FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Questions for Statists

Questions for Statists

(3:44) From Wikipedia: "In political science, statism is the belief that the state should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree. Statism is effectively the opposite of anarchism." Anarcho-capitalist blogger 'BraveTheWorld' poses some difficult questions for statists. bravetheworld.com

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1383 days ago)

The problem is not government, it's size… of everything. We shouldn't have big government, nor should we have big corporations. Big anything usually ends up being run by highly selfish, greedy and driven individuals at the cost of everyone else - because it is those traits that will most likely get you to the top. Proof is in reality today.

I think we need a political system that results in highly cooperative small "entities" working together in the interest of all, where no single entity can gulp up others and grow like a cancer, ultimately killing its host and itself. Ideas are welcome.

ReplyVote up (342)down (281)
Original comment

The problem is not government, it's size… of everything. We shouldn't have big government, nor should we have big corporations. Big anything usually ends up being run by highly selfish, greedy and driven individuals at the cost of everyone else - because it is those traits that will most likely get you to the top. Proof is in reality today.

I think we need a political system that results in highly cooperative small "entities" working together in the interest of all, where no single entity can gulp up others and grow like a cancer, ultimately killing its host and itself. Ideas are welcome.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Satan's Whatever (1382 days ago)

you mean like soviets?? (i'm talking about the concept of soviets not the way it was iplemented by stalin).

ReplyVote up (166)down (90)
Original comment

you mean like soviets?? (i'm talking about the concept of soviets not the way it was iplemented by stalin).

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1382 days ago)

You sound like a libertarian and that you're finally coming to your senses.

ReplyVote up (176)down (190)
Original comment

You sound like a libertarian and that you're finally coming to your senses.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1382 days ago)

Not quite. Libertarianism would be fine if everybody was driven by love rather than money.

The problem with libertarianism is that it puts the rights of an individual above the rights of many individuals, and that ultimately leads to corporatism, where a few individuals become very powerful - fine if they are driven by love, but they tend to be driven by a lust for money and power.

Not really the sort of people anyone should want in control, wouldn't you agree?

ReplyVote up (158)down (103)
Original comment

Not quite. Libertarianism would be fine if everybody was driven by love rather than money.

The problem with libertarianism is that it puts the rights of an individual above the rights of many individuals, and that ultimately leads to corporatism, where a few individuals become very powerful - fine if they are driven by love, but they tend to be driven by a lust for money and power.

Not really the sort of people anyone should want in control, wouldn't you agree?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1382 days ago)

I'm for less government control -- not no government at all.

I still believe we need to have a defense force. I also believe we need to have some laws and penalties for breaking those laws.

I am against subsidizing farmers to not grow peanuts so the price of peanuts remain high. I am against subsidizing farmers to grow wheat so the price of wheat can be low. Just let the market determine what the prices are and the farmers will grow whatever is needed.

I am against a nanny state where the government tells me what I cannot buy. If I want to buy marijuana, it doesn't hurt anyone but myself. Actually, nobody has ever died from consuming marijuana so it doesn't even hurt the person consuming it.

ReplyVote up (88)down (101)
Original comment

I'm for less government control -- not no government at all.

I still believe we need to have a defense force. I also believe we need to have some laws and penalties for breaking those laws.

I am against subsidizing farmers to not grow peanuts so the price of peanuts remain high. I am against subsidizing farmers to grow wheat so the price of wheat can be low. Just let the market determine what the prices are and the farmers will grow whatever is needed.

I am against a nanny state where the government tells me what I cannot buy. If I want to buy marijuana, it doesn't hurt anyone but myself. Actually, nobody has ever died from consuming marijuana so it doesn't even hurt the person consuming it.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: paulthew (1382 days ago)

"Just let the market determine what the prices are and the farmers will grow whatever is needed."

Yeah, let's allow 'the market' to decide on what food we should grow!

Bwhahahahahahaha!

ReplyVote up (83)down (111)
Original comment

"Just let the market determine what the prices are and the farmers will grow whatever is needed."

Yeah, let's allow 'the market' to decide on what food we should grow!

Bwhahahahahahaha!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1381 days ago)

What is so funny about that? You don't believe the supply and demand model works with farmers?

Here is what will happen. Peanuts are profitable so more farmers will grow them if they were allowed to. Currently it requires a license which is given to a limited number of farmers. That will drive the price of peanuts down due to the additional supply. The farmers may be unhappy with the price they receive from the crop so some will switch to a different and more profitable crop the following year. This will cause big fluctuations in the market for many of the commodities. The consumers will then get to pay the price for whatever the costs are for the food without it being falsely inflated or deflated by the government regulations and subsidies.

Tell me where you think I'm wrong.

ReplyVote up (155)down (95)
Original comment

What is so funny about that? You don't believe the supply and demand model works with farmers?

