Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Humpheria wrote:Legally, it is established in the precedence of our common law system that the choices and habits of an individual, as long as they do not adversely affect other people, are not subject to legislation or rulings by the state.

Further the constitutional argument could be made. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

But the removal of the state from marriage will adversely affect other people, in that it completely disregards the rights of the child. State protection of the marital institution, and the regulation of that institution, is the only method by which the rights of children, individuals subject to being party to an involuntary association of persons, may be protected; and the protection of every individual's rights is the utmost priority of the state.

I'm not sure that that could be a constitutional argument, could it?

Rateria, Condealism, Reaganomic Nws

That's... a very good point, actually. I hadn't considered that.

The New United States, Rateria, Reaganomic Nws

Condealism wrote:By that logic, rounding isn't a thing.

Rounding is most certainly a thing for example, 1.9999999(etc.)=2 but this does not mean 2=-567.5.

Reaganomic Nws

Wovenland wrote:Rounding is most certainly a thing for example, 1.9999999(etc.)=2 but this does not mean 2=-567.5.

Nor did I say that 2 is equal to -567.5. I said that values ranging from 1.5 to 2.49999999 could be rounded to 2.

Condealism wrote:Nor did I say that 2 is equal to -567.5. I said that values ranging from 1.5 to 2.49999999 could be rounded to 2.

In cases that require you to round to the nearest integer, that is. (Judging by how significant figures work, I admit that this wouldn't be necessary all that often.)

Post self-deleted by The New United States.

Condealism wrote:That's... a very good point, actually. I hadn't considered that.

Can... Can Conservatives make good points? I thought they were just ebil, unprincipled Fox News drones.

The New United States wrote:Can... Can Conservatives make good points? I thought they were just ebil, unprincipled Fox News drones.

My entire worldview is falling apart! Why would CNN lie to me? Why do those ebull Republicant's think I'm not entitled to things? What is an ivory tower?

The New United States, Rateria, The Victorium Republic

Ransomed Individuals wrote:But the removal of the state from marriage will adversely affect other people, in that it completely disregards the rights of the child. State protection of the marital institution, and the regulation of that institution, is the only method by which the rights of children, individuals subject to being party to an involuntary association of persons, may be protected; and the protection of every individual's rights is the utmost priority of the state.

I'm not sure that that could be a constitutional argument, could it?

The question of children's rights has been plaguing my mind for awhile now. It usually gets brought up when the topic of religious schools is being discussed. Do fanatical lunatics have the right to indoctrinate their kids with irrational and often dangerous ideas and refuse to expose them to the "sinful world" by denying them proper education and a healthy social life? I'm afraid that many libertarians would argue that it is the inherent right of parents to dictate how their child will be brought up, even if their choice happenes to be to raise the poor kid in ways that are considered objectively harmful to the child's physical and/or emotional health and general wellbeing. There is obviously something wrong with this. On the other hand, it is hard to defend severe state interference in the education of children without indirectly advocating for a type of social engineering and suppression of minority cultures and lifestyles by a moralistic government. After all, if the parents don't know what's good for the child, what would make us think that the state, being the oppressive, corrupt entity it is, would know any better? Most likely, it would deliberately indoctrinate the children in order to create a more brainwashed and therefore obedient society. We've seen this happen many times throughout history. I really can't figure out how to properly deal with this whole issue from a libertarian perspective without completely disregarding rights of children. It seems to be the only deficiency of pure libertarianism.

[URL=http://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=387453]UNIVERSITY ANNOUNCEMENT

Join the Commonwealth Regional University today! We are now enrolling new students and employing new professors. Inquire now![/url]

Vista Major wrote:[URL=http://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=387453]UNIVERSITY ANNOUNCEMENT

Join the Commonwealth Regional University today! We are now enrolling new students and employing new professors. Inquire now![/url]

Looks interesting...I will consider signing up.

How comes the cold war boys?

Dangit TNUS.. now I'm gonna have to write a huge response when I get home from work :P

The New United States, Rateria

Hi guys. Question: would an Al Gore presidency have been better for liberty?

