What is your position on abortion?

[eduardo89]

Nobody will adopt "unwanted" babies and they'll starve to death? Any other reasons for ending a life before it even has a chance to get started?

Unless we have the benevolent government steal money from the productive in society and give the unproductive free food, housing, healthcare, cash, contraceptives, etc all these babies are going to starve to death.

Might as well just kill them. But wait, why stop there? Why not kill all poor people! That way they can't starve to death and we can feel better about ourselves for not letting anyone starve!

 

[AuH20]

You know what's even cheaper? Only having sex if you're ready to accept the consequences of those actions. Wow, what a novel idea, taking responsibility for your actions and not engaging in actions in which you can't take responsibility for the potential result.

We ignore & treat them like animals and then act surprised when they behave as such. The zoo trainer societal model obviously is not working.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Do you know what, lets spin the table. You prove to me why your anarchy works. Anarchy is the new kid at school, not the goverment.

*sigh* I have already told you (more than once, at this point) that such things cannot be "proven" (regardless of whether you take the Statist side or the Anarchist side) - and I have told you why ...

Nevertheless, you persist in trying to invoke bogus "historical" proof(s) - this time by asserting that "Anarchy is the new kid at school" (thereby implying that some kind of "historical" evidence or proof(s) countervail against "new" anarchist premises). So yet again, I point out that your (implicit) premise is both (1) demonstrably unhistorical (since stateless human society necessarily existed prior to the first State - in other words, anarchy is NOT the new kid at school - it is in fact the "school's" oldest graduate - and this is just the most basic and obvious among many historical counter-illustrations), and (2) even if it were historically accurate, it still would not "prove"- or even serve as evidence for - your position (namely, that anarchy is not at all possible and could not possibly "work").

More fundamentally, YOU are the one making sweeping assertions about what cannot possibly happen or what absolutely must happen under such-and-such circumstances. Hence, any burden of proof is on YOU - not I. I have merely pointed out the fallacies and flaws of your statements. The only point at which I have attempted to support a positive claim of my own was in my previous post - and my argument in that case rested not on historical contingencies but on existential necessities.

 

[Nobexliberty]

*sigh* I have already told you (more than once, at this point) that such things cannot be "proven" (regardless whether you take the Statist side or the Anarchist side) - and I have told you why ...

Nevertheless, you persist in trying to invoke bogus "historical" proof(s) - this time by asserting that "Anarchy is the new kid at school" (thereby implying that some kind of "historical" evidence or proof(s) countervail against "new" anarchist premises). So yet again, I point out that your (implicit) premise is both (1) demonstrably unhistorical (since stateless human society necessarily existed prior to the first State - in other words, anarchy is NOT the new kid at school - it is in fact the "shcool's" oldest graduate - and this is just the most basic and obvious among many historical counter-illustrations), and (2) even if it were historically accurate, it still would not "prove" (or even serve as evidence) for your position.

More fundamentally, YOU are the one making sweeping assertions about what cannot possibly happen or what absolutely must happen under such-and-such circumstances. Hence, any burden of proof is on YOU - not I. I have merely pointed out the fallacies and flaws of your statements. The only point at which I have attempted to support a positive claim of my own was in my previous post - and my argument in that case rested not on historical contingencies but on existential necessities.

Can I prove something,no. But I can make statements that make sense. History is a great place to learn what works and what does not work even if it does not act like proof. State has not been the "state" since agriculture but we have always had goverment like leadership to rule or govern us. It does not in any way prove anything but it can help us make choices in the future. It is agree able when goverments do not do justice then mobs will do what they think justice is, history can shows us that. And what prevented for example interracial marriage was not only social disgust for it but laws too. They may not always work but they do lower the activity they ban.

The goverments duty is to help people protect themself from criminals and defend their basic rights. That requires force and not just voluntary invlement. Everthing from locking up a thief to forcing people to serve on jury duty is force but still essential for liberty. Liberty is not abscene of goverment force but what it does with it. All laws are enforced by force and under the threat of legal punishemnt. Goverment without force is worthless and weak. A strong goverment is the most important part of liberty, strong does NOT mean big. Goverment is non-consentual force and there is not such thing as a voluntery goverment. Goverment must be able to force people to do things they do not want to. Even unpopular abortion laws if they protect the rights of innocent babies. Or making welfare cuts.

The sum it up I mean that the Goverment is force and nothing else!

 

[robert68]

Karma can still occur on the living plane.

That's not a response to anything I wrote.

 

[otherone]

People weren't starving before food stamps existed.

IIRC, some 7 million died of starvation during the Dust Bowl alone. FDR dispatched soldiers to curb civil unrest.

 

[eduardo89]

IIRC, some 7 million died of starvation during the Dust Bowl alone. FDR dispatched soldiers to curb civil unrest.

7 million Americans died of starvation? That would have been 10% of the population and one of the largest losses of lives outside of war in the history of the world.

That number is absurd, it's as if someone took the number of starvations from Holdomor and decided to use it for the Great Depression. Just looking at census data the population managed to still grow by nearly 10,000,000 between 1930 and 1940, with barely any immigration.

 

[Nobexliberty]

IIRC, some 7 million died of starvation during the Dust Bowl alone. FDR dispatched soldiers to curb civil unrest.