Here is what will happen. Peanuts are profitable so more farmers will grow them if they were allowed to. Currently it requires a license which is given to a limited number of farmers. That will drive the price of peanuts down due to the additional supply. The farmers may be unhappy with the price they receive from the crop so some will switch to a different and more profitable crop the following year. This will cause big fluctuations in the market for many of the commodities. The consumers will then get to pay the price for whatever the costs are for the food without it being falsely inflated or deflated by the government regulations and subsidies.

Tell me where you think I'm wrong.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Satan's Whatever (1381 days ago)

... and the price of wheat will go up, because more farmers will be growing peanuts, which will raise the price of bread/rice/corn, which will piss off all the poor masses which will lead to riots which will eventually lead to regime change or brutal crackdown.

ReplyVote up (106)down (149)
Original comment

... and the price of wheat will go up, because more farmers will be growing peanuts, which will raise the price of bread/rice/corn, which will piss off all the poor masses which will lead to riots which will eventually lead to regime change or brutal crackdown.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1381 days ago)

I wish the price of wheat would increase and my taxes decrease. It is unfair for my tax dollars to subsidize a crop that I do not eat. When tax dollars are used, it falsely reduces the price of the wheat and gives the impression that bread products are cheaper than they should be. If the people that ate the products paid what they were worth, the farmer gets the same amount and there is no redistribution of resources from people that do not use a product to people that do.

If, for some reason, people stop eating wheat because it's too expensive, then the consumers will switch to different products like corn, rice, or potato. If, people continue to eat wheat at the high prices and farmers make fortunes at those prices, more farmers will switch to growing wheat and that will make the prices low again due to oversupply and competition. See how this works?

ReplyVote up (171)down (172)
Original comment

I wish the price of wheat would increase and my taxes decrease. It is unfair for my tax dollars to subsidize a crop that I do not eat. When tax dollars are used, it falsely reduces the price of the wheat and gives the impression that bread products are cheaper than they should be. If the people that ate the products paid what they were worth, the farmer gets the same amount and there is no redistribution of resources from people that do not use a product to people that do.

If, for some reason, people stop eating wheat because it's too expensive, then the consumers will switch to different products like corn, rice, or potato. If, people continue to eat wheat at the high prices and farmers make fortunes at those prices, more farmers will switch to growing wheat and that will make the prices low again due to oversupply and competition. See how this works?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Satan's Whatever (1381 days ago)

yes , i see exactly how it works, except the farmers would be put out of business by huge agribusiness, but that's another issue. If everybody grows what they want, you'd have to set in place an import export tax, otherwise you'd get what Mexico got when it joined NAFTA: cheap subsidised GM corn from the USA that put them out of business and they rioted on the streets. Furthermore, assuming the farmers will get richer because they'll grow only high valued crops, the price of cereal and all foods (considering that corn is being used in all procesed foods) will go up, which means that a larger ammount of people's income will have to be spent on food, which means a lot more people will grow their own food, which will bring the price of land up; also, the people without land will riot, plunder and steal because they need to eat, or they will become serfs (as the good all days), and since the biggest chunk from one's wage will go to buying food, one will no longer be incentivised to buy other products like microwaves, cars, etc. And none of what you're syaing will work if legal bribery is a thing.

ReplyVote up (128)down (99)
Original comment

yes , i see exactly how it works, except the farmers would be put out of business by huge agribusiness, but that's another issue. If everybody grows what they want, you'd have to set in place an import export tax, otherwise you'd get what Mexico got when it joined NAFTA: cheap subsidised GM corn from the USA that put them out of business and they rioted on the streets. Furthermore, assuming the farmers will get richer because they'll grow only high valued crops, the price of cereal and all foods (considering that corn is being used in all procesed foods) will go up, which means that a larger ammount of people's income will have to be spent on food, which means a lot more people will grow their own food, which will bring the price of land up; also, the people without land will riot, plunder and steal because they need to eat, or they will become serfs (as the good all days), and since the biggest chunk from one's wage will go to buying food, one will no longer be incentivised to buy other products like microwaves, cars, etc. And none of what you're syaing will work if legal bribery is a thing.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Satan's Whatever (1382 days ago)

how would libertarians deal with monopolies in any economic sector? how would libertarians deal with legal bribery, would this be an accepted practice?

ReplyVote up (83)down (187)
Original comment

how would libertarians deal with monopolies in any economic sector? how would libertarians deal with legal bribery, would this be an accepted practice?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1382 days ago)

Libertarian societies still have courts. When a company gets so big, like AT&T, Judge Green decided it was too large and broke it up. That can still happen in a libertarian society. Like I said previously, it's not zero government, it's less government.

