Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

So I bet I know the answer to this.

Which President do y'all like the most?

My personal Favorite is Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic Republican Party.

Mine is Ronald Reagan. Jefferson is up there though.

I got to with Jefferson.

Albenia wrote:So I bet I know the answer to this.

Which President do y'all like the most?

My personal Favorite is Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic Republican Party.

Why? He's a sell out.

Humpheria wrote:Why? He's a sell out.

He was not a Sell-Out

First of all he was an Anti-Federalist who fought against the Centralized Strong Government the Feds set up.

Second of All he supported State's Rights and Jeffersonian Democracy.

He formed the Anti-Administration Party as an opposition to the Secretary of Treasuries horrid policies.

Albenia wrote:He was not a Sell-Out

First of all he was an Anti-Federalist who fought against the Centralized Strong Government the Feds set up.

Second of All he supported State's Rights and Jeffersonian Democracy.

He formed the Anti-Administration Party as an opposition to the Secretary of Treasuries horrid policies.

And what did he do when he became President?

Not only orchestrated, but executed the single largest expansion of federal power in the 238 years of the Republic.

Humpheria wrote:And what did he do when he became President?

Not only orchestrated, but executed the single largest expansion of federal power in the 238 years of the Republic.

How?

He and his Administration

-Dismantled Hamilton's Federalist fiscal system

-Eliminated the whiskey excise and all other federal internal taxes

-Attempted to dismantle the national bank and much of the Navy during peacetime

-Signed the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves into effect

-He repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801

He was a good guy.

Albenia wrote:How?

He and his Administration

-Dismantled Hamilton's Federalist fiscal system

-Eliminated the whiskey excise and all other federal internal taxes

-Attempted to dismantle the national bank and much of the Navy during peacetime

-Signed the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves into effect

-He repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801

He was a good guy.

Two words: Louisiana Purchase.

Humpheria wrote:Two words: Louisiana Purchase.

Oh no...He bought land and allowed America to expand...

And?

Albenia wrote:Oh no...He bought land and allowed America to expand...

And?

He expanded America by executive order without Congress or the States. He used government money, while still in debt, using unilateral action to expand the government and land. Really anti-federal government, huh?

Humpheria wrote:He expanded America by executive order without Congress or the States. He used government money, while still in debt, using unilateral action to expand the government and land. Really anti-federal government, huh?

...

That's just one thing.

Albenia wrote:...

That's just one thing.

But it is the definition of his Presidency and his most discernible action. It is also the biggest example of his political hypocrisy. We'll just forget the "all men are created equal" and then slave ownership and then breeding with his servants. We'll forget all of that.

It doubled the size of the us. His act dis not harm anyone but the native americans.

The Amarican Empire wrote:It doubled the size of the us. His act dis not harm anyone but the native americans.

But it doubled the federal government that he fought against until his election.

I can't blame any President for wanting to expand our borders, especially in that time period. The place I live wouldn't even have been a part of the US without that purchase.

Also, Jefferson's federal expansion was not as harmful as the precedent Lincoln set (admirable as that man may be, he killed states' rights), nor as vast as the bureaucracy FDR established.

The Louisiana Purchase was a kinda of a trade-off scenario, major economic gain, but major federal government gain.

The New United States wrote:That is arguable. The "Muslims" were angry long before the Gulf War. I'd say it has more to do with the fall of the last Caliphate in WWI, resulting in the partition of the Arab lands into a bunch of meaningless nations (Jordan). Pan-Arabism has, without a doubt, horribly failed. Perhaps they believe Pan-Islamism, brought about by military Jihad, will bring them into some sort of new Islamic Golden Age.

Besides, that is irrelevant.

The war should be fought because it is necessary to ensure the security of the United States, her European allies, and her Middle-Eastern allies. The wars in Syria and Iraq are a breeding ground for terror. There are a handful of Americans and thousands of Europeans fighting in Syria, the vast majority of them for Jabhat an-Nusra (al-Qa'ida) or the Islamic State.