Muh Roads wrote:Dangit TNUS.. now I'm gonna have to write a huge response when I get home from work :P

Does arguing with you constitute an act of apostasy? :P

Rateria

Condealism wrote:In cases that require you to round to the nearest integer, that is. (Judging by how significant figures work, I admit that this wouldn't be necessary all that often.)

Yes, but that means that 2.5=2 only when rounding to the nearest integer. But if you did this twice with 2.5 and then found the sum of the two numbers the answer would still be 4 because you rounded thus discarding the extra 0.5. Furthermore, you could round one 2.5 to 3 and one to 2 but this would still be 2+3 which is actually 5.

Reaganomic Nws

Wovenland wrote:Yes, but that means that 2.5=2 only when rounding to the nearest integer. But if you did this twice with 2.5 and then found the sum of the two numbers the answer would still be 4 because you rounded thus discarding the extra 0.5. Furthermore, you could round one 2.5 to 3 and one to 2 but this would still be 2+3 which is actually 5.

No, you round up when you reach the half. Ex: .5 = 1, 1.5 = 2, 2.5 = 3. It's before the half when you round down. Ex: .49 = 0, 1.49 = 1, 2.49 = 2.

Other than that, you're right, and that's what I meant by this:

Condealism wrote:Though, technically, the equation (2.250 to 2.499) + (2.250 to 2.499) = (4.5 to 4.998) would be an improper use of rounding. Either the values would have to be rounded before the equation is finished (2 + 2 = 4) or they would have to be amended after (2 + 3 = 5).

I'm just saying that if you were to round each number in the finished equation without further changing the values, you'd end up with 2 + 2 = 5.

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t31.0-8/11703235_1632853263651389_6069682332194520820_o.jpg

Miencraft, The New United States, Republic Of Minerva, Condealism, Wovenland

Ronacria wrote:How comes the cold war boys?

None of your tricks will work here, Rona. We are far more clever than your anarchist friends.

The New United States

Ronacria wrote:How comes the cold war boys?

Hey, Ron. Give away any good regions to our enemies lately?

Condealism wrote:No, you round up when you reach the half. Ex: .5 = 1, 1.5 = 2, 2.5 = 3. It's before the half when you round down. Ex: .49 = 0, 1.49 = 1, 2.49 = 2.

Other than that, you're right, and that's what I meant by this:

I'm just saying that if you were to round each number in the finished equation without further changing the values, you'd end up with 2 + 2 = 5.

Well negating the fact that this doesn't prove 2+2=5, it's only showing that 2.5+2.5=5, you can round either way at .5 as it isn't closer to either value. In maths you have to prove, this is merely providing a situation.

Wovenland wrote:Well negating the fact that this doesn't prove 2+2=5, it's only showing that 2.5+2.5=5, you can round either way at .5 as it isn't closer to either value. In maths you have to prove, this is merely providing a situation.

No, it doesn't prove it. It just looks like it.

I was going for something like 2.3 + 2.3 = 4.6. Or, if each of those values were to be rounded to the nearest integer, 2 + 2 = 5.

I am not good at the, how you say, small talk.

The Victorium Republic wrote:Who are you?

No, it's "Who the hell are you?"

Speaking of which, who the hell are you?

The Aradites wrote:mhomen 3: mhomen harder

Who the hell is back with a vengeance?

Having a bad day, Humpheria?

Out of curiosity, why are you debating the merits of rounding numbers? I personally disapprove of rounding, especially when small numbers are being rounded.

The New United States

Stellonia wrote:Out of curiosity, why are you debating the merits of rounding numbers? I personally disapprove of rounding, especially when small numbers are being rounded.

Well, it started when a red came on and was tried to mock us, saying that 2 + 2 = 5, and then a discussion started about if that could ever be proven and, of so, under what circumstances.

Rateria

Stellonia wrote:Out of curiosity, why are you debating the merits of rounding numbers? I personally disapprove of rounding, especially when small numbers are being rounded.

Welcome, Stellonia! :)

Tyrinth wrote:Having a bad day, Humpheria?

What?

Humpheria wrote:What?

Nothing. You just seemed a bit snippy in one of your posts is all.

Tyrinth wrote:Nothing. You just seemed a bit snippy in one of your posts is all.

I didn't post anything here.