ReplyVote up (96)down (101)
Original comment

Libertarian societies still have courts. When a company gets so big, like AT&T, Judge Green decided it was too large and broke it up. That can still happen in a libertarian society. Like I said previously, it's not zero government, it's less government.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Satan's Whatever (1382 days ago)

would that still happen if legal bribery was an accepted practice?

ReplyVote up (86)down (165)
Original comment

would that still happen if legal bribery was an accepted practice?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Casey (1382 days ago)

According to Milton Friedman DeBeers, diamonds, is the only example of a monopoly that wasn't the result of govt. intervention in the market place. So many rules, regulations and compliances are impossible for small businesses to adher to so sell up to bigger companies. I'm in a similar situation now with national health and pension plans I'm mandated to comply with making my small business even harder to make a profit.

Libertarians are not anarchists, they believe in the laws of the land and that is one of the limited roles govt. plays, to uphold the rule of law. When the govt. is too big and powerful it does what it likes, for it own benefit rather than the peoples. The lady has some valid points, who would spend the country into debt? Who would start global wars? Who would enable monopolies, deny basic rights, free choice etc. Etc.

You say 'legal bribery' could you give an example?

ReplyVote up (162)down (109)
Original comment

According to Milton Friedman DeBeers, diamonds, is the only example of a monopoly that wasn't the result of govt. intervention in the market place. So many rules, regulations and compliances are impossible for small businesses to adher to so sell up to bigger companies. I'm in a similar situation now with national health and pension plans I'm mandated to comply with making my small business even harder to make a profit.

Libertarians are not anarchists, they believe in the laws of the land and that is one of the limited roles govt. plays, to uphold the rule of law. When the govt. is too big and powerful it does what it likes, for it own benefit rather than the peoples. The lady has some valid points, who would spend the country into debt? Who would start global wars? Who would enable monopolies, deny basic rights, free choice etc. Etc.

You say 'legal bribery' could you give an example?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1382 days ago)

Thanks for trying to help but I think Satan Whatever is a lost cause. I wouldn't waste any time with him. He's afraid to sign up with an account and constantly changes his username. Doesn't want to be accountable for the comments he makes but only wants to resort to name calling and other childish actions. It's like we are talking to a 14 year old kid.

Whenever you ask him to provide proof of something, he gives you several links to irrelevant pages that are long and meaningless hoping you will waste even more of your time. Your question about legal bribery... he provides a link without giving you any examples.

Just a friendly piece of advice that you can ignore if you wish.

ReplyVote up (93)down (106)
Original comment

Thanks for trying to help but I think Satan Whatever is a lost cause. I wouldn't waste any time with him. He's afraid to sign up with an account and constantly changes his username. Doesn't want to be accountable for the comments he makes but only wants to resort to name calling and other childish actions. It's like we are talking to a 14 year old kid.

Whenever you ask him to provide proof of something, he gives you several links to irrelevant pages that are long and meaningless hoping you will waste even more of your time. Your question about legal bribery... he provides a link without giving you any examples.

Just a friendly piece of advice that you can ignore if you wish.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Satan's Whatever (1382 days ago)

you still didn't answer the question. Looks to me like i asked a tough one and you're more focused on calomny and making allies than you are on answering it. And yes, i am a lost cause, i will never join the dark side. As for the link, look at the conclusions on it on the web: says there that NY found that all the politicians are corrupt but it's all legal (something along those lines). how about letting Casey answer the question for you, since you're too chicken to do it yourself. (as if a registered username would make me less annonymous...sheesh.. some people).

ReplyVote up (173)down (93)
Original comment

you still didn't answer the question. Looks to me like i asked a tough one and you're more focused on calomny and making allies than you are on answering it. And yes, i am a lost cause, i will never join the dark side. As for the link, look at the conclusions on it on the web: says there that NY found that all the politicians are corrupt but it's all legal (something along those lines). how about letting Casey answer the question for you, since you're too chicken to do it yourself. (as if a registered username would make me less annonymous...sheesh.. some people).

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1382 days ago)

I wouldn't use the word corruption if it's legal. In my opinion, and the opinion of the dictionary, it should be dishonest (they are lying about it) or fraudulent (illegal)conduct to be considered corruption. Your "legal corruption" seems to be an oxymoron.

ReplyVote up (159)down (105)
Original comment

I wouldn't use the word corruption if it's legal. In my opinion, and the opinion of the dictionary, it should be dishonest (they are lying about it) or fraudulent (illegal)conduct to be considered corruption. Your "legal corruption" seems to be an oxymoron.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Satan's Whatever (1382 days ago)

Well, if you recall my initial questions were ""how would libertarians deal with monopolies in any economic sector? how would libertarians deal with legal bribery, would this be an accepted practice? "". You adressed the first but not the latter. Can you adress the latter or can you let someone else do it for you and stop trolling??