Even if we do nothing to confront this threat, they will attack us, due to the nature of their savage ideology. There are western Jihadis in Syria and Iraq calling for the black flag to fly over Buckingham, over DC, etcetera. We should do everything we can to make sure that they do not have the capabilities to attack our people.

I concur that the "muslim" culture and history was deeply upset by the interventions of the west following world war one, and that jihadist are largely savages who have renounced all reason and morality, but disagree on just about everything else.

Lets take a step back and look to the root of the seemingly eternal strife that has plagued the middle east for the last century or so, you hit the nail on the head with the ottoman bit and this should serve as an important lesson. The west doesn't know how best to regulate the affairs of that region. With the creation of the numerous smaller arab nations the stage was set for continuous destabilization. this process has only been fueled by unceasing interventions of nato and other meddling foreign powers. Most recently we can see examples in Iraq, Libya, and Syria where before US intervention the standard of living was relatively high for that region and social conditions were unprecedentedly stable. It is only after regime changes that states destabilize rapidly and form the breeding grounds for militant groups. It may sound cliche, but you don't fight fire with fire. THe only way the cycle is broken is if the youth are reached and introduced to the prospects of peace and social advancement. If the us would spend half the money on educating these victims as it has in completely destabilizing the region we would be talking about a real peace here. Instead, we are addressing the consequences of endless violence and warfare made possible by us intervention.

Albenia wrote:How?

He and his Administration

-Attempted to dismantle the national bank

He was a good guy.

not even

If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So it’s not that you are anti-gun. You’ll need the police’s guns to take away other people’s guns. So you’re very Pro-Gun, you just believe that only the Government should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions. - Stefan Molyneux

My favourite President is Jefferson Davis, because he cut the size of the federal government in half.

Pevvania wrote:My favourite President is Jefferson Davis, because he cut the size of the federal government in half.

Uh, wait a minute here. Why does that sound strange...

I dont know if it was a joke or not...

Ankha wrote:I dont know if it was a joke or not...

Don't worry, it's a joke :P

Ankha wrote:I dont know if it was a joke or not...

Same here.

Get it? He cut it in half? Ha ha!

Well, he was certainly a states' rights proponent; he was the leader of what he claimed to be a sovereign nationstate. Lol

Pevvania wrote:If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So it’s not that you are anti-gun. You’ll need the police’s guns to take away other people’s guns. So you’re very Pro-Gun, you just believe that only the Government should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions. - Stefan Molyneux

Pev. I must ask you a question. Do you feel that one can be Pro-Gun but have a Control plan that doesn't ban or limit guns but Instead makes the process of getting them longer and a tad harder?

Pevvania wrote:My favourite President is Jefferson Davis, because he cut the size of the federal government in half.

Pev you win.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:Well, he was certainly a states' rights proponent; he was the leader of what he claimed to be a sovereign nationstate. Lol

Go CSA! Lincoln killed State Right's and all that jazz!

Albenia wrote:Pev. I must ask you a question. Do you feel that one can be Pro-Gun but have a Control plan that doesn't ban or limit guns but Instead makes the process of getting them longer and a tad harder?

You mean what the US Federal Government is doing now - buying bullets in bulk (say that three times fast) to make them harder to legally acquire?

I don't know about Pev, but I find that even more diabolical than outright banning certain guns, because in this instance I think they're trying to tease us with a freedom they're trying to make not exist.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:You mean what the US Federal Government is doing now - buying bullets in bulk (say that three times fast) to make them harder to legally acquire?

I don't know about Pev, but I find that even more diabolical than outright banning certain guns, because in this instance I think they're trying to tease us with a freedom they're trying to make not exist.

No I mean like my Gun Control plan

Where-as-in you treat it like a Driving Test. At a certain age a citizen must take a short test to get a learners permit to own a gun. While having this permit he may only use his gun on range. Procedures will be taken to lock the gun unless at a range. After practicing at the range for about a year they may take a test to earn a gun license at which point they may own a gun. Un-needed guns or weapons such as grenades, bazookas and Machine guns are not to be given to the public.

I'm still working out some kinks but I personally believe it's a great solution. Both For-Gun Control but in no way limits the rights of Pro-Gun Advocates.