The Agricultural Adjustment Act payed Farmers subsidies to kill excessive lifestock and reduce planting area to prevent prices of food falling down so farmers can achieve stability. So many poor people starved because the fed prevent food from becoming cheaper.

 

[Fredom101]

The goverment is what people accept it to be, like rights it is not set in stone but changes depending on what people see it as.

So government is arbitrary and it's whatever people view it to be at the time? So if some people decide to have an election and they rig it to their favor and say "51% voted on it, majority rules!" you think that's a good system?

Again, if some humans have power over others, who keeps those in power in check?

 

[Fredom101]

Goverment is also needed in a civilised society, a small one works the best

You just said you opposed theft. How can we have a government without sanctioned theft of the people? What if I don't agree that government is needed? I'm okay if you want to appoint leaders for you and whoever else, but what happens when I disagree?

 

[Carlybee]

Because many African Americans seem to be unable to write or speak proper english, ebonics is not english.

Wow. Talk about stereotyping. Newsflash...there are a bunch of whites who can't spell or use proper grammar. People raised in poverty are many times undereducated but poverty does not affect just one race. Not everyone has what it takes to overcome the set of circumstances they were born under.

 

[Nobexliberty]

Again, if some humans have power over others, who keeps those in power in check?

Balance is needed, you know gun control is bad and all.

You just said you opposed theft. How can we have a government without sanctioned theft of the people? What if I don't agree that government is needed? I'm okay if you want to appoint leaders for you and whoever else, but what happens when I disagree?

Taxes should be kept to a minimum but a little taxes is often needed to raise money. I include all types of taxes from property tax and income tax to tariffs and sales taxes.

So government is arbitrary and it's whatever people view it to be at the time? So if some people decide to have an election and they rig it to their favor and say "51% voted on it, majority rules!" you think that's a good system?

I do not think it is good, but that it often how it happens. Most voters voted for the same politicans that people in this forum dislike but the politicans still rule the people on this forum.

 

[Nobexliberty]

Wow. Talk about stereotyping. Newsflash...there are a bunch of whites who can't spell or use proper grammar. People raised in poverty are many times undereducated but poverty does not affect just one race. Not everyone has what it takes to overcome the set of circumstances they were born under.

Yes but it mostly afffects african americans, at an educated guess.

 

[Carlybee]

Yes but it mostly afffects african americans, at an educated guess.

Guess is right because you just threw that out there. I would imagine there are many immigrants in this country for whom English is a second language and who can't spell or use proper grammar.

 

[erowe1]

IIRC, some 7 million died of starvation during the Dust Bowl alone.

Your IIRC is not a very reliable source.

 

[Nobexliberty]

Guess is right because you just threw that out there. I would imagine there are many immigrants in this country for whom English is a second language and who can't spell or use proper grammar.

Most legal immigrants will learn proper grammer if they want to after a while.

 

[Fredom101]

Balance is needed, you know gun control is bad and all.

You dodged my question. Once someone is in power, who keeps them in check? Who watches the watchers? Clearly, voting every 2 or 4 years is a failed method.

Taxes should be kept to a minimum but a little taxes is often needed to raise money. I include all types of taxes from property tax and income tax to tariffs and sales taxes.

You just said you were opposed to theft. But now you're saying it's okay to steal as long as you're with the government? How does this pass the logic test? Even tariffs are simply extortion money. This is certainly not libertarian!

I do not think it is good, but that it often how it happens. Most voters voted for the same politicans that people in this forum dislike but the politicans still rule the people on this forum.

Ok so we agree the system is broken, because the majority are getting their rights violated. So, instead of accepting the current paradigm, why not try something else? Take the ideas of the founding fathers to their logical conclusion, and disband of the idea that some humans are equipped and should rule over others. Domination thinking is the problem here and must change if we are to have a better world.

 

[erowe1]

Taxes should be kept to a minimum but a little taxes is often needed to raise money. I include all types of taxes from property tax and income tax to tariffs and sales taxes.

What do you consider the right tax rate, where if taxes got any lower you would say they were too low and needed to go back up?

 

[Nobexliberty]

You dodged my question. Once someone is in power, who keeps them in check? Who watches the watchers? Clearly, voting every 2 or 4 years is a failed method.

Who keeps them in check should be the people with guns.

Whoever said the pen is mightier than the sword obviously never encountered automatic weapons." -- Douglas MacArthur

You just said you were opposed to theft. But now you're saying it's okay to steal as long as you're with the government? How does this pass the logic test? Even tariffs are simply extortion money. This is certainly not libertarian!

The best way to get rid of taxes is to find another way to raise money.

Ok so we agree the system is broken, because the majority are getting their rights violated. So, instead of accepting the current paradigm, why not try something else? Take the ideas of the founding fathers to their logical conclusion, and disband of the idea that some humans are equipped and should rule over others. Domination thinking is the problem here and must change if we are to have a better world.

America needs is a people with some courage to stand up to the goverment and use some common sense. Even if America get rid of tyranical goverment it will grow back quickly because the people does not learn from it. The American people must want rights for the minority and a small goverment. A liposuction is a temporary solution most of the time simply because what lead to the fat is unchecked. And what made the federal goverment get fat was lack of enforcement of the people, that is the nuber one priority to make people want liberty.

 

[Nobexliberty]

What do you consider the right tax rate, where if taxes got any lower you would say they were too low and needed to go back up?

Should depend entirely on circumstances. Now it should be lower.