ReplyVote up (79)down (101)
Original comment

Well, if you recall my initial questions were ""how would libertarians deal with monopolies in any economic sector? how would libertarians deal with legal bribery, would this be an accepted practice? "". You adressed the first but not the latter. Can you adress the latter or can you let someone else do it for you and stop trolling??

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1381 days ago)

If it's legal, then there is nothing to stop. If our legislative branch decides it should be illegal, then the law should be enforced through the judicial branch.

I'm not sure why you're not understanding this. Libertarians do not want a lawless society. There will always be criminals so we still want laws and a police force and judicial system.

ReplyVote up (102)down (94)
Original comment

If it's legal, then there is nothing to stop. If our legislative branch decides it should be illegal, then the law should be enforced through the judicial branch.

I'm not sure why you're not understanding this. Libertarians do not want a lawless society. There will always be criminals so we still want laws and a police force and judicial system.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Satan's Whatever (1381 days ago)

does the hypothetical libertarian legislative branch want to keep bribery legal or not? what would you vote for: to keep it legal or to make it illegal? as a libertarian,do you think legal bribery is a good thing, is it something you would support? what's the libertarina standpoint on legal bribery? stop dodging the question.

I'm not sure why you're not understanding this Oh wait... i think i know why.

Now can you please answer the question?? it's pretty much the same question, but formulated in different ways to remove ambiguity.

ReplyVote up (115)down (94)
Original comment

does the hypothetical libertarian legislative branch want to keep bribery legal or not? what would you vote for: to keep it legal or to make it illegal? as a libertarian,do you think legal bribery is a good thing, is it something you would support? what's the libertarina standpoint on legal bribery? stop dodging the question.

I'm not sure why you're not understanding this Oh wait... i think i know why.

Now can you please answer the question?? it's pretty much the same question, but formulated in different ways to remove ambiguity.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1381 days ago)

I'm not sure what the libertarian view is on bribery. I can only state my own views and opinions but I'm not going to be playing your game because no matter which option I choose, you will have something inappropriate to say.

I don't have a vote in the legislative branch so my opinion does not matter in the big scheme. All I can do is vote for a representative, senator, and president that share my views and hope they vote the same way that I would. Remember, we are not a democracy here -- we are a representative republic.

ReplyVote up (94)down (167)
Original comment

I'm not sure what the libertarian view is on bribery. I can only state my own views and opinions but I'm not going to be playing your game because no matter which option I choose, you will have something inappropriate to say.

I don't have a vote in the legislative branch so my opinion does not matter in the big scheme. All I can do is vote for a representative, senator, and president that share my views and hope they vote the same way that I would. Remember, we are not a democracy here -- we are a representative republic.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Satan's Whatever (1381 days ago)

lame answer, but what you're actually saying is that you have no problem with legal bribery and legal bribery should be let to the winds of the free market, the highest payer gets to buy the politicians who are suppose to respect the will of the people, which brings us back to square one, nothing changed, so the libertarina point of view, from this perspective, coicides with the Corporate point of view. correct me if i'm wrong on deducing your opinion. IF your opinion is that all forms of bribery should be illegal and money should be removed from the electoral/ political system in any nation (just like 90% of US citisens think it should be) then i appologise. So which is it?? am i right about you when i say that you would have no problem with legal bribery?

ReplyVote up (164)down (100)
Original comment

lame answer, but what you're actually saying is that you have no problem with legal bribery and legal bribery should be let to the winds of the free market, the highest payer gets to buy the politicians who are suppose to respect the will of the people, which brings us back to square one, nothing changed, so the libertarina point of view, from this perspective, coicides with the Corporate point of view. correct me if i'm wrong on deducing your opinion. IF your opinion is that all forms of bribery should be illegal and money should be removed from the electoral/ political system in any nation (just like 90% of US citisens think it should be) then i appologise. So which is it?? am i right about you when i say that you would have no problem with legal bribery?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1381 days ago)

You are making an assumption in an attempt for me to either correct your statement or confirm. I will not do either.

ReplyVote up (101)down (92)
Original comment

You are making an assumption in an attempt for me to either correct your statement or confirm. I will not do either.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Satan's Whatever (1381 days ago)

90% of peeople agree on getting money out of politics including me. You would have no problem admitting that, you would only have a problem admitting that you support legal bribery. I'll let whoe ever is reading this make up their own minds about your stance on this issue.

ReplyVote up (149)down (96)
Original comment

90% of peeople agree on getting money out of politics including me. You would have no problem admitting that, you would only have a problem admitting that you support legal bribery. I'll let whoe ever is reading this make up their own minds about your stance on this issue.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1381 days ago)

spend your time on sorting out legal bribery in your system its a far easier task then to get a straight answer out of cary.plus i feel cary has already answered you question he's with the 1% gang because thats his god

ReplyVote up (94)down (101)
Original comment

spend your time on sorting out legal bribery in your system its a far easier task then to get a straight answer out of cary.plus i feel cary has already answered you question he's with the 1% gang because thats his god

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1381 days ago)

I give very straight answers. He's just trying to get me on a tangent and I'm not playing his game.

ReplyVote up (100)down (177)
Original comment

I give very straight answers. He's just trying to get me on a tangent and I'm not playing his game.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Satan's Whatever (1381 days ago)

fancy words there, but i disagree with what you just said. Keep in mind i could have gone off on you, as i usually do, but i didn't. Don't answer, we allready know, you are in favor of legal bribery, after all , you do work for bank of america.

ReplyVote up (154)down (97)
Original comment

fancy words there, but i disagree with what you just said. Keep in mind i could have gone off on you, as i usually do, but i didn't. Don't answer, we allready know, you are in favor of legal bribery, after all , you do work for bank of america.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1381 days ago)

Out of curiosity, which of my words did you think was fancy? Was it the word "tangent" that confused you? I try not to use any words that are uncommon so that I can avoid confusion. Tangent is a simple word that I learned in elementary school while studying geometry. I assumed anyone that has at least an elementary school education would have known that word especially since that class was required by all students.

ReplyVote up (111)down (165)
Original comment

Out of curiosity, which of my words did you think was fancy? Was it the word "tangent" that confused you? I try not to use any words that are uncommon so that I can avoid confusion. Tangent is a simple word that I learned in elementary school while studying geometry. I assumed anyone that has at least an elementary school education would have known that word especially since that class was required by all students.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Satan's Whatever (1381 days ago)

smart ass, huh? so you won't answer the question but you're trying to get me pissed with your obvious insulting personality so that i can go off on you and you'd pretend to be the victiim. Typical manipulative insults, in a typical cenglandish troll fashion. You lost this argument a long time ago.

ReplyVote up (93)down (149)
Original comment

smart ass, huh? so you won't answer the question but you're trying to get me pissed with your obvious insulting personality so that i can go off on you and you'd pretend to be the victiim. Typical manipulative insults, in a typical cenglandish troll fashion. You lost this argument a long time ago.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1381 days ago)

Now that's where we disagree. You think we were arguing but I was initially commenting to WalterEgo -- no argument there. You were the one to inject yourself into our conversation with your constant attempt to corner me into your legal bribery discussion that has nothing to do with the conversation WalterEgo and I were having -- no argument there either.

ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment

Now that's where we disagree. You think we were arguing but I was initially commenting to WalterEgo -- no argument there. You were the one to inject yourself into our conversation with your constant attempt to corner me into your legal bribery discussion that has nothing to do with the conversation WalterEgo and I were having -- no argument there either.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Satan's Whatever (1381 days ago)

whatever. you still didn't answer the question.

ReplyVote up (101)down (91)
Original comment

whatever. you still didn't answer the question.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1381 days ago)

That's right. You're setting me up for an argument and no matter what my answer is, you're prepared for a fight.

ReplyVote up (101)down (89)
Original comment

That's right. You're setting me up for an argument and no matter what my answer is, you're prepared for a fight.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Satan's Whatever (1380 days ago)

yeah right, whatever. Besides, i understand, even if you are for getting money out of politics and eliminating legal bribery, you still won't be able to admit it because you're "cengland0" username is as public as it gets, and since you're working for bank of america (an institution that legally bribes politicians on a regular basis), they might fire you for not supporting their practices. I understand, you're afraid to lose your job, so just don't answer, it's ok.

ReplyVote up (143)down (82)
Original comment

yeah right, whatever. Besides, i understand, even if you are for getting money out of politics and eliminating legal bribery, you still won't be able to admit it because you're "cengland0" username is as public as it gets, and since you're working for bank of america (an institution that legally bribes politicians on a regular basis), they might fire you for not supporting their practices. I understand, you're afraid to lose your job, so just don't answer, it's ok.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1380 days ago)

Couple comments. First, I'm not allowed to speak for the bank I work for. I can only speak for myself. All official bank comments must come from our public relations department and I do not work for that part of the company.

Second, I am not afraid to lose my job. I am comfortable with what I have so I can retire any time I want. It just so happens that I like working so I continue to do so.

ReplyVote up (149)down (73)
Original comment

Couple comments. First, I'm not allowed to speak for the bank I work for. I can only speak for myself. All official bank comments must come from our public relations department and I do not work for that part of the company.

Second, I am not afraid to lose my job. I am comfortable with what I have so I can retire any time I want. It just so happens that I like working so I continue to do so.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Satan's Whatever (1380 days ago)

and you still didn't answer the question. it's ok, i understand, you have to make "safe" comments. it's ok. It's very easy though: "i am against legal bribery and i would like for these practices to stop!" OR " i have no problem with legal bribery and i would like this practice to continue". But anyway, let me ask you something else. From your experience, what is the the point of view of the majority of Libertarians on legal bribery? from your experience, does the majority of libertarians support legal bribery or condemn it??

ReplyVote up (76)down (129)
Original comment

and you still didn't answer the question. it's ok, i understand, you have to make "safe" comments. it's ok. It's very easy though: "i am against legal bribery and i would like for these practices to stop!" OR " i have no problem with legal bribery and i would like this practice to continue". But anyway, let me ask you something else. From your experience, what is the the point of view of the majority of Libertarians on legal bribery? from your experience, does the majority of libertarians support legal bribery or condemn it??

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1380 days ago)

If you look above, about a day ago I said, "I'm not sure what the libertarian view is on bribery" and that was in direct response to one of your comments. Perhaps there is a website that has that information. Have you tried to google it?

Like I've said before, either you cannot read or you have a problem with reading comprehension. I told you I have no idea what others think about your question and I told you that I'm not giving you my personal view on the subject because it's a tangent to the conversation at hand. Why is that so hard for you to understand? I cannot spell it out any easier for you.

ReplyVote up (134)down (72)
Original comment

If you look above, about a day ago I said, "I'm not sure what the libertarian view is on bribery" and that was in direct response to one of your comments. Perhaps there is a website that has that information. Have you tried to google it?

Like I've said before, either you cannot read or you have a problem with reading comprehension. I told you I have no idea what others think about your question and I told you that I'm not giving you my personal view on the subject because it's a tangent to the conversation at hand. Why is that so hard for you to understand? I cannot spell it out any easier for you.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Satan's Whatever (1380 days ago)

chicken!

ReplyVote up (116)down (63)
Original comment

chicken!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Satan's Whatever (1382 days ago)

your requested example LINK , and there are more out there .To answer your "WHO" questions: Local WarLords, that's who (the mafia basically). There's also a monopoly on who gets to make the rules and print the money, and this monopoly is called "a State/Country". There will always be people with needs, and people will always organise in some sort of community to better satisfy those needs, and the community will always grow, and a bigger better government will be needed, and there will always be other communities that will do the same, and there will be teritorial disputes, and there will be wars, and suffering because people are different and the "law of the land" will always be different, and the basic cell of society will no longer be the individual or the familly but it will be the vilage, and then the town, and then the city states, and they will also need to organise in some sort of community to better adress their needs, and they will become states. Do you see the logic? we've been throug "libertarianism" ; before and after the collapse of the roman empire. And mister Friedman's thoughts are not worth much considering the state of the world after more than 30 years of right wing policies in the western world, as you can see from this clip LINK . Globalisation enabled corporations to agree with each other on a cartel globally, to fix prices and control betwen themselves over 50% of any market, nevermind domestic monopolies. His ideas are obsolete and they brought us where we are today, which is a shitty situation globally. SO, how would libertarians deal with monopolies AND how would libertarians deal with legalised bribery? what would libertarians do about import/export taxes? what would they do about safety regulation and how would they enforce these regulations considering legalised bribery?

ReplyVote up (78)down (150)
Original comment

your requested example LINK , and there are more out there .To answer your "WHO" questions: Local WarLords, that's who (the mafia basically). There's also a monopoly on who gets to make the rules and print the money, and this monopoly is called "a State/Country". There will always be people with needs, and people will always organise in some sort of community to better satisfy those needs, and the community will always grow, and a bigger better government will be needed, and there will always be other communities that will do the same, and there will be teritorial disputes, and there will be wars, and suffering because people are different and the "law of the land" will always be different, and the basic cell of society will no longer be the individual or the familly but it will be the vilage, and then the town, and then the city states, and they will also need to organise in some sort of community to better adress their needs, and they will become states. Do you see the logic? we've been throug "libertarianism" ; before and after the collapse of the roman empire. And mister Friedman's thoughts are not worth much considering the state of the world after more than 30 years of right wing policies in the western world, as you can see from this clip LINK . Globalisation enabled corporations to agree with each other on a cartel globally, to fix prices and control betwen themselves over 50% of any market, nevermind domestic monopolies. His ideas are obsolete and they brought us where we are today, which is a shitty situation globally. SO, how would libertarians deal with monopolies AND how would libertarians deal with legalised bribery? what would libertarians do about import/export taxes? what would they do about safety regulation and how would they enforce these regulations considering legalised bribery?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PeterSmith (1382 days ago)

Good example of a cute looking girl getting views because of the way she looks although she's just talking bollocks. She genuinely says nothing worth listening to, (I watched the whole thing twice to be sure).

Whoever it is at Boreme.com who decide these were "difficult question" needs firing.

ReplyVote up (145)down (173)
Original comment

Good example of a cute looking girl getting views because of the way she looks although she's just talking bollocks. She genuinely says nothing worth listening to, (I watched the whole thing twice to be sure).