Humpheria wrote:I didn't post anything here.

I didn't know you were from the Commonwealth.

Greetings from Right To Life! Hope you're all having a fine day, and remember: a person's a person, no matter how small.

The New United States, Condealism

Xinxian wrote:Greetings from Right To Life! Hope you're all having a fine day, and remember: a person's a person, no matter how small.

Welcome, friend! :)

Humpheria wrote:I didn't know you were from the Commonwealth.

I'm everywhere.

;)

Xinxian wrote:Greetings from Right To Life! Hope you're all having a fine day, and remember: a person's a person, no matter how small.

Ironically Dr. Seuss was a pro-abortion advocate.

Miencraft, Kings Island, Ronacria, Right-Winged Nation, Hallo Island

Are you insinuating that I was a spy ALL ALONG? What could I, or my would be benefactors gain from an empty region?

Ronacria wrote:What could I, or my would be benefactors gain from an empty region?

I would probably ask the guy that betrayed the trust of his friends and was the principal actor in the emptying of that region.

Now, who could that be?

The New United States wrote:I would probably ask the guy that betrayed the trust of his friends and was the principal actor in the emptying of that region.

Now, who could that be?

*blink*

You accuse me of something which I have no pretence, nor do I care about. The former AAA wanted to keep fighting against their relatives, I didn't. It is foolish for either side to want the region, but I at least wanted to give the new region somewhat of a fresh slate.

Ronacria wrote:Are you insinuating that I was a spy ALL ALONG? What could I, or my would be benefactors gain from an empty region?

I'm not saying you're a spy. I'm just saying that you're sapping my sentry, that you just ordered a martini "shaken, not stirred", and that you're vigorously nodding your head in agreement with "Weird Al" Yankovic's "Party in the CIA".

Kidding, kidding. I know you. You just wanted to do the right thing, wash your hands of the conflict.

And now it seems neither Libertatem, nor the Red Fleet, nor even your old friends trust you. Such is a consequence of that kind of decision.

Miencraft, Kings Island, The New United States

Condealism wrote:I'm not saying you're a spy. I'm just saying that you're sapping my sentry, that you just ordered a martini "shaken, not stirred", and that you're vigorously nodding your head in agreement with "Weird Al" Yankovic's "Party in the CIA".

Kidding, kidding. I know you. You just wanted to do the right thing, wash your hands of the conflict.

And now it seems neither Libertatem, nor the Red Fleet, nor even your old friends trust you. Such is a consequence of that kind of decision.

Yep, and it doesn't even matter!

Woooooo.

Ronacria wrote:Yep, and it doesn't even matter!

Woooooo.

I shall leave you as you left A3. As you left UCR. Marooned for all eternity in the center of a dead region.

Buried alive... buried alive...

Post self-deleted by The New United States.

I know we all have things to do in real life, but I think it would be really intellectually productive if we could have some honest-to-goodness rebuttals to my rights-based argument for state intervention in marriage.

It would also show me that you all aren't quietly agreeing with me, which I'm sure is not the case.

The New United States wrote:I know we all have things to do in real life, but I think it would be really intellectually productive if we could have some honest-to-goodness rebuttals to my rights-based argument for state intervention in marriage.

It would also show me that you all aren't quietly agreeing with me, which I'm sure is not the case.

Well, your argument rests upon the assumption that a homosexual couple is automatically infererior so far as the rearing of children is concerned. This is a very controversial assumption and, regardless of it's truth (purported or actual), exceptions occur.

I'm about to go to bed but I'll have more in the morning.

Kings Island wrote:Well, your argument rests upon the assumption that a homosexual couple is automatically infererior so far as the rearing of children is concerned. This is a very controversial assumption and, regardless of it's truth (purported or actual), exceptions occur.

I'm about to go to bed but I'll have more in the morning.

My argument had nothing to do with the question of homosexual marriage, though.

That would be an argument to be had if my original thesis is correct. That is: the state should be involved in and regulate the institution of marriage, because the family which is born from such a relationship is an inherently involuntary relationship, and the rights of the child (the individual subject to the sovereignty of the other individual, contrary to the NAP) must be protected by the state.

