Post Archive

Region: Libertatem

History

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Tupolite wrote:The state realizes the true self of the individual as a part of the state.

You are believing a lie. I say this as friendly advice. You are being delusional, and that delusion to which you hold is responsible for the untold deaths of millions throughout history.

Even the best of people can barely govern themselves. It takes a lifetime of practice to become seasoned in liberty, to which their children benefit greatly and they are responsible to pass it on to the next gen.

To think that someone (e.g., popular despot) or something other (e.g. "The State") can govern the mature individual (who is equipped with morality (knowing the consequences of their actions) and education (equipped to understand the nature of reality by disciplines of knowledge)) better than the individual himself is blatantly selling slavery whether the slaver knows it or not. I do not care if you call it Fascism, Not-Socialism, Brand-Xism, it always ends badly.

The New United States, The United States Of Patriots

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Yes.

Also, for those unfamiliar with the great historical era of the Third Republic of Libertatem, and the golden age that it gave birth to... Here:

http://libertatem.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Declaration_of_Existence

Fun times. I think it was either you or me that started that revolt. I remember I nominated you to be President I think

Rateria

Well let's go ahead and get this ball rolling. I'm starting a poll for abolishing the first consul position in favor of a senate. A 2/3 majority vote will see this voted upon by the consulate.

Narland wrote:You are believing a lie. I say this as friendly advice. You are being delusional, and that delusion to which you hold is responsible for the untold deaths of millions throughout history.

Even the best of people can barely govern themselves. It takes a lifetime of practice to become seasoned in liberty, to which their children benefit greatly and they are responsible to pass it on to the next gen.

To think that someone (e.g., popular despot) or something other (e.g. "The State") can govern the mature individual (who is equipped with morality (knowing the consequences of their actions) and education (equipped to understand the nature of reality by disciplines of knowledge)) better than the individual himself is blatantly selling slavery whether the slaver knows it or not. I do not care if you call it Fascism, Not-Socialism, Brand-Xism, it always ends badly.

Slavery does not always yield negative outcomes, and the presumed virtue of reason will never be sufficient to generate concordance among the lot of humanity, least of all through democratic procedure. Struggle and suffering are eternal constants. Does it not only make sense to order an entire nation for the purpose of organizing for struggle against inferior and debauched foreign peoples if it has the effect of terminating struggle between individual actors within a nation?

Tupolite wrote:Slavery does not always yield negative outcomes, and the presumed virtue of reason will never be sufficient to generate concordance among the lot of humanity, least of all through democratic procedure. Struggle and suffering are eternal constants. Does it not only make sense to order an entire nation for the purpose of organizing for struggle against inferior and debauched foreign peoples if it has the effect of terminating struggle between individual actors within a nation?

So you admit you are selling slavery?

Rateria

Tupolite wrote:Why not just put some effort into completing your region history dispatch?

Because nobody really mentions it being incomplete and there's a hell of a lot of work to be done going back to fill in the blanks we have.

Since it seems like nobody reads the factbook anyways, there's no reason to waste any energy on it.

That, and the people who were around long enough to be able to write down the complete history of Libertatem don't remember the early days anymore, which is why the start of the factbook is so sparse.

Narland, The New United States, Rateria

Tupolite wrote:snip

***addenda*** Sorry, I didn't answer your question because it should be obvious.

No, it does not make sense for a State to struggle. A state that must continuously struggle in a state of Hegelian Dialectic (especially for its justification) is no state at all. Today we would call it a failed state --a state in name only.

It can only maintain itself by imposing a self-refuting "order" of lawless tyranny upon the self-defeating perpetual revolution it provokes. As such, anyone who holds to truth, justice, or peace with any objectivity must reject, resist, and decry its despotism at all costs. Resistance to Tyranny is obedience to God -- and preserves the self.

The New United States, Rateria

Voting yes for the memes

The New United States

Skaveria wrote:Well let's go ahead and get this ball rolling. I'm starting a poll for abolishing the first consul position in favor of a senate. A 2/3 majority vote will see this voted upon by the consulate.

Maintaining a government in a Libertarian forum presents challenges. Few are willing to do what they themselves do not want done to them. :)

Skaveria wrote:Well let's go ahead and get this ball rolling. I'm starting a poll for abolishing the first consul position in favor of a senate. A 2/3 majority vote will see this voted upon by the consulate.

