President Obama

[xDiamond_CutteRx]

I'm not arguing for anarcho-capitalism in 600 B.C.

No, you're arguing for something much worse. You're arguing for anarchy in a world with machine guns and biological weaponry when as a species, we are no more (or not much more) moral than we were in 600 BC.

I'm sure the slaves gathered together after a hard day of pickin' and said "Yeah, it would be nice to cast a vote, own some property, and be free. But that simply isn't the world we live in and cannot live in, so the sooner we acknowledge & accept that, the happier we will be."

False analogy. We DO have those rights in society, precisely BECAUSE we have a government, and because we were smart enough to do away with slavery long ago. In that way, at least, we seem to have advanced a little bit.

[kompis]

RoniDeutch

Stinks like a gimmick account for Bluefox.
I would bet that its bluefox, the rhetoric is 99.9% the same sh1t hes been saying on irc for last 2 weeks

[Muck]

...
I already knew you were playing the game.

And when playing with you it’s just like Global Thermonuclear War

[tame_deuces]

How are you entitled to anyone else's cake, especially those who work for their cake? Just because you said so?

That's not a valid reason.

Firstly "Private property" only exists as a cultural construct. It is a useful construct that makes a lot of things easier, but atoms don't come owner stamped.

Secondly almost all distribution of private property that exists today is also the result of power structures you claim are invalid - which means claims to private property is probably just as invalid.

And thirdly the concept of the modern state came about as a large part of a desire to secure private property (because very little in the form of such protection existed prior to the concept of the social contract). Libertarians frequently skip that part of the history books and jump right ahead to a yellow-eared copy of Ayn Rand.

Now one might say that one could move on to a libertarian society. But it doesn't really matter. The distribution of property would be based on the very principles the libertarians claim are coercive.

Therefore egality (everybody has a claim) makes alot more sense than any other alternative .

[Muck]

For those of you joining this thread late the summary so far...

2 + 2 = 4

My cat’s breath smells of cat food

[Felting]

I guess tax cuts and health care for working families and energy independence are immoral. </sarcasm>

When you steal from others to do such things, yeah.. I would classify that as immoral.

Let us be judged by how we care for the least among us.

it can be fixed by electing intelligent people

Have you been watching the tv in the last two years? Barrack Obama (imho) comes across as the most intellectual, logical, rational and sound human being ive ever seen in a political position. If you disagree i doubt you can provide an alternative example.

President of the Harvard Law Review, Unless we dig up Carl Sagan and reanimate his rotting corpse I doubt we'll find anyone more intelligent.

Corporations are NOT bad.

Yes they are, a corporations sole reason for existence is to increase profit. Without controls it will do this by a rush to the bottom in wage and benefits.

[Kemics]

tame_deuces - very nicely put sir.

[Ciso_B]

Yeah this is defiintely bluefox, hes been talking like this all week. Took ages to read this whole thread, but although "roni" has some nice ideas, I personally dont see how it could EVER function in the real world.
The biggest strongest people would just steal from the weak and vunerable, there'd be no authority to govern anyone, it would just be chaos imo.
I haven't read any thing on this subject, but just trying to envision a world like Roni is trying to tell is close to impossible. It goes against human nature, and although government and society can be f*cked up , in my small brain I don't see much better alternatives.But I'm certain Roni's ideas wouldn't shape up as well as the current system. The consensus in this thread would probably agree too.The funniest thing about all this is, you're obviously smart, you're smart enough to put forward all these innovative ideas, but not smart enough to see how it wouldnt stand a chance lol.
Lay off the super skunk roni.

[UrAteUp]

I refuse to get into this post. I am anti government but I agree with those who say we have to give Obama a chance. I do wish him well and hope he can straighten up this mess no matter who created it.

Ciso hit it on the head...but I think she is smoking more then rightous gonja...lay off the shrooms too Roni (or bluefox or whomever the heck you are)....

[JohnnyCache]

Yeah this is defiintely bluefox, hes been talking like this all week. Took ages to read this whole thread, but although "roni" has some nice ideas, I personally dont see how it could EVER function in the real world.
The biggest strongest people would just steal from the weak and vunerable, there'd be no authority to govern anyone, it would just be chaos imo.
I haven't read any thing on this subject, but just trying to envision a world like Roni is trying to tell is close to impossible. It goes against human nature, and although government and society can be f*ck up , in my small brain I don't see much better alternatives.But I'm certain Roni's ideas wouldn't shape up as well as the current system. The consensus in this thread would probably agree too.The funniest thing about all this is, you're obviously smart, you're smart enough to put forward all these innovative ideas, but not smart enough to see how it wouldnt stand a chance lol.
Lay off the super skunk roni.

Personally, as gigantic, sociopathic, and heavily armed survivalist, I'm PRO anarchy.

I can't want to feed off the legions of suburban sheeple

but seriously, people don't understand what government is.

Government is a result of complexity. It's a form of artisanship, really. The second a primitive society realizes that specialization is timeworthy, the seeds of government are planted. Once the best hunter starts dropping off carcasses with the best fletcher in exchange for arrows so that one of them has more time to fletch and the other has more time to hunt, you're looking at the origins of government - government being just one more form of specialization.

Likewise, leftist and rightest rhetoric shouldn't be incompatible. Rightests favor the smallest possible, cheapest possible, most efficient possible government

leftists support using the government to accomplish projects and provide for needs that are harmed by a profit motive or better served through group effort.

In no way do these ideals contradict each other. The left should go on about its business in an efficient manner, and the right should concede that there are certainly situations where the use of government is needed.