Conservative Idealism In Libertatem wrote:Well, he was certainly a states' rights proponent; he was the leader of what he claimed to be a sovereign nationstate. Lol

The funny thing about the South was that they weren't for "states' rights" at all. One of the reasons they gave for seceding was that Northern states were violating federal Fugitive Slave Laws. They were for states' rights when it supported slavery, and centralism when it supported slavery.

Albenia wrote:Pev. I must ask you a question. Do you feel that one can be Pro-Gun but have a Control plan that doesn't ban or limit guns but Instead makes the process of getting them longer and a tad harder?

I don't see why one would be necessary. If I owned a gun store I wouldn't want the press knowing that I was selling to wackos and murderers.

Albenia wrote:No I mean like my Gun Control plan

Where-as-in you treat it like a Driving Test. At a certain age a citizen must take a short test to get a learners permit to own a gun. While having this permit he may only use his gun on range. Procedures will be taken to lock the gun unless at a range. After practicing at the range for about a year they may take a test to earn a gun license at which point they may own a gun. Un-needed guns or weapons such as grenades, bazookas and Machine guns are not to be given to the public.

I'm still working out some kinks but I personally believe it's a great solution. Both For-Gun Control but in no way limits the rights of Pro-Gun Advocates.

This plan would be good if it wasn't forced to be taken by the government. Anything that can be done by force can most often be done more effectively at a voluntary level.

Pevvania wrote:The funny thing about the South was that they weren't for "states' rights" at all. One of the reasons they gave for seceding was that Northern states were violating federal Fugitive Slave Laws. They were for states' rights when it supported slavery, and centralism when it supported slavery.

I don't see why one would be necessary. If I owned a gun store I wouldn't want the press knowing that I was selling to wackos and murderers.

This plan would be good if it wasn't forced to be taken by the government. Anything that can be done by force can most often be done more effectively at a voluntary level.

1. Sadly so. However I still supported the Secession (Sue me I'm a Confederate) as it showed that the Feds can't violate The Right of the State without Retaliation.

2. You wouldn't know they were wackos or murderers

3. It's not forced. The "Must take" is just saying if you want a gun you have to go through this procedure.

Albenia wrote:1. Sadly so. However I still supported the Secession (Sue me I'm a Confederate) as it showed that the Feds can't violate The Right of the State without Retaliation.

2. You wouldn't know they were wackos or murderers

3. It's not forced. The "Must take" is just saying if you want a gun you have to go through this procedure.

1. How could you support that? I support the power to secede at any level, but the South was a white supremacist oligarchy. They were horrible. Not to say that the North were good guys, though. It's pretty embarrassing that America had to fight an entire war to get rid of slavery. It would have cost less for the government to buy all the slaves and then free them than it would to

2. My point is that it is in the interest of the gun store to perform these background checks and whatnot.

3. So I can't buy a gun unless I comply with an erroneous government regulation? Dude, that's forced.

1. I support the Secession. I supported the CSA, but I did not support Slavery. In that war there were no good guys, but the south was better than the north....Political wise and I'd say freedom wise. The South didn't hold a draft.

2. Sure.

3. Okay well you know. Sometimes you have to be forced to do things. Sometimes voluntarism is setting up for failure. Sometimes you have to give the Federal government power to keep you safe.

Albenia wrote:

3. Okay well you know. Sometimes you have to be forced to do things. Sometimes voluntarism is setting up for failure. Sometimes you have to give the Federal government power to keep you safe.

https://fbcdn-photos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/t1.0-0/10426778_807705605929445_6770624165117190740_n.jpg

Albenia wrote:Sometimes you have to give the Federal government power to keep you safe.

The day we willingly give the Feds power in exchange for "safety" is the day we relinquish all that we stand for as a country.

*cough*

Miencraft wrote:The day we willingly give the Feds power in exchange for "safety" is the day we relinquish all that we stand for as a country.

*cough*

It's true.

I don't trust Voluntary programs to do BG checks for guns....for my gun control plan

Albenia wrote:It's true.

I don't trust Voluntary programs to do BG checks for guns....for my gun control plan

Why not

Lack There Of wrote:Why not

Because...I don't trust people...

Albenia wrote:Because...I don't trust people...

But you trust then enough to make authoritative decisions regarding others' lives. That's a lot of trust

Albenia wrote:1. I support the Secession. I supported the CSA, but I did not support Slavery. In that war there were no good guys, but the south was better than the north....Political wise and I'd say freedom wise. The South didn't hold a draft.

2. Sure.

3. Okay well you know. Sometimes you have to be forced to do things. Sometimes voluntarism is setting up for failure. Sometimes you have to give the Federal government power to keep you safe.

1. The South was led by brutal, corrupt oligarchs believed in keeping millions of Americans in servitude. The North was led by brutal, corrupt oligarchs that didn't believe in keeping millions of Americans in servitude. Take your pick.

3. No, you don't. Individuals and groups have little incentive to hurt others or ignore the pain of others, because it'll come back to bite them in the ass. And that view is almost directly contradictory to your support for secession.

Albenia wrote:Because...I don't trust people...

My thoughts on that echo what Lack said: you don't trust individuals to make decisions about their own lives, but you trust a small group of powerful people to make decisions about everyone else's lives. What keeps the small group in check?

Lack There Of wrote:But you trust then enough to make authoritative decisions regarding others' lives. That's a lot of trust

Well you know....

Pevvania wrote:1. The South was led by brutal, corrupt oligarchs believed in keeping millions of Americans in servitude. The North was led by brutal, corrupt oligarchs that didn't believe in keeping millions of Americans in servitude. Take your pick.

3. No, you don't. Individuals and groups have little incentive to hurt others or ignore the pain of others, because it'll come back to bite them in the ass. And that view is almost directly contradictory to your support for secession.

My thoughts on that echo what Lack said: you don't trust individuals to make decisions about their own lives, but you trust a small group of powerful people to make decisions about everyone else's lives. What keeps the small group in check?

1. The South. Easily. Don't forget. The North was trying to implement Tariffs on southern states that would in fact HURT the economic situation.

3. .....The Constitution. The Government is limited by law. If we made it Voluntary how would they be limited? Huh? Not by law.

Albenia wrote:

3. .....The Constitution. The Government is limited by law. If we made it Voluntary how would they be limited? Huh? Not by law.

Lol, lol, lol, lol, lol

This guy thinks the constitution limits government action. I'm laughing so hard it hurts

Albenia wrote: If we made it Voluntary how would they be limited? Huh? Not by law.

By the promise of retribution if they screw people over.

"Given the opportunity, what do we do to those who have hurt the ones we love?" ~Petyr Baelish

You hurt them back. That's what you do. That's human nature. Someone screws you over, you screw them over in return.

Lack There Of wrote:Lol, lol, lol, lol, lol

This guy thinks the constitution limits government action. I'm laughing so hard it hurts

Well thanks to the Anti-Federalists and The Bill of Rights it does.

Miencraft wrote:By the promise of retribution if they screw people over.

"Given the opportunity, what do we do to those who have hurt the ones we love?" ~Petyr Baelish

You hurt them back. That's what you do. That's human nature. Someone screws you over, you screw them over in return.

That doesn't always happen.

Albenia wrote:That doesn't always happen.

Because there isn't always the opportunity.

Given the opportunity, retribution will always occur because it's human nature to seek out justice for wrongdoings.

Miencraft wrote:Because there isn't always the opportunity.

Given the opportunity, retribution will always occur because it's human nature to seek out justice for wrongdoings.

And If no opportunity presents itself?

Albenia wrote:Well thanks to the Anti-Federalists and The Bill of Rights it does.

It is literally a piece of paper made to make you feel better about being governed by forces outside your control

Albenia wrote:And If no opportunity presents itself?

Then the only possibility is that you weren't screwed over.

People will always find an opportunity to get revenge if someone does them wrong. If they can't find an opportunity, then no wrong was done to begin with.

Lack There Of wrote:It is literally a piece of paper made to make you feel better about being governed by forces outside your control

You can control them by voting you fool and by running.

That paper controls the government and protects our freedom.