Rateria

Kings Island wrote:Well, your argument rests upon the assumption that a homosexual couple is automatically infererior so far as the rearing of children is concerned. This is a very controversial assumption and, regardless of it's truth (purported or actual), exceptions occur.

I'm about to go to bed but I'll have more in the morning.

He made no references to homosexual couples whatsoever. He merely argued that the state ought to protect the rights of children. You may apply that argument however you want provided that you have sufficient evidence that a child has his/her rights violated by oppressive parents.

Miencraft, The New United States, Rateria, Condealism

I think it would be in the self interest of the state to take care of its members completely unable to take care of themselves in a Minarchist society, e.g. the children, severely handicapped.

I am less likely however to extend the same line of reasoning to elderly people, since they have the chance to prepare.

The New United States wrote:I know we all have things to do in real life, but I think it would be really intellectually productive if we could have some honest-to-goodness rebuttals to my rights-based argument for state intervention in marriage.

It would also show me that you all aren't quietly agreeing with me, which I'm sure is not the case.

I will respond today... things got busy yesterday. =P

The New United States

Muh Roads wrote:If that's how you perceive it then so be it.

L O L would be me actually taking opinions from an tyrannical authoritarian communist like yourself to heart.

If you end up removing the embasies anyway, this scene from Schindler's List be fitting:

Reiter: The entire foundation has to be torn down and repoured. If not, there will be at least a subsidence at the southern end of the barracks. Subsidence, and then collapse.

Goeth: And you are an engineer?

Reiter: Yes. My name is Diana Reiter. I'm a graduate of Civil Engineering from the University of Milan.

Goeth: Ah, an educated Jew... like Karl Marx himself. Unterscharfuehrer!

Hujar: Jawohl?

Goeth: Shoot her.

Reiter: Herr Kommandant! I'm only trying to do my job!

Goeth: Ja, I'm doing mine.

Hujar: Sir, she's foreman of construction.

Goeth: I'm not going to have arguments with these people.

[Hujar starts to drag Reiter away; Goeth stops him]

Goeth: No. Shoot her here, on my authority.

Reiter: It will take more than that...

Goeth: I'm sure you're right.

[Reiter is shot]

Goeth: Take it down, repour it, rebuild it, like she said.

Pangaean Debating Emissary wrote:If you end up removing the embasies anyway, this scene from Schindler's List be fitting:

Reiter: The entire foundation has to be torn down and repoured. If not, there will be at least a subsidence at the southern end of the barracks. Subsidence, and then collapse.

Goeth: And you are an engineer?

Reiter: Yes. My name is Diana Reiter. I'm a graduate of Civil Engineering from the University of Milan.

Goeth: Ah, an educated Jew... like Karl Marx himself. Unterscharfuehrer!

Hujar: Jawohl?

Goeth: Shoot her.

Reiter: Herr Kommandant! I'm only trying to do my job!

Goeth: Ja, I'm doing mine.

Hujar: Sir, she's foreman of construction.

Goeth: I'm not going to have arguments with these people.

[Hujar starts to drag Reiter away; Goeth stops him]

Goeth: No. Shoot her here, on my authority.

Reiter: It will take more than that...

Goeth: I'm sure you're right.

[Reiter is shot]

Goeth: Take it down, repour it, rebuild it, like she said.

I find your fascination with becoming a martyr disturbing.

Rateria, Reaganomic Nws

Condealism wrote:I find your fascination with becoming a martyr disturbing.

You are jumping to conclusions.

Condealism wrote:I find your fascination with becoming a martyr disturbing.

He has nothing to lose but his chains, you capitalist dog.

Reaganomic Nws

Pangaean Debating Emissary wrote:You are jumping to conclusions.

I meant the fact that you compared us to Goeth and yourself to Reiter.

But the real fascists are still out there, are they not? How many more regions could your comrades have saved from them if they hadn't stopped to antagonize us all those months ago? How many more of your former allies would still be around today had we not returned that aggression in kind?

Rateria

Condealism wrote:I meant the fact that you compared us to Goeth and yourself to Reiter.

But the real fascists are still out there, are they not? How many more regions could your comrades have saved from them if they hadn't stopped to antagonize us all those months ago? How many more of your former allies would still be around today had we not returned that aggression in kind?

