Saffire

http://mises.org/story/3289 Here's an interesting article about how our society has been turning young adults into children, and the age of "adulthood" has been on the rise... I have mixed feelings about this, because I think it's good that people are still having fun as they get older. And it makes sense that as lifespans increase, so should the length of our childhoods. But in general I think being a child shouldn't mean one isn't responsible for being emotionally mature. The whole public school system is bent toward stunted mental-growth, because it confines children to socializing only with peers of the same age, something that wouldn't happen in the natural world. Anyway, here's the article:

Heh, well I'm gay and I think it's weird when a guy looks too effeminate, like this bloke. If I was after that, I'd be into women! :P

I know, "a friend of a friend" and all that... right.

He's ugly as sin, it's no wonder they command a high fee!

Actually if you've seen "Zack and Miri Make a Porno" then you'd know there's more sex in coffee shops and the guys are cream delivery men.

I'm rooting for Murray and Roddick! Can't wait!

War is a distraction from real life. It's a flight of fancy, a fear of the mundane (sort of like sports), only far more dangerous. Psychologically speaking, I don't see a whole lot of evidence the Palestinians are very interested in peace. They are preoccupied with their own sense of victimization and oppression. Why don't they just stop throwing rocks and get on with their lives? Because to do so would be the ultimate acknowledgment that the past 60 years (as you put it) have been an utter lie and waste of human life. They can't admit that, not now, not ever!

A trippy band you guys might like... [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1jPeG1LlaQ]YouTube - Shpongle DMT[/ame]

Chuck, a lot of it has to do with demographics, also. If I had to guess, I'd say Palestine (and the middle east in general) have a higher percentage of youth in their population. Men under the age of 35 are the ones who are going to go crazy when they've got no job (plus they're probably sexually repressed because of Islam). There's a whole witch's brew of reasons for the crap going on over there. Hamas is well known for their socialist policies, which probably cause unemployment to be higher than it otherwise would be. I'd love to see if there's a correlation between minimum wage laws and crime - regardless of the country... I can't believe I research this after midnight. God I'm a geek.

I tried posting a picture of myself urinating my name into the snow, but Facebook took that down, too! Penises aren't always sexual, people! /sarcasm.

I don't really care so much about political correctness, but there are plenty of Disney movies that teach kids the wrong stuff: http://www.cracked.com/article_16905_7-classic-disney-movies-that-taught-us-terrible-lessons.html

The unemployment rate in Gaza Strip is 34.8%. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gz.html#Econ That's why they've got so much free time to stir trouble. Everything goes back to economics.

Chuck, I think the propaganda directed at children is primarily religious, so it would be incredibly difficult to systematically "un-brainwash" them. Remember the resistance to acknowledging the equality of blacks in the southern US took (and still takes) over a hundred years, and that propaganda wasn't religious - it was just cultural. I think the key to reprogramming a society (easily) is two parts: 1. Have a charismatic leader who can speak well. 2. Create a common enemy. The common enemy should be someone who can be blamed for society's ills, and it doesn't really matter if they're actually the cause or not. The more difficult (and morally superior) way is to avoid systemic indoctrination altogether and just volunteer to educate young Palestinian children. Use the same methods they use to teach hate - cartoons, stories, songs, etc. I nominate Disney to make a Israeli/Palestinian cartoon that shows children that both sides can get along.

I wish a real car company like Tesla or Spyker could take over those fabrication plants and employees. America would be full of kickass supercars instead of more beige gas-guzzling minivans.

Okay, so I'm happy I changed your mind about government! :) Maybe I can change your mind about anarchy, also. A good analogy would be a traffic light. It coordinates people to either stop, or continue going through the intersection. The traffic light makes no distinction between cars (who is rich or who is poor, who is in a hurry or not... etc). So it's very much like the government. If the light breaks, will people just crash into each other? Maybe. Or... people will see the light is broken and stop - regardless of how hurried they are. This is more likely. The intersection will become a four-way stop, and everyone will slow down and take turns. This is anarchy. When there is no government, people work together to make each others' lives better. They don't need to be forced to do this. Sometimes (rarely) there will be a criminal who tries to steal or kill. But remember that the criminal is being like a reckless driver - he is running through the intersection without checking for other cars. Being a criminal in anarchy is very dangerous, because you will lose support of your fellow citizens. You are told that life without government would be bad, because everyone has to be angels for it to work (a similar argument is used against Communism). But the argument works against Communism - not against anarchy. Here's why: communism requires force (guns) to take some people's money and give it to other people. Few people would do this voluntarily. Anarchy, on the other hand, is the opposite because there is no force involved. Everybody owns what is his, and it it's never stolen - only traded. All human interactions are voluntary (which is the way 99.9% of interactions are anyway... when's the last time you used violence to get what you wanted??)

Good question! Who should make the rules? The answer is that whoever owns the property, makes the rules. For instance, let's say we have a library (which is run by the government) and a book store (which is privately owned). If there are objectionable materials in the library, people will complain to the government and everyone will get mad. But when there are objectionable materials in a bookstore, nobody even bothers complaining, because they know it is private property and they have no say! The same is true with private schools vs. public schools, and the materials taught there. You never hear anyone complaining about a private school's teachings, because it is generally understood that you can choose to move your children to another school. This is the way all of society naturally works. People complain, but they get on with their lives. When you introduce government and "official" things, people complain and then their complaining BECOMES their lives. They work as lobbyists to get their way (or bribe, or cheat, or steal), instead of creating their own alternatives using their own money. Anarchy is not chaos. The governments of the world want you to believe it is, so you are afraid of it.

