| Author |
|
Mockery
TeamWarfare Vet
|
| 07-26-2012 02:37 AM / profile
|
|
Well worded, NBF.......
Slavery, without volunteerism, is essentially invoking war against another individual. Therefore it is grounds for retaliation against your oppressor.
People have every right to sell themselves, consensually, into slavery........but can not be enslaved by others without their own outright cooperation.
|
|
the wierdo
i before e, except after...wtf?
TeamWarfare Vet
|
| 07-30-2012 09:58 PM / profile
|
|
I don't mind the delay NBF. Hopefully you don't mind mine.
Given that this hypothetical clan is not a part of my own community, they are free to do as they see fit. And, technically, everyone in my own community is just as free. The slaves in this scenario are justified in uprising and killing their captors as well. I would not intervene. I would also not willingly engage in commerce with the slavers. I would encourage others to not deal with them either. This would be a market response to their actions, and, were it more profitable for them, they'd end their slave owning ways.
This has been true throughout history, at least for those who believe in universal morality. You may or may not have noticed that I've been looking for an enforcement mechanism in your proposed system, whether it be to prevent taxes, involuntary slavery, etc. There does not seem to be one. You are so laissez-faire that you won't even fight injustice.
If there is no legal trigger preventing slavery, there is none preventing murder, since those are pretty close to equivalent. You are proposing emotional triggers: if people see something immoral, they will either step in with their own free-market muscle and free the slaves, or the slaves will find a way to free themselves, or everyone will boycott the slavers, and it will prove unprofitable.
People have always been free to do just that. You say that governments distort this picture but don't seem to have a plan to circumvent people's natural tendency to organize themselves into tribal governments of ever-increasing size. There will be governments surrounding your commune and growing inside of it. Your philosophy will be marginalized, and in fifty years the whole area will be ruled by a dictator.
You're just describing human history and saying "Yeah, but imagine how nice it would be if everyone agreed to subscribe to my moral system."
|
|
Mockery
TeamWarfare Vet
|
| 07-30-2012 10:32 PM / profile
|
|
Government is well intended to be there to attempt to curb rampant individual corruption and greed.
Unfortunately, by them being there, with their powers of force, nothing inside of government ever attempts to curb their own rampant desires for control and influencing powers over others.
While trying to cure one problem, it appears you have created another (perhaps a far more dangerous one).
For example.......A corporation can certainly be evil in their intentions, but only so evil as long as market competition remains. For this reason even the most malevolent corporation will always lack the ability to force you to buy their products.
Now on the other hand.......The government is force, it often permits no competition.......and because of that it makes the ills of say Wal-Mart seem to be all but inconsequential.
Wal-Mart has never killed anyone for their non-compliance. Wal-Mart has never waged a war........ forcefully collected taxes.......or imprisoned anyone beyond their will.
If more government is what is needed to stop Wal-Mart.......I'll go with Wal-Mart doesn't sound that bad.
I'll just go take my business to Target and K-Mart instead.
Post edited by Mockery at 7/30/2012 10:34:25 PM
|
|
Mockery
TeamWarfare Vet
|
| 07-30-2012 10:40 PM / profile
|
|
Just to play devils advocate though.......since I love this discussion you two are having 
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Be it congregation of government, or a collection of individuals.
Would the genocide by Germany, in the internment camps like Auschwitz, have been avoided without government intervention?
Doubtful........and whether it is the League of Nations or the United Nations........it still fails to intervene and come to a consensus in a timely manner.
Is this a blessing of government.......a failure for world government......or a demonstration of inaction of individuals?
Be curious to see the philosophy on that idea if either of you are interested and have the time.
|
|
the wierdo
i before e, except after...wtf?
TeamWarfare Vet
|
| 07-30-2012 11:00 PM / profile
|
|
Originally posted by: Mockery
For example.......A corporation can certainly be evil in their intentions, but only so evil as long as market competition remains. For this reason even the most malevolent corporation will always lack the ability to force you to buy their products.
Wal-Mart has never killed anyone for their non-compliance. Wal-Mart has never waged a war........ forcefully collected taxes.......or imprisoned anyone beyond their will.
I think you should possibly maybe perhaps step back and realize that's because it's against American law.
And maybe remind yourself that a corporation only exists because of a stability and legal framework created by the laws of the countries in which it resides.
And in other places, you have banana republics, because they are operating in a different legal framework. And then you'd say "Wait a minute those aren't just corporations; it's the state." But that's the point.
United Fruit Company owned more than 40% of Guatemala in the 1940s. They were plenty violent, and politically active in bringing in dictators who would be good for their profit margins. There was the corporation at the top, with the government beneath it. Not officially, but in practice. Or Honduras, which was worse, and involved private security services, the national military, and US troops all working together to maintain the power structure.
Why are you defining corporations as benign expressions of consumer choice and basing it off the country and year you happened to be born in? You can find a thousand counter-examples when you leave the modern United States, or even go back to the labor-busting actions that you learned about in American history class.
Or you can go back to the Dutch India Company, which the British government literally bestowed with the power to wage foreign wars. There's nothing inherently peaceful about a corporation.
I also hope your response to this isn't to go all No True Scotsman, and say that these violent hybrids between states and corporations don't count.
|
|
Mockery
TeamWarfare Vet
|
| 07-31-2012 12:11 AM / profile
|
|
When corporations team up with governments......truly terrible things happen.
Be it governments controlling the corporations, or governments doing the bidding of the corporation.
The corporation is the profit mechanism......funded by their self pursuit and greed.
Government is the authority arm and enforcer..... constructing laws, military, and guns to get their way.
Corporations, without force, are indeed benign.
It's only when corporations limit competition, primarily through government authority and collusion, that the two entities begin to merge into one agenda.
That's when the scenarios you demonstrated all come into play. Without government using their force.......to give major corporations their way..........corporations still have to compete to make money.
Not so much so when government mandates you have to buy from them, have to pay them and only them money for their goods/services, and drafts laws that work directly on behalf of those corporations.
Post edited by Mockery at 7/31/2012 12:19:11 AM
|
|
Mockery
TeamWarfare Vet
|
| 07-31-2012 12:15 AM / profile
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pablo_Escobar
Pablo was a good example of what you were talking about.
As his profits grew, he was able to buy off and solicit more and more politicians. Eventually, his strength became so big that he was able to get the local government to ban American's from waging a drug war against cocaine in Columbia and essentially ruled the place.
He didn't rule the place through his cartel........he ruled it through ongoing favoritism provided to him by "his" government.
Same shit we are seeing with Mexico today.........
Government isn't fixing the problem they were created for......they are perpetuating it and ingraining it through force and favoritism.
|
|
Mockery
TeamWarfare Vet
|
| 07-31-2012 12:17 AM / profile
|
|
In that specific example...........it never was government that got rid of him but a vigilante group of "terrorists", called los pepe, who burned his homes, slaughtered his family members, until he ran himself into exile.
So much for their corrupt government being their salvation. Militias yet again FTW.......
Post edited by Mockery at 7/31/2012 12:20:22 AM
|
|
Pixel
Peter Bread!
TeamWarfare Vet
|
| 07-31-2012 12:22 AM / profile
|
|
mockery thinks corporations are benign.
that is about a stupid a statement as some hippie saying government is benign.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The right is more virtuous than the left. They have twice as many virtues because they have double the standards.
|
|
Mockery
TeamWarfare Vet
|
| 07-31-2012 12:26 AM / profile
|
|
Originally posted by: Pixel
mockery thinks corporations are benign.
that is about a stupid a statement as some hippie saying government is benign.
Without them corrupting government, which they always seem to do, primarily because politicians love money even more than totalitarianism, how can corporations make you do anything that you do not want to do?
If Wal-Mart raised their humus prices ten thousand percent......would you shop there tomorrow?
How could they force you to shop there?
The answer is they can't.......not unless they somehow get government to squash their competition (antitrust), mandate their services (Obamacare), or legislate on their behalf.
Money itself isn't evil........it's how you wield that money to buy favoritism, through force, that makes it evil.
|
|
Mockery
TeamWarfare Vet
|
| 07-31-2012 12:32 AM / profile
|
|
I think we are having a communication failure....largely on my part.
I'm not saying that corporations aren't greedy.......that they even have good intentions.
I think most of them want to maximize profit, at almost any extent, and care very little else about anything else.
That, however, isn't where the evil act exists. The evil is in the force of letting them have their way. A free market, free from forceful collusion, will always keep that entirely self serving intention in check.
Unless they completely corner that market........and kill off anyone from ever being able to compete with them.
And oddly enough, that isn't typically a free market failure, as much as it is a government failure.
Because how can a corporation, without force from government, force someone, who can clearly generate a profit, from competing with a company who is bilking consumers with an inferior product at far too high of a cost?
The answer is they can't........not without goon squads (the government).
|
|
the wierdo
i before e, except after...wtf?
TeamWarfare Vet
|
| 07-31-2012 12:36 AM / profile
|
|
Originally posted by: Mockery
Originally posted by: Pixel
mockery thinks corporations are benign.
that is about a stupid a statement as some hippie saying government is benign.
Without them corrupting government, which they always seem to do, primarily because politicians love money even more than totalitarianism, how can corporations make you do anything that you do not want to do?
Through private security forces, which countless corporations have employed.
You also missed the part where a corporation is itself a legal creation of government, so it doesn't even make sense to view it as separate from the state or system it grew out of.
You're creating arbitrary divisions just because you live in a country where corporations are chartered and regulated in a way that leaves them mostly toothless. You're defining a corporation as "something that acts like the corporations in 21st century America."
|
|
Mockery
TeamWarfare Vet
|
| 07-31-2012 12:43 AM / profile
|
|
Originally posted by: the wierdo
Through private security forces, which countless corporations have employed.
And what would stop me, as an opposing and competing store owner, from creating a similar security force?
Sounds to me like the makings of a turf war........
Something along the lines of what took place in Chicago during the Prohibition.
Originally posted by: the wierdo
You also missed the part where a corporation is itself a legal creation of government, so it doesn't even make sense to view it as separate from the state or system it grew out of.
Fair point.....in fact very fair point. Corporations itself imply government favoritism under the laws of a state as a separate legal entity.
I would have been far better served just saying a "big business".
I wonder if that's the point Pixel meant as well.
Originally posted by: the wierdo
You're creating arbitrary divisions just because you live in a country where corporations are chartered and regulated in a way that leaves them mostly toothless. You're defining a corporation as "something that acts like the corporations in 21st century America."
A free market, free from forceful collusion, would also keep them toothless........
Wal-Mart, in my example, wouldn't be evil for running out their competition and wanting to drive up prices........but would be evil for nobody else being allowed to compete with them once they did run up prices.
Something that force, through laws, legislation, and government typically enable.
Otherwise we would just shop some place else again.
|
|
the wierdo
i before e, except after...wtf?
TeamWarfare Vet
|
| 07-31-2012 01:09 AM / profile
|
|
Originally posted by: Mockery
Originally posted by: the wierdo
Through private security forces, which countless corporations have employed.
And what would stop me, as an opposing and competing store owner, from creating a similar security force?
Sounds to me like the makings of a turf war........
Sounds to me like the makings of a winner-take-all system born out of anarchy, which quickly leads back to centralized power.
The reason that you don't associate force with business is because you live in a stable democracy with laws that absolutely demolish any group of people that use force to profit. And then it STILL happens, but not as often.
Sorry, no such thing as a free market without some sort of government. Even if we make the dubious assumption that, without government, people will organize themselves into businesses rather than family units, those businesses then get in an arms race with each other because it's more profitable to become a mafia than a humble non-coercive business.
In the absence of government, the most profitable investment is guns. Then you write your own laws. In the presence of rudimentary government, the most profitable investment is corrupting that government (or being born into nepotism, AKA a government that is already corrupt). Once there is a government resistant to corruption, the most profitable investment is finding a weaker government to corrupt, or finding a New World where you can kill and enslave the natives. Somewhere low down on the list is making a better product, once all the other low-hanging fruit is picked.
You and NBF, who were born into the wealthiest era in human history so far, want to think that this wealth is the natural state of things, and if we only abolished government, the Walmarts of the world would take us into a kind and prosperous future.
|
|
the wierdo
i before e, except after...wtf?
TeamWarfare Vet
|
| 07-31-2012 01:20 AM / profile
|
|
In China, in regions where government oversight is low, brick factories abducted mentally retarded people and used them as slave labor.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/07/world/la-fg-china-slave-labor-20110908
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/26/world/la-fg-china-brick-factory-20110226
Why would you think corporations or businesses are inherently anything? It's just a group of people who have organized themselves with the goal of making profit. Early Rome was a group of people who funded their entire economy with war loot. That was a profitable enterprise. Why throw labels onto it?
The only reason we have these clear images of businesses as benign purveyors of quality goods is because there is a framework of laws, judges, and police to try and close off every sort of profit except for the benign sort. Then, even the immoral and greedy are channeled into price wars rather than literal wars.
|
|
Mockery
TeamWarfare Vet
|
| 07-31-2012 02:42 AM / profile
|
|
Originally posted by: the wierdo
Sounds to me like the makings of a winner-take-all system born out of anarchy, which quickly leads back to centralized power.
Perhaps so.......the second industrial revolution brought about Robber barons who still influence and primarily control our entire economy even today (some hundred and fifty years later).
Be it the Morgans, Rockefellers, etc.
Hence my bitching of our government does not work for nor represent us......but for shadow entities, like these assholes, who all pull the strings secretly behind the scenes.
Money is influence......influence buys power......power is authority.
Originally posted by: the wierdo
The reason that you don't associate force with business is because you live in a stable democracy with laws that absolutely demolish any group of people that use force to profit. And then it STILL happens, but not as often.
Possible......I just see all the force coming from government. Be it local, state, or federal who use jails, police, military and legislation to pick winners and losers.
I've never been fucked over as badly by a monopoly, in my lifetime, as I have by elected/or not elected governing officials.
I often bitch about telecoms, like AT&T, but even they can't make me buy their services as quickly and painfully as Obama did with Healthcare, or my city council did with mandated recycling service.
It's the lack of legal and permissible competition that rapes my pocket.....not people gaining advantage by offering the lowest possible prices.
In my lifetime I could just simply stop buying a monopolies services..........any monopolies.....whereas it's always the government who tells me what I have to buy and leave me with no other choice.
Maybe times were once different........maybe governments weren't always so corruptible.
I'm just not aware of such a time (ever).
Originally posted by: the wierdo
Sorry, no such thing as a free market without some sort of government. Even if we make the dubious assumption that, without government, people will organize themselves into businesses rather than family units, those businesses then get in an arms race with each other because it's more profitable to become a mafia than a humble non-coercive business.
And, be it the Hatfields & McCoys, or rival gangs, eventually property rights become established and a mutual fear of retribution becomes known once again.
It's this same fear of violence and bloodshed that the government uses to legitimize their authority over others.
The bullets from my greedy rivals are no less painful or unfair than the bullets of a corrupt government being fired at me by their police force.
Hence why I often call the government a glorified mob in their tactics.
Originally posted by: the wierdo
In the absence of government, the most profitable investment is guns. Then you write your own laws. In the presence of rudimentary government, the most profitable investment is corrupting that government (or being born into nepotism, AKA a government that is already corrupt). Once there is a government resistant to corruption, the most profitable investment is finding a weaker government to corrupt, or finding a New World where you can kill and enslave the natives. Somewhere low down on the list is making a better product, once all the other low-hanging fruit is picked.
 You are starting to sound a misanthropic and pessimistic as I am now. Must be why I enjoy talking to you so much. And perhaps you are right.
I often view anarchy as a transitional stage between forms of government........not a form of government. Once some group, with the biggest guns, establishes themselves yet another dictator almost always emerges from the ashes of the previous dictator.
How to stop that I don't exactly know......how our founding fathers got around that and George Washington denied the temptation of becoming/declaring himself a king is all but unfathomable to me today.
Looking at Africa, it is the natural order of man to want to be greedy, and use their power/influence to enslave others around them.
Originally posted by: the wierdo
You and NBF, who were born into the wealthiest era in human history so far, want to think that this wealth is the natural state of things, and if we only abolished government, the Walmarts of the world would take us into a kind and prosperous future.
Hmmmm.......and I'd argue that you were born into a country with such wealth that we could get away with ridding on our laurels, could create a credit line from our prior achievements (that most of us had nothing to do with), and that government has appeared to be our salvation when in reality it has essentially become the cancer/parasite to what once created the wealthiest nation on Earth.
Government didn't create the richest country on Earth......but it is doing its best to bankrupt and impoverish it.
Post edited by Mockery at 7/31/2012 3:11:25 AM
|
|
Mockery
TeamWarfare Vet
|
| 07-31-2012 02:53 AM / profile
|
|
Originally posted by: the wierdo
In China, in regions where government oversight is low, brick factories abducted mentally retarded people and used them as slave labor.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/07/world/la-fg-china-slave-labor-20110908
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/26/world/la-fg-china-brick-factory-20110226
Why would you think corporations or businesses are inherently anything? It's just a group of people who have organized themselves with the goal of making profit. Early Rome was a group of people who funded their entire economy with war loot. That was a profitable enterprise. Why throw labels onto it?
The only reason we have these clear images of businesses as benign purveyors of quality goods is because there is a framework of laws, judges, and police to try and close off every sort of profit except for the benign sort. Then, even the immoral and greedy are channeled into price wars rather than literal wars.
Not exactly as mean......but similar in principle..... but the Far East has a history of treating people as less than human.
It's what happens when you have too many people......it undermines and devalues the currency of humanity.
And that's why I used to believe that the government had a needed say in creating basic guidelines and rules for the economy to function........
As I evaluate my beliefs.....I often realize that their role can be boiled down even further and further......with the right number of incentives in place.
I'm not an anarchist........I'm a minimalist.
I very much value the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. I don't know how any society, under my value system, could possibly function without such basic framework.
I'll also honestly argue the validity of ideas like Glass-Steagal, especially after looking at this Jamie Diamond smuck at JP Morgan.........
I'm not Allen Greenspan......I see the desire for uniform rules and solid regulation.
Unfortunately, I see very little of that today. Instead, in lieu of that, I see tons of laws drafted by lobbyists giving themselves further advantage over their smaller competition.
Which is the opposite of what we need/want right now.
Post edited by Mockery at 7/31/2012 3:14:02 AM
|
|
the wierdo
i before e, except after...wtf?
TeamWarfare Vet
|
| 07-31-2012 03:45 AM / profile
|
|
Also I'm pretty single-minded so a lot of my post was acting as if you are agreeing with NBF; I know perfectly well that you're not an anarchist, but I came into this thread tonight with the goal of talking about that, so I'm just lowering my head and trying to knock down that sort of breathtaking naivete even if you're not the actual target.
As for personal experience, I would say I've never been fucked over by a government OR a monopoly in a significant way. You seem like you have a pretty comfortable life--I don't know--but I have trouble believing that you're not in the global 1%. And the historical .000001%.
Healthcare is not exactly like you're characterizing it. It's like mandating that people buy some sort of food, without saying what type. Everyone is going to be a consumer in the healthcare market. You can complain about the fact that the government is forcing you to spend money now instead of winging it for awhile and spending money as emergencies crop up, but realistically medicine is a captive market. The natural world is eventually going to point a gun at your head and inform you that it's time to go to the doctor. Medicine is unique in that way. And seriously? Recycling?
I tend to think of serious impositions more along the lines of dragging treason convicts behind horses through the open streets of London, hanging but not killing them, taking out their entrails while they are alive, burning those entrails before the eyes of the traitor, attaching ropes attached to horses to each limb, quartering them on a signal, beheading them, and then having His or Her Majesty decide where those limbs should end up, based on the message they want to send to various communities that might have similarly treasonous sentiments.
Making sure that poor people have access to a doctor is definitely among the more villainous deeds of history. All of which is getting off topic, since whether healthcare for poor people is a good or bad idea, anarchism is a terrible idea that will guarantee dictatorships more along the line of Her Majesty's treason trials than Obama's "healthcare for everyone!!" campaign.
|
|
the wierdo
i before e, except after...wtf?
TeamWarfare Vet
|
| 07-31-2012 03:50 AM / profile
|
|
Originally posted by: Mockery
How to stop that I don't exactly know......how our founding fathers got around that and George Washington denied the temptation of becoming/declaring himself a king is all but unfathomable to me today.
I'm not sure that he could've, given the "no taxation without representation" thing. There was a long evolution of political and popular thought that led up to the revolution.
|
|
Mockery
TeamWarfare Vet
|
| 07-31-2012 05:28 AM / profile
|
|
Originally posted by: the wierdo
Healthcare is not exactly like you're characterizing it. It's like mandating that people buy some sort of food, without saying what type.
Except they have already defined exactly what kind of food I am going to be forced to buy and eat. Most of us have recognized that private health care in this country is a massive boondoggle, an epic fucking rip off, of astronomical proportions, and our government just mandated that everyone, even those without money, have to somehow buy this massively overpriced service.
That's the equivalent, at least in my eyes, of not just killing off competing ideas, but demanding that we all have to eat a specific type and brand of a food that we may not like.
Sure the intentions might have been noble, but it just made health insurance a permanent facet of our system.......they resolved a debate over competing ideas and concepts, by deciding all of our future decisions for us, by leaving us with zero other options and say in this matter.
That's not acceptable to me as a free thinking and independent individual. No more than me telling you what you will be having for dinner tonight, or what kind of car you can drive.
Originally posted by: the wierdo
Everyone is going to be a consumer in the healthcare market. You can complain about the fact that the government is forcing you to spend money now instead of winging it for awhile and spending money as emergencies crop up, but realistically medicine is a captive market.
Pay a little now, for current services, and collect yours in the future.......sounds like every great Social Security/Medicaid ponzi ever created.
I can't wait until insurance rates continue to go up 150% a year for the next fifty years.........or a ceiling cap is implemented, supply incentive gets reduced, and demand goes right out the window. Then rationing gets implemented.
Either the cost will fuck us......or the reduced services will.
Win.......win
Originally posted by: the wierdo
The natural world is eventually going to point a gun at your head and inform you that it's time to go to the doctor. Medicine is unique in that way. And seriously? Recycling?
Yes, recycling.......
Another great idea dumbed down by piss poor implementation. Before my state mandated our city to have a compulsory recycling program, I used to recycle my own goods and kept the money that I got back for myself.
Now they charge me, without my consent, because I live inside of the city......a compulsory $20 bucks a month just to have my recyclables recycled for me (at no return to myself).
They essentially are charging me, without my approval, for a service that I already provided for myself.
Now I lose $20 on a recycling can and the money I would have gotten back for my recycling efforts.......Up to a $400-600 dollar tax a year.
What's next for my own best interest? (regardless of whether I already have it or not) Sin taxes......soda bans.....fast food taxes......removal of transfat......rationing baby formula in hospitals.
Never mind.......Bloomberg is already on top of all that.
He wont stop until everything from the shoes you buy, to the car you drive, is predetermined and presorted for you on a daily basis.
Free will, independent decision making, and having viable choices be god damned to a central planner know it all like this guy. He doesn't just know what is best for himself, but what is always best for everyone else on Earth too.
Originally posted by: the wierdo
I tend to think of serious impositions more along the lines of dragging treason convicts behind horses through the open streets of London, hanging but not killing them, taking out their entrails while they are alive, burning those entrails before the eyes of the traitor, attaching ropes attached to horses to each limb, quartering them on a signal, beheading them, and then having His or Her Majesty decide where those limbs should end up, based on the message they want to send to various communities that might have similarly treasonous sentiments.
Sure.......from a purely superficial standpoint I could see how those also look like bad things. I guess I take my recycling very seriously........hahah
Originally posted by: the wierdo
Making sure that poor people have access to a doctor is definitely among the more villainous deeds of history.
They already were getting healthcare. No one, regardless of citizenship, nationality, or wealth, can be denied medical access to an Emergency Room. That's best reserved for Canada and Europe where they will actually let you die in the street if you don't have your citizenship papers in order before your hospital arrival. They don't work on a bill me later system like we do.
http://www.montrealgazette.com/health/Denying+health+care+refugees+that+really+Canadian/6764981/story.html
This health care initiative was a way for our government to gain further influence over our health care system......paving the way for a centrally controlled single payer in the future.........while padding the pockets (albeit temporarily) of private health care lobbyists, who paid our politicians generously to mandate their otherwise despicable service on everyone.
Originally posted by: the wierdo
All of which is getting off topic, since whether healthcare for poor people is a good or bad idea, anarchism is a terrible idea that will guarantee dictatorships more along the line of Her Majesty's treason trials than Obama's "healthcare for everyone!!" campaign.
All sorts of things are utilitarian good ideas........funded by other peoples hard earned tax money. The kicker is whether that money will come out of your pocket in the form of volunteerism, through charity, or through force and punishment at gun point.
We have clearly decided which option we prefer today.
Choices, consent, and free volition be damned.
Post edited by Mockery at 7/31/2012 6:00:40 AM
|
|
| New Thread / Reply to Thread |
|