It is a funny comparison, nothing more.

Pangaean Debating Emissary wrote:It is a funny comparison, nothing more.

No, a funny comparison would be likening myself to Winston Churchill because I make grandiose speeches, am the leader of this America-centric region's smaller ally, and am demonstrably disdainful of despotic dictators.

Hmm. And I suffer from what he'd call his "black dog". Come to think of it, there are a lot of similarities there, but I digress.

A contemptuous comparison would be likening us to such a ruthless character, a worrying comparison would be likening yourself to a murder victim, and an unrealistic comparison would be implying that you're any more opposed to fascism, and what it stands for, than we are.

Miencraft, Pevvania, Rateria, Reaganomic Nws

$2.055 is rounded to $2.06. But what if it were 2 dollars 5 cents and 5/10 th's ?

Pevvania

United Environmentalist States Of Mhomen wrote:Hi guys

You know, "Who the hell are you?" guy, I don't think I've seen you comment on that ol' running gag. What are your thoughts on it?

United Environmentalist States Of Mhomen wrote:$2.055 is rounded to $2.06. But what if it were 2 dollars 5 cents and 5/10 th's ?

Then we'd have to add ha'pennies back to our currency.

Rateria

Lulz - loving all the "libertarians" commenting about immigrants takin' muh jerbs: https://www.facebook.com/JohnStossel/posts/10152907274291621

Immigration, both legal and illegal, is great - http://reason.com/archives/2015/08/12/immigration-is-great/

Libertarians need to speak out against the War on Immigrants that the federal government is perpetrating - http://fee.org/anythingpeaceful/detail/libertarians-should-care-about-americas-ban-on-immigration

Any concern over increasing welfare expenditures, job losses, or falling wages are all unfounded, and in fact most empirical evidence suggests that immigration has the reverse effect.

Miencraft, Rateria, Condealism

I'm a person in your region.

Pevvania

Occasionally I comment on here,Just like you.

Pevvania

Condealism wrote:No, a funny comparison would be likening myself to Winston Churchill because I make grandiose speeches, am the leader of this America-centric region's smaller ally, and am demonstrably disdainful of despotic dictators.

Hmm. And I suffer from what he'd call his "black dog". Come to think of it, there are a lot of similarities there, but I digress.

A contemptuous comparison would be likening us to such a ruthless character, a worrying comparison would be likening yourself to a murder victim, and an unrealistic comparison would be implying that you're any more opposed to fascism, and what it stands for, than we are.

That is just hilarious. 😀😀😀

I can't decipher your name. What is condealism ?

United Environmentalist States Of Mhomen wrote:I can't decipher your name. What is condealism ?

A portmanteau of Conservative and Idealism. I'm [nation=short]Conservative Idealism[/nation].

United Environmentalist States Of Mhomen wrote:I'm a person in your region.

So that's who the hell you are.

Rateria

Lunch break...

So enjoy guys :)

http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-1718-castro-jesus-2B-santa-6-realities-growing-up-in-cuba_p3.html

Muh Roads wrote:Lunch break...

So enjoy guys :)

http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-1718-castro-jesus-2B-santa-6-realities-growing-up-in-cuba_p3.html

That country's still relevant?

I was inactive for twelve days (sorry about that), and this is what happens? This is something I will have to get used to. Most of all, you guys start debating MATHEMATICS as a comeback!

Pevvania

I think the math debate was the best comeback ever!

Pevvania

Post self-deleted by The Aradites.

triple mhomen feature:

http://fakemovieposter.s3.amazonaws.com/1439408833flopgun.jpg

http://fakemovieposter.s3.amazonaws.com/1439408112thehuntforredseptember.jpg

http://fakemovieposter.s3.amazonaws.com/1439407209termination2placementday.jpg

Pevvania, Condealism

Pevvania wrote:Lulz - loving all the "libertarians" commenting about immigrants takin' muh jerbs: https://www.facebook.com/JohnStossel/posts/10152907274291621

Immigration, both legal and illegal, is great - http://reason.com/archives/2015/08/12/immigration-is-great/

Libertarians need to speak out against the War on Immigrants that the federal government is perpetrating - http://fee.org/anythingpeaceful/detail/libertarians-should-care-about-americas-ban-on-immigration

Any concern over increasing welfare expenditures, job losses, or falling wages are all unfounded, and in fact most empirical evidence suggests that immigration has the reverse effect.