Whoever it is at Boreme.com who decide these were "difficult question" needs firing.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Satan's Whatever (1382 days ago)

Boreme is just putting forth an idea so we can comment on it, it doesn't necessarily agree with the ideas. As for the "WHO" questions she was asking, i think the answer to all of her ignorant arrogant questions would be THE LOCL WARLORDS!! stupid blonde cu*t! and at a certain point, there will be a really ruthless warlord that will conquer other warlord ruled communities. We've been through this allready before the roman empire and in the middle ages.

ReplyVote up (61)down (149)
Original comment

Boreme is just putting forth an idea so we can comment on it, it doesn't necessarily agree with the ideas. As for the "WHO" questions she was asking, i think the answer to all of her ignorant arrogant questions would be THE LOCL WARLORDS!! stupid blonde cu*t! and at a certain point, there will be a really ruthless warlord that will conquer other warlord ruled communities. We've been through this allready before the roman empire and in the middle ages.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Roddy (1382 days ago)

Why do you need to be so continuously and persistently unpleasant? You occasionally have some good points, but why do you feel the need to be so offensive ? Why can't you criticise what she is saying - there are after all plenty of opportunities in this target rich environment - yet you end up calling her a c*nt. Please, stop loading this site with your hideous commentary. There are lots of uploads on this site that young people would enjoy, but I wouldn't recommend it to them just in case they think your kind of narrative is the norm, rather than the exception, Please. Stop.

ReplyVote up (141)down (133)
Original comment

Why do you need to be so continuously and persistently unpleasant? You occasionally have some good points, but why do you feel the need to be so offensive ? Why can't you criticise what she is saying - there are after all plenty of opportunities in this target rich environment - yet you end up calling her a c*nt. Please, stop loading this site with your hideous commentary. There are lots of uploads on this site that young people would enjoy, but I wouldn't recommend it to them just in case they think your kind of narrative is the norm, rather than the exception, Please. Stop.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thrakazog (1380 days ago)

Satan's Whatever: I'm pretty impressed. You use so many words to prove you know so little. Your arguements are based on complete falacies and you construct one way relationships between economic events that only ever work to prove your opinion right (or left as it is).

BTW - you're just a prick. No one cares about you.

ReplyVote up (146)down (65)
Original comment

Satan's Whatever: I'm pretty impressed. You use so many words to prove you know so little. Your arguements are based on complete falacies and you construct one way relationships between economic events that only ever work to prove your opinion right (or left as it is).

BTW - you're just a prick. No one cares about you.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Satan's Whatever (1380 days ago)
Latest comment:

thanks for your opinion, now shove it up your pee hole.

ReplyVote up (74)down (101)
Original comment
Latest comment:

thanks for your opinion, now shove it up your pee hole.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Satan's Whatever (1382 days ago)

Communication, RODDY, is not only about the words that come out of one's mouth. Communication, RODDY, is also made of bodylanguage/facial expression, tone of voice AND the words that come out of one's mouth. 70% fo all communiation is body language, RODDY, and you can find out more about communication by reading the following articles in this specific order, RODDY: LINK , LINK , LINK , LINK . I am being unpleasant because i want to, i like it, it's how i am and because it provides negative motivation to trolls that make shit up instead of having an honest "debate"! I do criticise what she is saying, RODDY, but i end up calling her a CU*T because she behaves like one, and you can tell that the message she is sending, through her body language, her facial expression, her tone of voice, etc is one in which she thinks she's intelectually and morally superior and her points are really brilliant, whoever doesn't agree with her is a fekin ignorant piece of sheit "statist" who's oppinion is worthless (typical right wing CU*T behavior, and if it was a man speaking i would have called him a CU*T as well, stop being sexist RODDY), which leads me to believe that she's a stupid blond CU*T and makes me want to point that out, because i am tired of getting bullied by retarded, idiotic, mocking, right wing argumens like the one in the video, whilst all the left wing CU*TS think they're morally and intelectually superior to respond in the same manner, whic leads all the stupid people to lose respect for the left wing point of view because the left wing point of view is made by "cowards that censor themselves" and the right wing point is made by "brave right wingers that stand up for what's right" (that's how stupid people think RODDY, and they have the right to vote and they represent the majority of any nation's population). So untill all of the left wing chicken sheit CU*TS find their balls, i'll be taking that unpleasant right wing arrogant behavior, multiplying it by 10 and i will be using it agains idiotic right wingers, RODDY, because nobody else is doing it, RODDY, because they're too busy thinking they're better than that, and let themselves get trampled by the hordes of idiots in the process, idiots that bought into the "right wing brave and unapologetic" rhetoric, RODDY. If you wan't to reccomend a boreme upload to "young people" RODDY, just open the youtube(whatever else) link and give them the that instead of the boreme link RODDY, don't blame your inability to provide the original source on my unpleasantness. AND young people "RODDY" know a lot more swear words than you do, and they probabbly know more about underaged sex in public schools and knife culture, so don't act like they're little inocent eyes are not prepared for the word "cu*t" on the internet, RODDY. They're probabbly watching BDSM porn on the internet as we speak. And also, i'm not going to censor myself for you or anyone else. I hope that makes things clear for you and i hope you noticed how i restrained myself from insulting you in a direct way; i did that because i think you're honestly looking for an actual debate and you're not a troll.