Albenia wrote:Well you know....1. The South. Easily. Don't forget. The North was trying to implement Tariffs on southern states that would in fact HURT the economic situation.

3. .....The Constitution. The Government is limited by law. If we made it Voluntary how would they be limited? Huh? Not by law.

1. True, but this over millions of blacks kept in slavery?

3. So you support the Constitution but also support secession? No, they'd be limited by law, alright - natural law. The only moral, rational, universal law.

Lack There Of wrote:Lol, lol, lol, lol, lol

This guy thinks the constitution limits government action. I'm laughing so hard it hurts

There's this myth that's been floating around that claims that the federal government has upheld the Constitution only until recently. The sad truth is that the first President to dump on the Constitution was the first President, with his lovely National Bank. Then came Adams, who proudly threw the First Amendment out of the window, and then Jefferson, who got so excited about doubling the size of the USA that he forgot to check if the Constitution he helped write allowed him to do it.

Albenia wrote:You can control them by voting you fool and by running.

That paper controls the government and protects our freedom.

It's a naive and impracticable viewpoint. Very, very, very rarely do individuals influence the outcome of elections.

Partially true. But it's gradually been eroded since the Civil War.

Pevvania wrote:1. True, but this over millions of blacks kept in slavery?

3. So you support the Constitution but also support secession? No, they'd be limited by law, alright - natural law. The only moral, rational, universal law.

There's this myth that's been floating around that claims that the federal government has upheld the Constitution only until recently. The sad truth is that the first President to dump on the Constitution was the first President, with his lovely National Bank. Then came Adams, who proudly threw the First Amendment out of the window, and then Jefferson, who got so excited about doubling the size of the USA that he forgot to check if the Constitution he helped write allowed him to do it.

It's a naive and impracticable viewpoint. Very, very, very rarely do individuals influence the outcome of elections.

Partially true. But it's gradually been eroded since the Civil War.

1. Oh well. That's the North's fault. The CSA wanted to leave peacefully then Lincoln started his war on State's Rights.

3. I support the Bill of Rights not the main part of the Constitution which shouldn't have been ratified as it gives to much power to the federal government.

Jefferson bought land. Oh no....He really violated our rights. If you over extend your power as president but don't violate anyone's rights, is it bad?

Every Citizen of America is an individual. Every Citizen should vote. Thus Individuals are the election.

And Yes it has.

As a proud member of one of the original 13 colonies, I approve the Union fighting the Confederates. (I don't personally like Lincoln however.)

Because in the end, it doesn't matter if you are for big government or small, join, or die.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:As a proud member of one of the original 13 colonies, I approve the Union fighting the Confederates. (I don't personally like Lincoln however.)

Because in the end, it doesn't matter if you are for big government or small, join, or die.

This is coming from A Georgian so I've got commitments for both.

It was the South's right to leave the Union. The Civil War was a war of Northern Aggression.

Albenia wrote:1. Oh well. That's the North's fault. The CSA wanted to leave peacefully then Lincoln started his war on State's Rights.

3. I support the Bill of Rights not the main part of the Constitution which shouldn't have been ratified as it gives to much power to the federal government.

Jefferson bought land. Oh no....He really violated our rights. If you over extend your power as president but don't violate anyone's rights, is it bad?

Every Citizen of America is an individual. Every Citizen should vote. Thus Individuals are the election.

And Yes it has.

1) the war was started to protect northern industrial interests not so much states rights.

3) explain how the bill of rights allowed slavery, Jim Crow, the drug war, excise tax, any of the central banks, a slew of illegal wars of aggression, a and general corporatism.

4) a slave is no more free because he is allowed to choose a new master every set of years. And if you don't trust people to buy guns, how do you trust them to vote for the "correct " candidates?

Lack There Of wrote:1) the war was started to protect northern industrial interests not so much states rights.

3) explain how the bill of rights allowed slavery, Jim Crow, the drug war, excise tax, any of the central banks, a slew of illegal wars of aggression, a and general corporatism.

4) a slave is no more free because he is allowed to choose a new master every set of years. And if you don't trust people to buy guns, how do you trust them to vote for the "correct " candidates?