It's funny that UKIP claim to be libertarian yet most of their members despise immigration. Yes, I don't like the EU, but I'm not sure many of them quite get the point.

Pevvania

The Aradites wrote:triple mhomen feature:

http://fakemovieposter.s3.amazonaws.com/1439408833flopgun.jpg

http://fakemovieposter.s3.amazonaws.com/1439408112thehuntforredseptember.jpg

http://fakemovieposter.s3.amazonaws.com/1439407209termination2placementday.jpg

I love you for this.

Pevvania

Post self-deleted by Ransomed Individuals.

Wovenland wrote:It's funny that UKIP claim to be libertarian yet most of their members despise immigration. Yes, I don't like the EU, but I'm not sure many of them quite get the point.

muh jerbs

Also, being against a sensible immigration policy means you are ignorant about how the labour market works. But it doesn't matter, because the English feel entitled to their own jobs despite the fact that jobs is not a tangible commodity and are not linked to the amount of people present, but a multitude of other factors like the cost of labour (minimum wage and other variables), changing demand in some sectors, or other barriers (usually imposed by the government).

In reality, cutting off immigration means that you are only fighting your own countrymen for jobs instead of immigrants, hardly an improvement.

Miencraft, Rateria

Capitalist Democracy wrote:That country's still relevant?

They make damn good cigars man.

Ransomed Individuals wrote:It's not at all an intrusion into one's love life. As far as I'm concerned, individuals should be able to (and have a natural right to) freely and voluntarily associate with whomever they please, so long as it is mutually voluntary. The state should not have the right to tell individuals who they are to love, nor the right to dictate what two consenting individuals do with their God-given free agency.

Agreed actually, except for the bit about it being not an intrusion into one's love life.

I know this isn't what your trying to get after, but if it hasn't been clear before.. it took many years for (the US) government to accept marriages between individuals of different sexual & racial identities. Too this day, many governments still do not allow marriages or even love between those of the same sex. Some countries even carry a death penalty for doing so. So i ask, what good comes from the government knowing whom your married too? The extortion breaks?

I feel there is also a privacy concern at play. It's not the states business whom i love and who i choose to share last names with. It's a complete waste of taxpayer dollars and human brain power to "certify" marriage and dip into people's love life.

Ransomed Individuals wrote:

The family unit, and therefore the lawful marital union from which it is born, however, does not constitute a free and voluntary association of individuals. The family unit is innately involuntary; the child has no say in who his parents are, nor the manner in which his parents/guardians treat him (so long as that manner does not constitute neglect or physical/mental abuse). The child-parent relationship is involuntary, at the most fundamental level. The parent (unless you subscribe to the Marxist religion) has a natural right to act as sovereign over the life of the child, while also being held to account for that child's well-being.

This relationship is unique from all others; the parent-child relationship very clearly goes against the NAP, in that the individual that is the parent/guardian is recognized as that child's natural authority, a sovereign exercising the ability to restrict the rights to liberty and property of another individual, the child. The parental authority is one that is sacred, and it is indeed on that is coercive, yet it is one that is undeniable, and one that is of the most fundamental importance to human development.

Recognizing the sacred station of the parent, and the rights that accompany that station, we should also seek to identify those rights unique to the persons who occupy that lower station in this irrefutably involuntary relationship, the child. What rights do children innately possess? Do they have a right to life? Of course. To liberty and property? Those rights are exchanged for other rights that must be provided for by the child's parents, such as sustenance and shelter. It is difficult, however, to clearly define those rights unique to children, due to the fact that children's rights are unique from those of the individual. Where do the rights of the child end? I've been having a hard time grappling with this question in recent weeks.

Marriage is the institution by which children are reared, by which the family unit is born. Demolishing this institution and removing all state recognition for it simply disregards the natural rights of the child, the individual that is at the mercy of his caregivers. The state has a responsibility to protect the rights of the child, to regulate this involuntary association of individuals.

The family does not constitute a voluntary association of individuals, and there are specific responsibilities that should come with entering a marital union from which a family is supposed to be born.

(May have ended up rattling and not presenting thoughts well or actually rebutting what was said; it's 1000pm and a work day! Sorry!)

I get what you're saying here, but marriage does not necessarily mean your going to create a "family unit". Marriage is an act out of love and pure devotion to another individual, or eh.. object as some individuals choose.. and that's all there is too it. Children's rights is a different topic in my opinion entirely.

I believe that any living individual deserve equal rights, and this transfers unto children. Children are not controlled by the parent, rather taught, and that's simply how it should be. The common mindset that children are "owned" is completely misguided. Now, i think it's human nature for parent's to love and want whats best for their children. However as we all know this is not always the case.

For example, a huge topic over the past few years has been young babies being locked up in hot vehicles and left to suffocate. We do have laws to prevent this and yet it still happens. Proving that involving the government and it's laws has not changed the outcome in the slightest. Under the NAP, the parent wouldn't be held to a law citing "child abuse" and stuck in prison.. rather i believe the consequences would be much more dire than a lifetime of "think about what you did" and "You're now a tax payer's leech, here is your 3 hots and a cot".

Miencraft, Kings Island

I personally think that there's a significant cultural and legal bias against single people.

Right-Winged Nation

Condealism wrote:I personally think that there's a significant cultural and legal bias against single people.

There is a cultural and legal bias against all people.

Miencraft

Muh Roads wrote:There is a cultural and legal bias against all people.

Point.

I've got a commie and fascist detector...

Anybody want to try it out ???

United Environmentalist States Of Mhomen wrote:What if 2 plus 2 didn't equal 4?

Are you just being silly or actually trying to start a meaningful conversation?

United Environmentalist States Of Mhomen wrote:I've got a commie and fascist detector...

Anybody want to try it out ???

*beep* *beep* *beep*

Technically I identify as an anarchist.

Well, as the Kahjiit say: "A perfect land is always found elsewhere!"

Or Elswheyr.

And Now I shall leave.

It's that left handers day today, why don't we have a right handers day?

Capitalist Democracy wrote:It's that left handers day today, why don't we have a right handers day?

I'm ambidextrous. #donttreadonmepls

Oh, how nice. Ron's going to spy on TI for us.

"Uh, Con, that's not what's happeni-"

Shhhh. A man can dream.

It's funny how conservatives are hostile to welfare yet want to increase defense spending, much of which is effectively military welfare for other countries. Hundreds of billions are being wasted on countries that have well-developed armies and defense systems.

Republic Of Minerva, Rateria, Condealism

United Environmentalist States Of Mhomen wrote:I've got a commie and fascist detector...

Anybody want to try it out ???

You just reminded me of this funny joke from the Simpsons.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xpDh8sdbkUk

Pangaean Debating Emissary wrote:You just reminded me of this funny joke from the Simpsons.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xpDh8sdbkUk

Now you understand what we're up against. Lol

Condealism wrote:Now you understand what we're up against. Lol

I don't understand?

Pangaean Debating Emissary wrote:You just reminded me of this funny joke from the Simpsons.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xpDh8sdbkUk

>identifies as a communist

>enjoys the simpsons, a for-profit television program made by capitalism through youtube, a commercial venture that also only exists as a result of profit-and-loss mechanisms

>lolwut

Miencraft, The New United States, Rateria, Reaganomic Nws

Pevvania wrote:>identifies as a communist

>enjoys the simpsons, a for-profit television program made by capitalism through youtube, a commercial venture that also only exists as a result of profit-and-loss mechanisms

>lolwut

Don't ever get laser eye surgery pev, it was invented by the soviets!

Pevvania wrote:>identifies as a communist

>enjoys the simpsons, a for-profit television program made by capitalism through youtube, a commercial venture that also only exists as a result of profit-and-loss mechanisms

>lolwut

Your point? We live in a capitalist society, it's a pointless exercise to try to live a socialist lifestyle, in the same way that you could not be a businessman in a socialist society.

"Anarcho"-communism: https://i.imgflip.com/phy0f.jpg

Reaganomic Nws

Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.