Have you written out an amendment?

I will be voting nay until an amendment, as opposed to a simple poll, has been proposed.

The United States Of Patriots wrote:I will be voting nay until an amendment, as opposed to a simple poll, has been proposed.

The poll is for the idea of it. There's no point in writing an ammendment if it fails, also, ut was your idea, you should write it.

Skaveria wrote:There's no point in writing an ammendment if it fails

This is kinda like saying there's no point to making any kind of art if people don't like it.

The point is to see how well it goes over and if it does fail, you figure out why, make the adjustments, and try again.

The United States Of Patriots

Narland wrote:So you admit you are selling slavery?

Certain ethnic groups could do well under a state of intense social regulation approximating slavery, at least until they learn to exist in society without causing disruption.

Narland wrote:***addenda*** Sorry, I didn't answer your question because it should be obvious.

No, it does not make sense for a State to struggle. A state that must continuously struggle in a state of Hegelian Dialectic (especially for its justification) is no state at all. Today we would call it a failed state --a state in name only.

It can only maintain itself by imposing a self-refuting "order" of lawless tyranny upon the self-defeating perpetual revolution it provokes. As such, anyone who holds to truth, justice, or peace with any objectivity must reject, resist, and decry its despotism at all costs. Resistance to Tyranny is obedience to God -- and preserves the self.

If a state is failed merely because it is defeated, then all states are failed ipso facto. States may rise and fall and nations may be scattered throughout the winds of history, but the reality that a nation's cohesive spiritual force is only found in vital action, implying expansion and conflict, is eternal

Kongeriget Island

Tupolite wrote:Certain ethnic groups could do well under a state of intense social regulation approximating slavery, at least until they learn to exist in society without causing disruption.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

The New United States, Rateria

Miencraft wrote:hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

By far any system where labor is controlled, even coerced, is far superior to the exploitation of the hapless working people by the free market. See George Fitzhugh

At least the slave is clothed, fed, and cared for; in capitalism, anyone can be thrown to the curb and left to fester once the dread spectre of structural unemployment hits. The fault with the historical practice of slavery, at least in America, same as with virtually any instance of authoritarianism under capitalism that socialists point at, is that its beneficent potentiality to save the unfortunate from the consequences of public apathy and personal insufficiency was corrupted by its subjection to the profit motive

Tupolite wrote:By far any system where labor is controlled, even coerced, is far superior to the exploitation of the hapless working people by the free market. See George Fitzhugh

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM[/B]

The New United States, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots

Miencraft wrote:HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM[/B]

"'It is the duty of society to protect the weak;' but protection cannot be efficient without the power of control; therefore, 'It is the duty of society to enslave the weak.'"

- George Fitzhugh

Kongeriget Island

Tupolite wrote:"'It is the duty of society to protect the weak;' but protection cannot be efficient without the power of control; therefore, 'It is the duty of society to enslave the weak.'"

- George Fitzhugh

What a hellish view of existence.

Miencraft, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots

The New United States wrote:What a hellish view of existence.

He's a figure of some importance to Dixieland's past, you know. And hellish or no, it's the best existence leaves you to work with

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Literally just a dude who was really racist and hated people for no reason, and so he had a lot of bigoted (in all senses of the word) opinions. Must be a great thinker.

Far from just any ordinary antebellum pro-slavery activist, Fitzhugh originated the idea that slavery was a protective influence against the ravages of free market capitalism and argued that slavery as practiced in the South could be an antecedent to a form of hierarchical socialism. He was also a major critic of the American model of republicanism and asserted that the Declaration of Independence was filled to the brim with falsehoods. In addition, he proposed that slavery should be extended from the black people to also include a high proportion of the white population who were chronically indigent. He understood very early on the emptiness of the promise of liberty.

Kongeriget Island

Missing: Sean Connery.

Presumed to be working for MI-6 impersonating an Iranian General.

Last seen in Iraq.

***place pic of Sean Connery in Hunt for Red October here***

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Literally just a dude who was really racist and hated people for no reason, and so he had a lot of bigoted (in all senses of the word) opinions. Must be a great thinker.

Of all the horrifically wrong statements this guy made you focus on the fact that he's a racist to discredit him. It's an ad hominem

Tupolite

Tupolite wrote:Certain ethnic groups could do well under a state of intense social regulation approximating slavery, at least until they learn to exist in society without causing disruption.

If a state is failed merely because it is defeated, then all states are failed ipso facto. States may rise and fall and nations may be scattered throughout the winds of history, but the reality that a nation's cohesive spiritual force is only found in vital action, implying expansion and conflict, is eternal

You do not get it, but I hope one day you do. Until then enjoy what liberty you have. May you never encounter a more maniacal better armed sociopath that thinks you are a greater problem comparative to how great you think your thinking is.

Rateria

Miri Islands wrote:Of all the horrifically wrong statements this guy made you focus on the fact that he's a racist to discredit him. It's an ad hominem

One of the best arguments against democracy is the inequality of men which might be framed in the context of race alongside other metrics.

As a disclaimer, I do not necessarily believe that the disparity in the quality of the civilizations associated with various ethnic groups is attributable solely to biologically deterministic factors. I believe that more important is the difference in the culture or morality associated with different peoples, which can be extrapolated into a root cause of "national spirit." This is of course not to say that there are no differences between races attributable to biology, but such differences in my worldview are secondary, nonessential to the quality of nationality, and do not preclude the possibility of assimilation under a severe paternalistic guidance.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:It's the truth, and the fact is that when racism (which never has a rational basis) is the base of your ideas, you're ideas have no real base.

Define "racism." If you define it as not wanting to walk into a black urban ghetto because you know you'll get mugged and beaten, I'd say that's fairly rational. I would also say it's rational to recognize that certain ethnic groups have not been as successful in the independent construction of civilizations and that colonization by a Western power would improve their standards of health and hygiene. Even still, my ideology has no need for validation from positivistic theoreticians

Kongeriget Island

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Yep

I'm glad you recognize that fact.

Miri Islands wrote:Of all the horrifically wrong statements this guy made you focus on the fact that he's a racist to discredit him. It's an ad hominem

If you’re already a racist it just helps prove the point your opinions suck and you should get bullied for being an idiot and not be taken seriously

Rateria

Tupolite wrote:Far from just any ordinary antebellum pro-slavery activist, Fitzhugh originated the idea that slavery was a protective influence against the ravages of free market capitalism and argued that slavery as practiced in the South could be an antecedent to a form of hierarchical socialism.

Good thing he was wrong.

Narland, The New United States, Rateria

I love reading these debates. I'm glad we are all free-thinkers and let the debate flow.

Narland, The New United States, Rateria

Tupolite wrote:Define "racism." If you define it as not wanting to walk into a black urban ghetto because you know you'll get mugged and beaten, I'd say that's fairly rational. I would also say it's rational to recognize that certain ethnic groups have not been as successful in the independent construction of civilizations and that colonization by a Western power would improve their standards of health and hygiene. Even still, my ideology has no need for validation from positivistic theoreticians

Everything in that statement is technically true, it is a reality that black ghettos have disproportionately high crime rates, even when compared to white and latino communities of similar socioeconomic status. It's also obviously true that some cultures, namely, all the other ones, have been less successful than European Western culture, and it MAY even be the case that colonization would improve the condition of the most hopeless civilizations around the world...

But all that being said, I refuse to initiate force and conquest on people, regardless of if it'd "help them" in the long term. I choose to treat people as rational agents and with the dignity that comes with that. So, even if a culture is obviously inferior to ours, it's incumbent upon us to still treat them as equals.

Narland, Tupolite, Kongeriget Island

Skaveria wrote:Everything in that statement is technically true, it is a reality that black ghettos have disproportionately high crime rates, even when compared to white and latino communities of similar socioeconomic status. It's also obviously true that some cultures, namely, all the other ones, have been less successful than European Western culture, and it MAY even be the case that colonization would improve the condition of the most hopeless civilizations around the world...

But all that being said, I refuse to initiate force and conquest on people, regardless of if it'd "help them" in the long term. I choose to treat people as rational agents and with the dignity that comes with that. So, even if a culture is obviously inferior to ours, it's incumbent upon us to still treat them as equals.