ReplyVote up (101)down (91)
Original comment

Communication, RODDY, is not only about the words that come out of one's mouth. Communication, RODDY, is also made of bodylanguage/facial expression, tone of voice AND the words that come out of one's mouth. 70% fo all communiation is body language, RODDY, and you can find out more about communication by reading the following articles in this specific order, RODDY: LINK , LINK , LINK , LINK . I am being unpleasant because i want to, i like it, it's how i am and because it provides negative motivation to trolls that make shit up instead of having an honest "debate"! I do criticise what she is saying, RODDY, but i end up calling her a CU*T because she behaves like one, and you can tell that the message she is sending, through her body language, her facial expression, her tone of voice, etc is one in which she thinks she's intelectually and morally superior and her points are really brilliant, whoever doesn't agree with her is a fekin ignorant piece of sheit "statist" who's oppinion is worthless (typical right wing CU*T behavior, and if it was a man speaking i would have called him a CU*T as well, stop being sexist RODDY), which leads me to believe that she's a stupid blond CU*T and makes me want to point that out, because i am tired of getting bullied by retarded, idiotic, mocking, right wing argumens like the one in the video, whilst all the left wing CU*TS think they're morally and intelectually superior to respond in the same manner, whic leads all the stupid people to lose respect for the left wing point of view because the left wing point of view is made by "cowards that censor themselves" and the right wing point is made by "brave right wingers that stand up for what's right" (that's how stupid people think RODDY, and they have the right to vote and they represent the majority of any nation's population). So untill all of the left wing chicken sheit CU*TS find their balls, i'll be taking that unpleasant right wing arrogant behavior, multiplying it by 10 and i will be using it agains idiotic right wingers, RODDY, because nobody else is doing it, RODDY, because they're too busy thinking they're better than that, and let themselves get trampled by the hordes of idiots in the process, idiots that bought into the "right wing brave and unapologetic" rhetoric, RODDY. If you wan't to reccomend a boreme upload to "young people" RODDY, just open the youtube(whatever else) link and give them the that instead of the boreme link RODDY, don't blame your inability to provide the original source on my unpleasantness. AND young people "RODDY" know a lot more swear words than you do, and they probabbly know more about underaged sex in public schools and knife culture, so don't act like they're little inocent eyes are not prepared for the word "cu*t" on the internet, RODDY. They're probabbly watching BDSM porn on the internet as we speak. And also, i'm not going to censor myself for you or anyone else. I hope that makes things clear for you and i hope you noticed how i restrained myself from insulting you in a direct way; i did that because i think you're honestly looking for an actual debate and you're not a troll.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: BTW (1380 days ago)

Hey. Brave The World here.

It's pretty apparent that the attitude you put forth - by which I mean you are arrogant and presumptuous - is irredeemable proof that evolution can go in reverse.

1. I do not think I am better than anyone.

2. Most of my closest friends are what I'd consider "statists" and I do not think myself morally superior to them

3. My only goal is to get a conversation going about freedom. Although you are but a pathetic drop on this beautiful earth, you taint it with poor insults and your emotional babble.

ReplyVote up (55)down (140)
Original comment

Hey. Brave The World here.

It's pretty apparent that the attitude you put forth - by which I mean you are arrogant and presumptuous - is irredeemable proof that evolution can go in reverse.

1. I do not think I am better than anyone.

2. Most of my closest friends are what I'd consider "statists" and I do not think myself morally superior to them

3. My only goal is to get a conversation going about freedom. Although you are but a pathetic drop on this beautiful earth, you taint it with poor insults and your emotional babble.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Satan's Whatever (1380 days ago)

thanks for your opinion. now shove it up yer arse

ReplyVote up (147)down (56)
Original comment

thanks for your opinion. now shove it up yer arse

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
The Real News - Climate change is creating an infrastructure crisis
The Real News - Climate change is creating an infrastructure crisis
Yanis Varoufakis - Basic Income is a necessity
Yanis Varoufakis - Basic Income is a necessity
Richard Wolff - When the capitalist economy fails, blame foreigners
Richard Wolff - When the capitalist economy fails, blame foreigners
Richard Wolff - Contradictions in capitalism
Richard Wolff - Contradictions in capitalism
Michael Hudson on the Orwellian turn in today's economics
Michael Hudson on the Orwellian turn in today's economics