1. It was started to bring the South back into the Union.

3. There haven't been amendments for them as of yet?

4. Are you an Anarchist or something? A Slave may choose the best master or forfeit his freedom of choice.

Albenia wrote:This is coming from A Georgian so I've got commitments for both.

It was the South's right to leave the Union. The Civil War was a war of Northern Aggression.

Territories don't have rights, dawg. Only individuals do.

Regardless of whether you believe the social contract is justified or not, there was no aggression.

Lack There Of wrote:I concur that the "muslim" culture and history was deeply upset by the...

Pevvania wrote:I'll bite, TNUS...

Sorry for not responding, yet. I will write out my argument later today, as soon as I have the time.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Territories don't have rights, dawg. Only individuals do.

Regardless of whether you believe the social contract is justified or not, there was no aggression.

The People in the south have the Right to Leave the Union. They did nothing wrong. They left it to free themselves from the shackles of the Fed which then waltzed in BURNED MY STATE TO THE GROUND and then re-shackled them.

It was aggression. The Union had no right to do what they did to the Confederacy. We left peacefully they invaded.

Hallo Island wrote:Union pride.

Noooooo

Albenia wrote:

4. Are you an Anarchist or something? A Slave may choose the best master or forfeit his freedom of choice.

But, how do you trust them to make such a choice for themselves if you don't trust them to be able to defend themselves?

Miencraft wrote:But, how do you trust them to make such a choice for themselves if you don't trust them to be able to defend themselves?

If you saw me this would work better.

I am skinny, Wimpy and weak. Can't hold my own in a fight at all.

Do you trust me to defend myself? I don't trust myself to defend myself....

Can I make a choice? Heck yes I can. I trust myself un making choices.

Albenia wrote:If you saw me this would work better.

I am skinny, Wimpy and weak. Can't hold my own in a fight at all.

Do you trust me to defend myself? I don't trust myself to defend myself....

Can I make a choice? Heck yes I can. I trust myself un making choices.

But you don't trust people to be able to make the choice to own a gun, even though you trust yourself to decide that other people know better about your life than you do.

don't trust [B]yourself[/B] to be able to make the choice to own a gun*

Albenia wrote:

4. Are you an Anarchist or something? A Slave may choose the best master or forfeit his freedom of choice.

It frightens me how confront able you are with referring to this system as enslavement, but still go on defending it

Miencraft wrote:But you don't trust people to be able to make the choice to own a gun, even though you trust yourself to decide that other people know better about your life than you do.

I trust people to own a gun. I don't trust voluntary groups to do Background checks and Safety restrictions.

Lack There Of wrote:It frightens me how confront able you are with referring to this system as enslavement, but still go on defending it

Life itself is slavery.

Albenia wrote:Life itself is slavery.

Do go on

Lack There Of wrote:Do go on

Never are you free. No Matter what you are bound and enslaved by the forces of nature or other humans.

No matter where you are something is there choosing something for you. The Laws of science themselves enslave us

Albenia wrote:I trust people to own a gun. I don't trust voluntary groups to do Background checks and Safety restrictions.

Then it is impossible that you trust the government to do such a thing.

If you do not trust someone to do something correctly without force, then it is nonsense to believe that a body that would do so with force will do that correctly. It is nonsense to trust others, especially the government, with making decisions that impact the lives of people, because nobody knows how better to handle a person's life than that individual. By trusting the government with these safety restrictions and all, we are literally entrusting our lives to them. Do you trust the government with your life?

[quote=albenia;6887053]The People in the south have the Right...[/quote]

Neither do collectives have rights.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/collective_rights.html

[quote]They did nothing wrong. They left it to free themselves from the shackles of the Fed[/quote]

using "states rights" populist rhetoric covering their bs. While I am myself a proponent of states "rights" (in particular, more power for localities and municipalities), I believe that if one country does it only to become more autocratic than another country can and should invade it [owing to my neolibertarianism]). I do not see any aggression against "collectives," only individuals.

[quote]which then waltzed in BURNED MY STATE TO THE GROUND and then re-shackled them.