Imperialism shouldn't be primarily taken up for the savages' benefit, but because it is necessary to validate the ethical reality of nation which demands conquest and projection of power over foreign peoples, systems, and ways. The second reason is for the geostrategic benefit to the heartland of an empire derived from controlling the venues of trade in rare and valuable goods, as well as to seize resources from colonized and conquered lands to improve living standards in the mother country. The inevitable improvement to the lot of inferior peoples and potential for eventual assimilation is a third-order consequence.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:F IRA Terrorist Sympathizer Jew, occasionally known as Auxorii

Sorry, fell asleep

Miencraft, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots, Highway Eighty-Eight

Auxorii wrote:Sorry, fell asleep

gm bro

Auxorii

Narland wrote:Missing: Sean Connery.

Presumed to be working for MI-6 impersonating an Iranian General.

Last seen in Iraq.

***place pic of Sean Connery in Hunt for Red October here***

His thick scottish accent must have blown his cover

Tupolite wrote:By far any system where labor is controlled, even coerced, is far superior to the exploitation of the hapless working people by the free market. See George Fitzhugh

At least the slave is clothed, fed, and cared for; in capitalism, anyone can be thrown to the curb and left to fester once the dread spectre of structural unemployment hits. The fault with the historical practice of slavery, at least in America, same as with virtually any instance of authoritarianism under capitalism that socialists point at, is that its beneficent potentiality to save the unfortunate from the consequences of public apathy and personal insufficiency was corrupted by its subjection to the profit motive

"AktChUalLy SlaVeRy wAs gOod fOr thE slaVes"

Miencraft, Narland, Auxorii, Rateria, Highway Eighty-Eight

Tupolite wrote:... Even still, my ideology has no need for validation from positivistic theoreticians

Your ideology has no validation

Narland, Rateria

The United States Of Patriots wrote:His thick scottish accent must have blown his cover

That picture of Soleimani (sp?) in uniform looked so similar to Sean Connery in Hunt for Red October, I couldn't resist.

The United States Of Patriots wrote:"AktChUalLy SlaVeRy wAs gOod fOr thE slaVes"

Unlawful domination is always good for the subjugated. Just ask any petty despot. He will have some sort of platitude rolling readily off his tongue.

But don't ask the subjugated. They never know whats good for them. All they do is complain anyway.

Miencraft, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots

The United States Of Patriots wrote:Your ideology has no validation

Nor does it require or seek any

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

The central planning discussion is five days old however I find it interesting

The New United States wrote:First, bureaucracy is clearly a necessary corollary of any centrally planned economy.

... /-skip

"... since ownership is, de facto, the control of a resource, ... /-skip

'centrally planned' system is as much 'socialism' as a Communist regime that officially nationalizes property."([I]Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market[/I], 959)

If Amazon was a country, it would have the GDP equivalent to a European country. Since all businesses (excluding cooperatives) are centrally planned.

Would you call corporate bureaucracy socialism?

Narland wrote:***insert facepalm here***

That has been (and is) my point in general (Communism and Fascism are progeny of Socialism) even though your particular example is flawed (False Equivalency).

What exactly is the false equivalency here?

The ideologies both have roots in hegel but later diverge with socialism being materialist emphasing class conflicts whereas fascism is spiritualist and emphasing national conflicts.

This is was related to the formation of the Abrahamic religions where they all have a root in the story of Abraham but all diverge after that(, summarising religious doctrine in a few sentences would be harder than ideological doctrine however).

Jadentopian Order

I'll clarify what I mean by materialism because it holds two different meanings.

The philosophical definition of materialism is that all things, including consciousness is a result of material interactions of matter.

Whereas in common parlance, materialism usually refers to post modern fetisisation of market driven consumerism.

Jadentopian Order

One could say that both definitions of materialism above are indeed related as they both would asser that there is no higher power in the universe, but the latter post modern take on materialism would add, that there is no power higher than what the market gives us.

I feel like Tupolite actually agrees with Libertarians/ Paleocons he is just enjoying the trolling. Why else would he stay with such degenerates like us

Narland

Tupolite wrote:Nor does it require or seek any

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:People who buy into it must be very smart.

Historically, fascist societies most always have a warrior culture where they would either prove or disprove their worth to themselves by a darwinian form of natural selection, played out on the international stage, this has always come back to be the negative.

See world war one and two to disprove the concept of the German race theory.

Cyborgs And Sentient Machines wrote:Historically, fascist societies most always have a warrior culture where they would either prove or disprove their worth to themselves by a darwinian form of natural selection, played out on the international stage, this has always come back to be the negative.

See world war one and two to disprove the concept of the German race theory.

Sidenote

A bizarre consequence of fascist perversion and politicisation of darwinian biology was that, in the Soviet Union, many biologists were rounded up for counter revolutionary activities. This activity including such things as researching mendelian genetics / selective breeding.

Famously, the zoologist responsible for the Russian Fox domestication experiment managed to persue his research under the guise of studying physiology.

This action and subsequent implementation of Lysenkoism did not bode well for their agricultural industry. Burning the books on agricultural science was also exported to China as well when Mao came to power.

Rateria

Cyborgs And Sentient Machines wrote:Sidenote

A bizarre consequence of fascist perversion and politicisation of darwinian biology was that, in the Soviet Union, many biologists were rounded up for counter revolutionary activities. This activity including such things as researching mendelian genetics / selective breeding.

Famously, the zoologist responsible for the Russian Fox domestication experiment managed to persue his research under the guise of studying physiology.

This action and subsequent implementation of Lysenkoism did not bode well for their agricultural industry. Burning the books on agricultural science was also exported to China as well when Mao came to power.

You can always count on communists to be completely backwards

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:I can't say I'm aware of many (or any) fascist states with a "warrior culture". Germany was an industrialized mostly-Christian nation in the 20th Century, not a tribal confederation of pagans. Italy was a fairly industrialized nation that had already gone through a series of liberal revolutions.

I can't really think of any "warrior culture" in the West, even the Native American tribes, which make up a disproportionate number of military enlistees couldn't legitimately be described as having "warrior cultures" in over 100 years.

The Nazi government made various attempts to rid Germany of Christianity, which from Nietzsche was seen as Slave morality. (Their relationship with that philosopher was complicated).

As regards to their dislike of Jesus they much prefered the Nordic pantheon, wherein the best way to the afterlife was to die in battle.

If you looked at the German government of that time period you would see them take Prussian militarism to its zenith.

Even during peacetime conscripting youth into mandatory militarised boyscouts.

Perhaps when someone says warrior culture to you, your thinking of a society structured for the purpose of war can only think of societies with limited technologies. This is just ahistorical and factually wrong on the counts of fascist Italy and Germany being exactly that, where the purpose of the state and the individual was a life of warfare.

Narland

Cyborgs And Sentient Machines wrote:...false equivalency

That Judaism, and the following Christianity and Islam (assuming all are Abrahamic) are different in tenets from each other despite their specie (Monotheism) is rightly equivalent to Socialism,and its following Communism and Fascism are of the same specie (the 10 planks) whereas Tupolite argued that because "some other" of Fascism from Socialism and Communism, a false equivalency.

Umberto Eco's essay on ur-fascism lists 14 defining features of fascism. Those features that lead into a warrior culture are points 9, 11 and 12.

[I] 9. For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle. Thus

pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. It is bad because life is permanent warfare. This,

however, brings about an Armageddon complex. Since enemies have to be defeated, there

must be a final battle, after which the movement will have control of the world. But such

a "final solution" implies a further era of peace, a Golden Age, which contradicts the

principle of permanent war. No fascist leader has ever succeeded in solving this

predicament.

11. In such a perspective everybody is educated to become a hero. In every mythology the

hero is an exceptional being, but in Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of

heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death. It is not by chance that a motto of the

Falangists was Viva la Muerte (in English it should be translated as "Long Live Death!").

In non-fascist societies, the lay public is told that death is unpleasant but must be faced

with dignity; believers are told that it is the painful way to reach a supernatural happiness.

By contrast, the Ur-Fascist hero craves heroic death, advertised as the best reward for a

heroic life. The Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently

sends other people to death.

12. Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist

transfers his will to power to sexual matters. This is the origin of machismo (which

implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality). Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons – doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise.

[/I]

Narland wrote:That Judaism, and the following Christianity and Islam (assuming all are Abrahamic) are different in tenets from each other despite their specie (Monotheism) is rightly equivalent to

Socialism,and its following Communism and Fascism are of the same specie (the 10 planks) whereas Tupolite argued that because "some other" of Fascism from Socialism and Communism, a false equivalency.

I'm finding your creative use of syntax hard to follow.

Do you think ou mean species when you say specie?

What does this sentence mean in English?

[I] argued that because "some other" of Fascism from Socialism[/I]

I have never heard of these 10 planks before do they form a Fasces when you put them together?

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Cyborgs And Sentient Machines wrote:The central planning discussion is five days old however I find it interesting

If Amazon was a country, it would have the GDP equivalent to a European country. Since all businesses (excluding cooperatives) are centrally planned.

Would you call corporate bureaucracy socialism?

What exactly is the false equivalency here?

The ideologies both have roots in hegel but later diverge with socialism being materialist emphasing class conflicts whereas fascism is spiritualist and emphasing national conflicts.

This is was related to the formation of the Abrahamic religions where they all have a root in the story of Abraham but all diverge after that(, summarising religious doctrine in a few sentences would be harder than ideological doctrine however).

Who are you?

Kongeriget Island wrote:Who are you?

He’s someone who once resided in one of our embassy regions and chatted with us. He could speak to his own history better than I can.

Cyborgs And Sentient Machines wrote:snip

Wow, it’s been quite a while. How are you?

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:I do think it's funny that Himmler once had the largest esoteric library in history. Rosenberg also had a large library, but Himmler had the SS at his command and that meant he could beat everyone else when it came to looting.

Yeah that's really funny, premium comedy actually

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Cyborgs And Sentient Machines wrote:I'm finding your creative use of syntax hard to follow.

Do you think ou mean species when you say specie?

What does this sentence mean in English?

[I] argued that because "some other" of Fascism from Socialism[/I]

I have never heard of these 10 planks before do they form a Fasces when you put them together?

I am sorry you are having a hard time. It might help to read the previous posts. The false equivalency was in the form (malformed) not in the the analogy.

I finally broke 80 points on civil rights

Narland, Rateria

Anyone campaigning for Virmin Supreme is working to deligitimize the Libertarian Party of the United States.

mike tyson mysteries is really underrated

Skaveria

Also, drunk driving shouldn't be a crime, as it violates no rights. Only if you hurt somebody or their property should you be charged with a crime.

Narland

Skaveria wrote:Also, drunk driving shouldn't be a crime, as it violates no rights. Only if you hurt somebody or their property should you be charged with a crime.

This is why people don't take libertarians seriously.

Besides, the roads are owned publicly and thus subject to public regulation. In a completely private society, private road owners would undoubtedly also forbid drunk driving.

Miencraft, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots, Kongeriget Island

The New United States wrote:This is why people don't take libertarians seriously.

Besides, the roads are owned publicly and thus subject to public regulation. In a completely private society, private road owners would undoubtedly also forbid drunk driving.

That'd be fine for a private road owner to put restrictions on access to their road. They could demand everyone using their road be wearing a tophat and a monocle, it's THEIR road.

As for public regulation, there should be none, the only responsibly the government has is to pave and upkeep them. Arbitrary rules set by government are authoritarian. So is owning the road, but as few regulations as possible should be the goal.

Suzi Island wrote:mike tyson mysteries is really underrated

I watched an episode last night it was quite good

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:But there is something worse for Libertarians to complain about:

Laws banning me from shooting randomly around a crowded room. [s] Until I hit someone, cops have should have no authority to stop me [/s]

Whose room is it?

Republic Of Minerva

Skaveria wrote:Anyone campaigning for Virmin Supreme is working to deligitimize the Libertarian Party of the United States.

Skaveria wrote:drunk driving shouldn't be a crime.

You guys have other problems

Miencraft, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots

Jadentopian Order wrote:You guys have other problems

Yeah but if I'm gonna express random thoughts about liberty, where else to post it but Libertatem?

The New United States

Skaveria wrote:Anyone campaigning for Virmin Supreme is working to deligitimize the Libertarian Party of the United States.

The Libertarian Party is on an active campaign to delegitimize the Libertarian Party

Miencraft, The New United States, Rateria, Skaveria, Miri Islands

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Skaveria wrote:Whose room is it?

According to your logic regarding public roads and drunk driving, it'd be okay to wrecklessly fire a gun in any place owned by the public.

Rateria

Skaveria wrote:Yeah but if I'm gonna express random thoughts about liberty, where else to post it but Libertatem?

Fair

The New United States wrote:According to your logic regarding public roads and drunk driving, it'd be okay to wrecklessly fire a gun in any place owned by the public.

Hey pal thats leftist gun control

Rateria

Jadentopian Order wrote:Hey pal thats leftist gun control

Yeah, that's because I very recently underwent a rapid conversion from being a traditionalist and a Latter-day Saint to being an atheistic communist.