No. Because governments are made up of people who presume to have a different moral status from the rest of society simply because they're wearing certain costumes - a judge's robe, military camouflage, policeman's outfit, or a senator's suit with a flag lapel. Even more atrocious is the idea they are conferred special rights because of their ability to win a certain number of "votes" from the eligible electorate. A majority of participants standing in line to mark a box don't have the ability to fundamentally change anything except the paper they're marking. Government is just organized crime. Highly successful organized crime, because they've convinced most people they are have the "right" to steal from them and command them. But funnily enough, while most people (such as yourself) agree to the necessity of government, those same people just can't handle it when one government comes in and butts out an old one! That's just mean! They had no right to do that! ;)

Thanks for splitting up your post, I'll take each argument separately: 1. Government needs to be involved when private industry has a MONOPOLY. Government regulation is required in order to prevent artificially high prices. A monopoly is impossible without government protection. Remember that without government, there are no patents, and no corporate structures. Further, there isn't a singular judicial system that businesses can use to sue one another. 2. Government needs to be involved when there are NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES. For example, there is no fiscal incentive for a manufacturing plant to limit pollution. Government will tax and/or regulate in order to reduce the negative social costs of pollution. Ahh, the old pollution argument. On the contrary, government actually causes pollution and the free market limits it. There are several reasons why, but the first and most obvious reason has to do with the fact there is no incentive to protect public land. When government owns land, it never plans on selling it to a potential future buyer. Therefore, it sells the rights (to mine, deforest, etc) rather than the land itself. The land becomes overused and any beauty it once had is gone because Uncle Sam doesn't care about the view. A manufacturing plant that pollutes first has to buy the land it plans on using. Owners of the land nearby will have bought into "pollution insurance" which is just a collection of money they will use to bid up the price of any land a polluting manufacturer intends to purchase. If the price of the land is bid up too high for the business, it'll either relocate or strike a deal with the insurance company (which represents the nearby landowners) to cap emissions. Pollution lowers the value of land, which is a commodity with a relatively fixed supply. So to say there isn't economic incentive for some people to protect the value of their land is rubbish. 3. Government need to be involved when there is INFORMATION FAILURE. One of the basic assumptions of a market economy is "perfect information," and that buyers and sellers are acting rationally. Therefore, it is the government's responsibility to step in and provide this information (i.e. labels on food and drugs). Of course, because politicians have perfect information and market participants don't. :rolleyes: Have you heard of Consumer Reports? Or any of the other businesses that provide information (hint: there's a little thing called the "media"...) The assumption here is that because the FDA is gone, suddenly manufacturers of food will close their plants to any sort of inspection by outside agencies other than the government. Nothing could be further from the truth, and everybody will want to buy food from suppliers that are most forthcoming with evidence their products are safe. 4. Government needs to be involved when you are dealing with a "PURE PUBLIC GOOD." These are goods that are 1) non-exhaustive (your consumption does not reduce the amount the I am able to consume) and 2) non-excludable (you and I can both consume at the same time). Private industry does not have the resources to produce ALL the public goods that the public demands. An example of a pure public good would be national defense. The fact that you are receiving protection does not reduce my ability to be protected (non-exhaustive), and you and I can both be protected by the military at the same time (non-excludable). Look, if you think that private industry has the capacity to provide for national defense, you and I simply disagree. Furthermore, private industry will exit any area that is not producing a profit. I don't know about you, but I still want national defense even if it is not producing a profit. Have you ever studied the politics of nuclear proliferation? If you did, you would be aware of the fact that any state that a state possessing a nuclear weapon has never been invaded, because the threat of retaliation is too massive to make this a viable option. Do you know how much a nuclear warhead and its launch equipment and upkeep costs? Not much. Large corporations could easily provide defense for their interests (namely: customers) with nuclear bombs, and it would cost pennies a day per capita. The reasons you cite for the existence of government are government propaganda, taught in government-funded schools.

Prove there is no profit in private industry providing these services, as that is the crux of your argument. Also, what services does government provide that are too costly for private sector to provide?

Look at the definition: ter⋅ror⋅ism    /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes. 2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization. 3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government. Particularly #1. What is the government? Regardless of whether it's democracy or fascism, it uses the threat of violence to take your money and spend it on political purposes! All government is terrorism.

Remember, all governments are terrorist organizations. There is no moral or logical distinction between them.

The Palestinians are most culpable for teaching their children to hate Jews, thus ensuring the continuation of the war into the next generation. I don't see the same sort of thing happening on Israel's side. But the Jews are most culpable for their constant overreaction and "woe-is-me" justification for bombing the Palestinians into the stone age. Let's face it: Israel is basing its foreign policy on a straightforward retaliatory plan, rather than focusing on defense first and foremost. The fact they receive billions of dollars from the US every year only gives them incentive to keep the conflict going longer.

All over a silly imaginary "border" and a couple of 2000 year old fairy-tales. Also, American taxpayers didn't "give" anybody anything. The money was taken from then and distributed to Israel by the government.

It'll be Daniel Craig or Daniel Radcliffe or Ricky Gervais. Note: The previous statement reflects my lack of knowledge of British actors.

James May has the best pick up line ever: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HZwZI5dT4Q]YouTube - Embarrassing Flirting Award - Top Gear - BBC Two[/ame]