It was aggression. The Union had no right to do what they did to the Confederacy. We left peacefully they invaded.[/quote]

QQ moar loser.

They should really work on the quoting feature in the RMB. And a lot of others, like urls.

Albenia wrote:Never are you free. No Matter what you are bound and enslaved by the forces of nature or other humans.

No matter where you are something is there choosing something for you. The Laws of science themselves enslave us

Well, there's only so much I can say about that. Other than perhaps you should reconsider what slavery is. That's a truly awful outlook on life and the individual.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:They should really work on the quoting feature in the RMB. And a lot of others, like urls.

It works fine. You are just bad at it Hahaha

Miencraft wrote:Then it is impossible that you trust the government to do such a thing.

If you do not trust someone to do something correctly without force, then it is nonsense to believe that a body that would do so with force will do that correctly. It is nonsense to trust others, especially the government, with making decisions that impact the lives of people, because nobody knows how better to handle a person's life than that individual. By trusting the government with these safety restrictions and all, we are literally entrusting our lives to them. Do you trust the government with your life?

You want to tell me if I trust the government with my life? No. The only people I trust with my life are my parents and my current love.

MINERVA

TO RESPOND TO YOUR FAILED QUOTES

1. The People have the right to Secede if they so decide to. State's should be able to secede at public decision.

2. But the south wasn't Autocratic. The People Willed it to leave. It left. End of story.

3. THEY BURNT MY STATE then you go and say they were the good guys?

Lack There Of wrote:Well, there's only so much I can say about that. Other than perhaps you should reconsider what slavery is. That's a truly awful outlook on life and the individual.

It's true. We are all bound by something. Owned by Science, Nature, Individuals. it's all slavery.

Albenia wrote:You want to tell me if I trust the government with my life? No. The only people I trust with my life are my parents and my current love.

Thanks for invalidating your entire argument on the topic.

I win.

Miencraft wrote:Thanks for invalidating your entire argument on the topic.

I win.

What?

[quote=albenia;6887175]It works fine. You are just bad at it Hahaha

You want to tell me if I trust the government with my life? No. The only people I trust with my life are my parents and my current love.

[quote=albenia;6887175]MINERVA

TO RESPOND TO YOUR FAILED QUOTES[/quote]

[quote=albenia;6887175]1. The People have the right to Secede if they so decide to. State's should be able to secede at public decision.[/quote]

Sigh. Did you even look at the link?

[quote=albenia;6887175]2. But the south wasn't Autocratic. The People Willed it to leave. It left. End of story.[/quote]

I am pretty sure centralizing the government and enslaving and murdering people counts as autocratic.

[quote=albenia;6887175]3. THEY BURNT MY STATE then you go and say they were the good guys?[/quote]

They burnt your state? Since when did the entire territory of Georgia come into your possession?

Republic Of Minerva wrote:Sigh. Did you even look at the link?

I am pretty sure centralizing the government and enslaving and murdering people counts as autocratic.

They burnt your state? Since when did the entire territory of Georgia come into your possession?

1. I saw Ayn Rand.....And said no. But I'll go back and read the crap that is against the Collective will of the people.

2.No........well.......Maybe....

3. In my past life I was James Olgethr...olge...Fvck that nevermind.

That was by far...The Stupidest thing. I have ever read.......Ummm..No wait.

That was stupid.

Unfortunately, the Constitution does not allow secession, since it explicitly lists one of the federal government's powers as "putting down rebellions". It's a tricky issue, because to many the question can boil down to: "So you believe in big government as long as it's big state government?" Since states are governments, they have no rights, and no legitimate powers either.

“Rights” are a moral concept — the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others — the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context — the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.

(...)

Since there is no such entity as “society,” since society is only a number of individual men, this meant, in practice, that the rulers of society were exempt from moral law; subject only to traditional rituals, they held total power and exacted blind obedience — on the implicit principle of: “The good is that which is good for society (or for the tribe, the race, the nation), and the ruler’s edicts are its voice on earth.”

http://ari.aynrand.org/issues/government-and-business/individual-rights

Pevvania wrote:Unfortunately, the Constitution does not allow secession, since it explicitly lists one of the federal government's powers as "putting down rebellions". It's a tricky issue, because to many the question can boil down to: "So you believe in big government as long as it's big state government?" Since states are governments, they have no rights, and no legitimate powers either.