Workers of the world unite.

Rateria, The United States Of Patriots, Miri Islands

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

God is a multi million dollar evangelist megachurch that has "priests" levitate people and put on magic shows. Modern religion is a joke.

Jadentopian Order

The New United States wrote:According to your logic regarding public roads and drunk driving, it'd be okay to wrecklessly fire a gun in any place owned by the public.

Not if you damaged property, which you could. A gun is different than a car in that it's use will inevitably lead to the destruction of whatever it's pointing at. Shooting a random public place will leave holes in the drywall and such. Simply driving drunk, but not damaging anything is different.

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Republic Of Minerva wrote:God is a multi million dollar evangelist megachurch that has "priests" levitate people and put on magic shows. Modern religion is a joke.

Ok but some of those megachurch videos are good ass entertainment

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:I'm mildly annoyed by the stuff I've been seeing about Trump making his reelection campaign about Christianity.

But I'm also amused that plenty of "pious" (completely retarded) Christians would love to have the man as their poster boy... Never mind that Trump is the furthest thing from what most of these people would preach.

God is dead and must be turning in his grave.

Oh that's so cool and deep

The New United States

Kongeriget Island wrote:Oh that's so cool and deep

"I don't have an argument so I'm going to call you edgy" - Every Christian every time their religion is challenged

Jadentopian Order wrote:"I don't have an argument so I'm going to call you edgy" - Every Christian every time their religion is challenged

I mean, it wasn't really a substantive challenge to Christianity in the first place. All he did was call orange man bad and say God was dead. Kongeriget's response had at least as much substance as what he was responding to.

The United States Of Patriots, Kongeriget Island

Post by Highway Eighty-Eight suppressed by a moderator.

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:Don't think I ever said "Orange man bad" either.

But you just did.

Narland

Hope you are all watching the European handball tournament, you guys need to learn about proper sport instead of this violent ‚football‘ you play

Narland

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:For the record, I was not challenging (if by challenge we mean insult or attack) Christianity, and anyone who can read English should be able to get that. Don't think I ever said "Orange man bad" either.

I didn't interpret your post to be anything other than calling Christians hypocrites for supporting Trump (it was Jaden that brought challenging Christianity into the discussion, for the record). I realize you didn't use the words "orange man bad," but aren't you implicitly saying the same basic thing? Something like "Trump is a bad guy, so Christians that champion him are being hypocrtical."

I simply paraphrased that as "orange man bad."

Miri Islands

Kongeriget Island wrote:Hope you are all watching the European handball tournament, you guys need to learn about proper sport instead of this violent ‚football‘ you play

Baseball is the true american sport. I would accept lacrosse as well though

The New United States

Highway Eighty-Eight wrote:I'm mildly annoyed by the stuff I've been seeing about Trump making his reelection campaign about Christianity.

But I'm also amused that plenty of "pious" (completely retarded) Christians would love to have the man as their poster boy... Never mind that Trump is the furthest thing from what most of these people would preach.

God is dead and must be turning in his grave.

I doubt it. Being Omniscient means your cannot be surprised. I would like to think that He would spin Atheists in their graves, but that would in contrary to his character and nature.

I seems that most people in the US who think they are Christians aren't thinking things through.

Those who consider themselves Christians yet do not:

>>>know their God intimately,

>>>study their Scriptures thoroughly,

>>>practice their faith wholly,

>>>understand their history integrally

>>>nor can barely articulate its tenets to even adhere to it

are not the Christians they think they are.

Most Christians who are Christians do not need a Chaplain America in the White House, anyway.

We need a wrecking ball to bash down the Statists contraptions in DC and a President that will thrash the status quo. We do need a revival in our hearts and in our land, but that is a separate order from electing a "Cyrus" to reject the Progressivist unlawful encroachment of our Liberties. While revival and Liberty may go hand in hand that is not always necessarily so.

The New United States, The United States Of Patriots

Skaveria wrote:Also, drunk driving shouldn't be a crime, as it violates no rights. Only if you hurt somebody or their property should you be charged with a crime.

While it should not be a crime it should be an actionable tort. The punishment for commiting a crime while voluntarily impaired in public should be maximal as it shows negligent disregard for self and others.

The United States Of Patriots

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