Saffire

In other news... health insurance companies are stupid as dirt: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091012/D9B9QLO81.html Really? You're going to come out and attack the Democrats? If these idiots knew anything about how politics works, they would be promoting the Democrats' plan and bashing the Republicans!

Nick, it's my goal to get your beautiful state up to an average daily temp of 150 F in the summertime. :D Don't worry, you'll learn to like it.

Andreasw, I haven't got time to give you a full course on anarcho-capitalism. But let me give you a few links and a short response to each of your points. 1. You cannot have a "mixture" of the free market and government. It's impossible. Any government will interfere with free and voluntary exchange in such a way as to enrich those already in power, and make poorer those who aren't. The current methods are taxation, inflation, regulation, patents, government-granted monopolies, and licensure. None of these would exist in a free market, and they all cause unemployment and poverty, while reducing innovation. 2. Things would get ugly if you didn't fear punishment... okay. I've heard this argument a thousand times, and I'm not an idiot. First off, let's assume that everyone is retarded, except for criminals, who are like George Clooney and Matt Damon in Ocean's 11. Even in this scenario, the only people who would be hurt are those who come in contact with George and Matt. George and Matt comprise such a small % of the population, and only have enough time to commit so many crimes - 99% of the time, they wouldn't be committing crimes. And if they were, the retarded people (me and my anarchist buddies) would eventually figure out what was going on and we'd beat them with sharp sticks until they're dead. Problem solved. That was the worst-case-scenario. But now let's look at the real world. In the real world, people are self-interested. They seek security, shelter, food, and clothing. They want to raise their kids and educate them. They would like to have roads to drive on. So everyone is willing to pay for security VOLUNTARILY. There is a demand in society - it will be met. 3. How is the government taking care of the poor? The "war on poverty" hasn't changed the % of people who are poor. So until you can show me empirical data that proves government reduces poverty better than capitalism can, I'm afraid you don't have an argument. In capitalism, entrepreneurs are rewarded for figuring out the cheapest way to mass-manufacture goods and services that are in demand by the MOST people. It is this "price system" that signals which methods are profitable, and which are inefficient. If there is a population of poor in society, they are potential customers. So whoever can figure out how to serve them best, gets the most money. It might only be 1 dollar per person. But that's enough to make you a millionaire. Supply... and demand.

GET OFF MY LAWN! *throws brick*

He can't give the gays what they want until they vote for him again when he's up for reelection. He has an incentive (courtesy Democracy) to drag us along a while. So stay tuned next time for the exciting conclusion to this Obama promise!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/6299291/Energy-crisis-is-postponed-as-new-gas-rescues-the-world.html And there's record low temps in Austria, Montana, and Idaho. 1998 is still the hottest year on record, even after 11 years. Anyway, this story verifies that humanity always comes up with new technologies just in the nick of time, and politicians never take this into account.

Lady GaGa speaks for me! Gobama!

I think if they legalized marijuana half the painkiller market would be done for - just eat a brownie after your surgery! I also don't believe in patents. I think recipes for production methods ("intellectual property") aren't in limited supply, and therefore should be as free as the air. So R&D would be focused more on drugs that cure, rather than temporarily relieve symptoms. Also, we should be mass-manufacturing robots that perform common surgeries, and train young (new) doctors how to use them to specialize in some simple surgeries (like prostate removal). That way the skilled surgeons who still do things manually can focus on the more tricky surgeries that aren't planned.

Oh yeah religion is the other great danger. But if you look at a lot of western nations, you see less and less religious people as time goes on. We're becoming more secular, which in my view is a good thing. Secular nations are the most peaceful and have the least crime. It's hard to say but I think even America will eventually secularize. The question is, after you stop believing in the fairy tales, when do you stop believing in the government? I think it's the logical next-step in human enlightenment.

lol well as a gay man you're not getting much out of the government lately, are you? From my perspective, a democratic republic reflects society to one degree or another. So if people are bigoted against gays or black or whatever, that will be reflected in government policy and laws. So what comes first? The touchy-feely humanitarian thoughts (all people are equal!) or the government action? Well, it's clear that the most intelligent among us have realized for quite some time that "all men are created equal" and they even put that in famous documents. But we still aren't even there yet in America! Funny how that works. The simple fact is, what's written in these old documents is secondary to the dominant ideology of the time. So what comes first? The Government or the Culture? (it's like chicken/egg). From my perspective, it's the culture. Next, look at Law. People will do things for money, that are illegal. Such as kill people or sell drugs, or (most unholy) have sex. They'll even take up arms against their fellow citizens for money (cops arresting non-violent offenders). They'll shoot foreigners for money. You just give them the helicopter and then bullets, and it'll be done. So in this instance, what comes first? Well the money. Money trumps law as a means of controlling behavior. So does culture. So if you are aware that in an anarchy, you still have money and culture, you can see that government is actually quite pitiful at governance. But the propaganda is so heavily in favor of government that it's next to impossible to convince statists otherwise. It's like saying if we take the Bull's Eye down, it will no longer be a Target. The logo is gone, but the system of organization (that is all entirely voluntary) will still exist, albeit it will run more efficiently.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-calfee10-2009oct10,0,1149877.story

*scampers closer to thread* *looks around for predators* *snaps up cheese and runs* EDIT: That was better than The Fellowship of the Ring. Thanks, Nick!

