as people work within the system that crucial mentality is created. So you don't need to convert every before instigating a socialist structure, in time that mentality spreads.

What's good for the self, is good for the community, so, ultimately, you are still working with the intent to better your life for yourself and your family, there is that selfish motivation-because human beings are selfish retards, so it is not an unnatural society.


To achieve that....you need a gov't that fears its people, one that is as small as possible...not this monstrosity that has people afraid of it.

Neo Liberal bullshit. corporate welfare.



this sums it up, i just found it...

What you're describing sounds like the opposite of anarchy or libertarianism, because I can't imagine a more selfish and cruel political ideology than those.

The only system of government that makes any sense to me is capitalism, but with a lot of socialist policies. Which means big government. It's unfortunate that we need it, but as you said, people are selfish assholes. Until people decide to be nice and caring all on their own, we're going to need programs in place to help those less fortunate. At the same time, I don't think you can have a free society in which people are not allowed to be selfish, so flat-out socialism and communism are out.

Anarchy!

McParadigm wrote:At heart, libertarianism and government constructionism both rely on the existence (at reasonable frequency) of rational actors. Both are thus unavoidably stupid.

Agreed. They don't want a corrupt centralized government impeding on everyone's rights, but don't seem to understand that a private landowner will do the same if given the chance.

Ashley Madison CEO and founder stepped down.

Bounty on hackers raised to $100,000

turned2black wrote:

McParadigm wrote:At heart, libertarianism and government constructionism both rely on the existence (at reasonable frequency) of rational actors. Both are thus unavoidably stupid.

Agreed. They don't want a corrupt centralized government impeding on everyone's rights, but don't seem to understand that a private landowner will do the same if given the chance.

I suppose one can envision a world where private landowners send out agents to choke the Eric Garners of the world to death, but it seems like a poor business model.

Redemption wrote:Ashley Madison CEO and founder stepped down.

Bounty on hackers raised to $100,000

So, after creating a website that facilitated the cheating of millions of married people, this leak the the failing that has shamed him into retirement?

B wrote:

Redemption wrote:Ashley Madison CEO and founder stepped down.

Bounty on hackers raised to $100,000

So, after creating a website that facilitated the cheating of millions of married people, this leak the the failing that has shamed him into retirement?

were you on the list, B?

simple schoolboy wrote:

turned2black wrote:

McParadigm wrote:At heart, libertarianism and government constructionism both rely on the existence (at reasonable frequency) of rational actors. Both are thus unavoidably stupid.

Agreed. They don't want a corrupt centralized government impeding on everyone's rights, but don't seem to understand that a private landowner will do the same if given the chance.

I suppose one can envision a world where private landowners send out agents to choke the Eric Garners of the world to death, but it seems like a poor business model.

Because private landowners and their "business models" have such a good track record when it comes to human rights?

Again, I don't understand this misguided view that somehow a libertarian society would be devoid of power-hungry assholes.

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

B wrote:

Redemption wrote:Ashley Madison CEO and founder stepped down.

Bounty on hackers raised to $100,000

So, after creating a website that facilitated the cheating of millions of married people, this leak the the failing that has shamed him into retirement?

were you on the list, B?

I wasn't, but I need to check for my wife.

turned2black wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

turned2black wrote:

McParadigm wrote:At heart, libertarianism and government constructionism both rely on the existence (at reasonable frequency) of rational actors. Both are thus unavoidably stupid.

Agreed. They don't want a corrupt centralized government impeding on everyone's rights, but don't seem to understand that a private landowner will do the same if given the chance.

I suppose one can envision a world where private landowners send out agents to choke the Eric Garners of the world to death, but it seems like a poor business model.

Because private landowners and their "business models" have such a good track record when it comes to human rights?

Again, I don't understand this misguided view that somehow a libertarian society would be devoid of power-hungry assholes.

A libertarian society assumes nothing of the sort. It only assumes that power hungry assholes have to provide some sort of value and that generally you can avoid dealing with them. Additionally, attempting to separate said power hungry assholes from the judicial system is desirous, as opposed to aligning the interests of the power hungry to the judiciary as much as possible.

As it stands now, power hungry assholes are encouraged to sign up to carry guns and abuse others with political and legal protections. I don't recall seeing too many stories about the loss prevention guys at Wal-Mart beating someone to death. That could be because they know they don't have qualified immunity . It could also be because they didn't sign up for the position because they enjoy abusing people.

simple schoolboy wrote:

turned2black wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

turned2black wrote:

McParadigm wrote:At heart, libertarianism and government constructionism both rely on the existence (at reasonable frequency) of rational actors. Both are thus unavoidably stupid.

Agreed. They don't want a corrupt centralized government impeding on everyone's rights, but don't seem to understand that a private landowner will do the same if given the chance.

I suppose one can envision a world where private landowners send out agents to choke the Eric Garners of the world to death, but it seems like a poor business model.

Because private landowners and their "business models" have such a good track record when it comes to human rights?

Again, I don't understand this misguided view that somehow a libertarian society would be devoid of power-hungry assholes.

A libertarian society assumes nothing of the sort. It only assumes that power hungry assholes have to provide some sort of value and that generally you can avoid dealing with them. Additionally, attempting to separate said power hungry assholes from the judicial system is desirous, as opposed to aligning the interests of the power hungry to the judiciary as much as possible.

As it stands now, power hungry assholes are encouraged to sign up to carry guns and abuse others with political and legal protections. I don't recall seeing too many stories about the loss prevention guys at Wal-Mart beating someone to death. That could be because they know they don't have qualified immunity . It could also be because they didn't sign up for the position because they enjoy abusing people.

Surely you're not comparing Wal-Mart's attempts to stop people from stealing Duck Dynasty bobbleheads to a city's attempts to police 8.5 million people.

Is this still about people people fucking around on their wife/husband?

most things are

turned2black wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

turned2black wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

turned2black wrote:

McParadigm wrote:At heart, libertarianism and government constructionism both rely on the existence (at reasonable frequency) of rational actors. Both are thus unavoidably stupid.

Agreed. They don't want a corrupt centralized government impeding on everyone's rights, but don't seem to understand that a private landowner will do the same if given the chance.

I suppose one can envision a world where private landowners send out agents to choke the Eric Garners of the world to death, but it seems like a poor business model.

Because private landowners and their "business models" have such a good track record when it comes to human rights?

Again, I don't understand this misguided view that somehow a libertarian society would be devoid of power-hungry assholes.

A libertarian society assumes nothing of the sort. It only assumes that power hungry assholes have to provide some sort of value and that generally you can avoid dealing with them. Additionally, attempting to separate said power hungry assholes from the judicial system is desirous, as opposed to aligning the interests of the power hungry to the judiciary as much as possible.

As it stands now, power hungry assholes are encouraged to sign up to carry guns and abuse others with political and legal protections. I don't recall seeing too many stories about the loss prevention guys at Wal-Mart beating someone to death. That could be because they know they don't have qualified immunity . It could also be because they didn't sign up for the position because they enjoy abusing people.

Surely you're not comparing Wal-Mart's attempts to stop people from stealing Duck Dynasty bobbleheads to a city's attempts to police 8.5 million people.

What else did you consider naming as the product besides Duck Dynasty bobbleheads?