Screw the Constitution. Like I said. It should not have been ratified without more State's Rights.

This is true. A big state government and smaller Federal Government. Because my state knows how to fit it's needs better than the Federals.

States have individuals inside. The Individuals control the state. Thus the collective thoughts of the people produces the rights.

I want to ask you all what you think of Robert Nozick. At first I was critical of his ideas due to what Rothbard has written about him, but he does not seem to understand his philosophy. Minerva, what are your thoughts on Nozick?

You mean this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Nozick

Let me look through his ideas.

Albenia wrote:Screw the Constitution.

What in the literal f*ck? You just defended the constitution as the principle defense against government.

Okay his Philosophy....what the F***?

1.P is true

2.S believes that P

3.If it were the case that (not-P), S would not believe that P

4.If it were the case that P, S would believe that P

5.If P weren’t the case and S were to use M to arrive at a belief whether or not P, then S wouldn’t believe, via M, that P.

6.If P were the case and S were to use M to arrive at a belief whether or not P, then S would believe, via M, that P.[

Lack There Of wrote:What in the literal f*ck? You just defended the constitution as the principle defense against government.

I defended the Bill of Right's. Which is part of the constitution but added in after the original constitution.

Albenia wrote:Screw the Constitution. Like I said. It should not have been ratified without more State's Rights.

This is true. A big state government and smaller Federal Government. Because my state knows how to fit it's needs better than the Federals.

States have individuals inside. The Individuals control the state. Thus the collective thoughts of the people produces the rights.

That makes no sense. Why can't we have generally small government? You're right that big state government is probably preferable to big federal government, since there are less people affected by it.

The Constitution is a decent document. If it was followed, then there'd be no War on Drugs, federal regulatory agencies, involvement in education, subsidies, prostitution bans, welfare or these ceaseless undeclared wars.

Post self-deleted by Lack There Of.

Lack There Of wrote:Furthermore, the date ought to be abolished with the upmost haste

Which date are we referring to?

The constitution is a very great document, it may not be perfect, but it has lead to solving many of the problems that have occured in America.

Pevvania wrote:That makes no sense. Why can't we have generally small government? You're right that big state government is probably preferable to big federal government, since there are less people affected by it.

The Constitution is a decent document. If it was followed, then there'd be no War on Drugs, federal regulatory agencies, involvement in education, subsidies, prostitution bans, welfare or these ceaseless undeclared wars.

What makes no sense? The Constitution ratify statement.

I mean it should have been amended to include more states rights and then ratified.

true......

Pevvania wrote:Which date are we referring to?

Damn phone keys. You know very well what I meant

Lack There Of wrote:Furthermore, the state ought to be abolished with the upmost haste

Lack There Of wrote:Furthermore, the date ought to be abolished with the upmost haste

The what?

Right-Winged Nation wrote:The constitution is a very great document, it may not be perfect, but it has lead to solving many of the problems that have occured in America.

.....No...No it hasn't

Pevvania wrote:I want to ask you all what you think of Robert Nozick. At first I was critical of his ideas due to what Rothbard has written about him, but he does not seem to understand his philosophy. Minerva, what are your thoughts on Nozick?

From what I know of Nozick, I actually agree with him a lot of points, at least philosophically. Of course I am willing to make a lot more exceptions and I justify the state's existence more on utilitarianism than Nozick's idea of it's inevitability.

Albenia wrote:The what?.....No...No it hasn't

Albenia wrote:The what?.....No...No it hasn't

TTA, slavery, civil rights, equality for women all three examples of how the constitution was used to fight and improve those problems.

I would like to get my hands on a copy of Anarchy, State, and Utopia sometime in the future, although God knows my library won't have it.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:I would like to get my hands on a copy of Anarchy, State, and Utopia sometime in the future, although God knows my library won't have it.

#publiclibraryprobs #howamazongetsmymoney

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