Leave that kid alone! He's got 80 years ahead of him to sit at a desk and think. He should enjoy being a brainless child.

Anarchy is not disorder. It's natural order. You probably think the government should set the price of food and homes, right? Because anything else would be anarchy! *gasp* You're a Creationist. But that's okay, eventually you'll realize that men in costumes with guns won't solve your problems, just like Darwin realized that a man in the sky didn't create Adam and Eve. Because without a government we'd all be at each other's throats, killing and pillaging. Right? Of course.

Then clearly you can't tell the difference between anarchy and statism. How much propaganda have you gulped to honestly equate war with anarchy? War is the result of governments. Maybe you also agree that Woodrow Wilson should also win the Nobel Peace Prize as he did? Come on.

Of course, because Hitler and Stalin both came to power following periods of anarchy in their respective countries! :rolleyes:

I never said it would be all cookies and sunshine. You're projecting. Statists tend to look upon anarchy with strong cynicism, yet uphold government (and all its attendant horrors and illogic) as some sort of panacea. Got a problem? Government can solve it! So from my perspective, ANYTHING is better than a geographic monopoly on violence. Anarchy is just the alternative, and how it's done is the result of millions of little decisions each member of society makes on a daily basis. It's not a single decision one man makes, and then implements with the force of a military whose weapons are so fearful, God himself would tremble! The reason I believe anarchy would work is that throughout history, you see temporary periods where there was anarchy or near-anarchy. And in each of these times & places, life was relatively wonderful. Governments will propagandize and say things like "Oh without us, you'd still be working in a dirty factory! And you'd make 10 cents an hour!" But of course, if this were such a bad thing - why did millions of Britons choose to do it, rather than farm? Because they made a decision, independent of government interference, that this would be a better life. And it was. Any time society changes due to a new technology or shift in economics, governments resist it, and put laws into place to "protect us" from ourselves. And then when things start to get better, the court historians say "See! This was because of that law they passed!" Look around you. Any time the "government" does something, it's actually the cops who are doing it. They're the edge of the knife. They're the ones who make sure that government policy is implemented. So anytime someone says, "Government should do X", they're really saying, "Cops should do X".

Of course, security should be provided by private businesses. And that's a good question, what does happen to the poor? Oh that's right, the government dangles paper money in front of their faces to go fight in Afghanistan. Or locks them up in jail for smoking marijuana. Or inflates the currency so their savings evaporate with time. Or taxes imports, the production of food, and gasoline, which comprise a large % of what the poor spend their money on. Or puts a "price floor" (minimum wage) on the value of their labor which keeps them from getting a job. Or confiscates certain drugs, which increases the price, which creates violence in poor neighborhoods. Yeah, the government really helps the poor! I'm glad we have it.

Yeah like those BS "Livestrong" bracelets Lance "I'm better than you" Armstrong wore after beating testicular cancer. And then he left his wife who got breast cancer for another cute girl.

Governments aren't a "modern" concept, they're as old as the Stone Ages. The real question is - How is a modern society supposed to work WITH taxation and governments? It clearly can't. Governments create all sorts of trade imbalances, murder millions, cause massive unemployment, reduce the quality of life for the average citizen, etc. And we're supposed to trade all this downside just so we can "have defense and roads"? I don't think so. Anything the government claims it can do, the free market can do better. And the free market isn't a "thing" or "institution" like the government is. It's Darwinian evolution, but with goods and services rather than animals. Anybody who doesn't believe in the free market is tantamount to a Creationist in my view.

It's a trap! You can't define terrorism without including the activities of governments! Because they are terrorist organizations, by definition. And taxation is theft.

Read Washington's farewell address and his warnings about "entangling alliances", which interestingly, are the cause of World War 1. And a standing army is unnecessary when you've got nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles. No country would dare invade anybody who has the capacity to destroy their major cities in one stroke. Ceolsige, it's all about money. The military is a redistributive welfare scheme. Commanders, generals, officers all make six figures and get to play with exciting and fun weapons. They get to play our their homocidal fantasies every day in the sandbox that is the Middle East. It's also a way to artificially reduce the unemployment figures, and mask the pitiful job our public schools do when it comes to raising students who are intelligent enough to compete in the real world. It masks the insanely high crime-rate America would have, if half its sociopaths were actually at home, rather than overseas.

Because the military is an unnecessary, parasitical security corporation. One of the fantastic features of North America is that we don't have to live near unstable and insane governments, yet we perpetually feel a need to run over to that side of the world and get our hands dirty. It's like living in an oceanfront mansion within a gated community, and racing down to the ghetto to shoot some people every night. It makes zero sense.

lol we didn't go to Iraq for terrorism or oil, we went there so that our military could have some fun at the expense of taxpayers and brainwashed young men. Anybody who reads too deeply into the motives of the US government won't get far, because it's not a logical or coherent institution - it's an organization of parasites, who figure out ways to collect more money from the productive class of society. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kpWqdPMjmo]YouTube - Rumsfeld 2.3 Trillion Dollars missing Pentagon 1 DAY b4/9-11[/ame] They just want our money. That's all.

Imagine how hilarious it would be if adults used these. :laugh3: