Quit Praising Obama and Blaming Bush!

"Why_So_Serious said:

"Jayge said:

"I'm glad he was distracted by the wars. Who the fuck knows what that chimpanzee would have done domestically if he weren't pre-occupied. He did enough."

It's judgemental people like you that piss me off. That's just it you don't know what the fuck he would have done. It could have been good."

Yes. Empowering more religious organizations, creating an even more transparent theocracy (I like to pretend we aren't one, sometimes), limiting scientific progress and education based on backwards thinking standards... he managed to do that much in his time as president. What more could he have done? We can only imagine."

Let's not go criticising republicanism, here, people. Kings and Queens are wasteful institutions. Jobs that nobody needs with wealth that isn't earned. Where's the glory in that tradition?

Let's not allow the ideals of republicanism get smeared by the failures and flaws of the Republican Party of the United States.

"Let's not go criticising republicanism, here, people. Kings and Queens are wasteful institutions. Jobs that nobody needs with wealth that isn't earned. Where's the glory in that tradition?Let's not allow the ideals of republicanism get smeared by the failures and flaws of the Republican Party of the United States."

Revolution against tyranny.

End to Monarchy

Merit-based government (not necessarily multi-cameral legislatures or multi-party elections. China is a Republic, after all)

It's derived from the Latin phrase "Res Publica", or "Public Matter". In other words, the only job of the government is public matters, not private affairs. (Such as religion or wealth management or communications.)

Of course, there are many places referred to as republics that infringe on this notion fairly drastically, and monarchies that don't quite so much.

Nevertheless, fuck monarchism -- or oligarchy that matter.

I'm not convinced that a republic is any better than a monarchy.

The oppression exists either way. No matter what, there is a legal right for the monopoly of force to exist. To me, that is tyranny, and it exists in a republic as well.

Well, a monopoly on the initiation of force exists to prevent gang warfare. I don't think a monopoly on  the initiation of force is tantamount to tyrrany. Having said that, there is a wide gulf, ethically-speaking, between the use of force and the initiation of force. Another question is, to what end is that force used. If it is used the way it is in the United States, to promote the interests of the biggest political financiers, then a problem arises. But systems of government form out of anarchy. Anarchy is impossible to permanently maintain.

You guys really let a couple uninformed children rile you up.

The monopoly of force exists to prevent gang warfare, but force is required to do so. The only difference is that government force is "legal" and has a "right" to do so, however, for some reason it is unacceptable when other groups or individuals do the same.

And yes, there is a difference between force and the initiation of force. The government, no matter what kind, does both. And the end that it is used for is irrelevant to the fact that force still used.

And yes, government has arisen from anarchy. But arguing for government for this reason is absurd. You are saying that government should exist, because without it, it would come into existence. It makes no sense.

It does, actually, burton. I'm arguing that a constitutionally-limited government that only uses force against those who initiate it against its citizens is better than any other government that forms out of anarchy.

My opposition to anarchy comes from the law of unintended consequences. You want anarchy, but how do you prevent people from coming along and enslaving you without a form of defence? You can tell me that you would use self-defence, and all you're telling me is that you would be in the anarchist gang fighting the other gang. At which point you would become a warring faction, at which point your tranquil anarchy is replaced with tyranny and/or chaos.

A limited government is better than all other options.

But this constitutional government initiates force against non-criminals by committing mass theft. It requires taxation, which if you don't pay, force is used.

How do I prevent people from coming along and enslaving me? I got an idea, maybe have people enslave me to provide defense. That's your solution. Your protection REQUIRES enslavement because government is intrinsically forceful.  And I don't believe that all that chaos would take place. I believe in private protection agencies which could submit cases to an arbitrator to settle disputes (a court system). But I don't want to get into that, I want to remain on a priori arguments.

When it comes to natural rights, no government is the best option. From the utilitarian standpoint, limited government is the best option. But how do you limit a government? It is not possible.

I never said taxation is a necessary component of statehood. The modern theories of Statism do. I subscribe to the contractual-insurance model of government funding. No coerced payments, just coercion in the event of crime (not including victimless crime).

What? If it's not funded by taxation, how is the state funded?

If it is funded voluntarily, it is not government. It is is funded through force, it is government.

So yes, taxation is a necessary component of statehood.

The theory you are expounding in that statement is Statism. There are other models for funding, including (as I mentioned in my previous post) contractual insurance.

You tell me you would have some sort of arbitrary process. Would there be written documents defining the use and limits of those processes? Would there be declarative statements issued by the people who are a part of these processes? If so, that is a system of laws, and that is a government.

Do you not see how anarchy is impossible?

You didn't answer my question. How about this: How is the monopoly of force you support be funded?

This arbitrary process would be what settles disputes between protection agencies. Protection agencies could CHOOSE to be a part of this arbitration process. People can CHOOSE to pay for whichever protection agency they want. They would create their own documents to make the process. The people who are a part of the process pay for whatever service they want. It's a form of voluntary law. You are only bound to the law by choice. Kind of like selling yourself into slavery. The people who don't pay for protection, receive none. It's not government. There is no legal system that all people are bound by.

And I don't know if it's possible or not, neither do you. I don't underestimate the spontaneous order of the market. I don't think it is absurd to think that the market can supply defense just like it supplies everything else. Also, the discussion of whether it would work or not is not what interests me. What I care about it what's right and wrong, not what yields the best results. I'm not a utilitarian, and I didn't think you were either. But when your chief concern is whether it will work or not makes me question that.

No, I think 'the market' is plenty capable, and when we apply that principle, to the victor goes all the spoils. With no law or enforcement of law to stop an extremely violent person, an extremely violent person has the potential to amass a devestating amount of power.

And I don't know how many times I have to use the phrase 'contractual insurance', before you'll notice it in one of my posts.

My chief concern when it comes to all things is whether or not it will work. That does not make me a political or legal utilitarian. It makes me a realist. Social utility is false, individual utility is real, but broad. And an arbitration system is of no use to anyone if people found guilty in that system can choose whether or not they are guilty of a crime.

Explain contractual insurance.

And it makes you a consequentialist and a pragmatist. When your first concern is whether or not you think something will work, all other principles such as human rights, are completely useless. I don't ever want to see you arguing for property rights or liberty from a principled standpoint again.

Why's that? Because the notion that property rights and individual liberty could have individual utility is somehow frightening to you? I AM NOT A UTILITARIAN. But that doesn't mean I want to live in a world with impugnity. If a man kills a man there needs to be a STATE in place to deal with that, otherwise your result is an endless spiral of revenge killings.

Contractual Insurance is a very simple concept, one that can be explained in bullet points.

Point 1: People will inevitably want to make large-scale exchanges with one another, if they are left economically and socially unfettered

Point 2: Exchanges of sufficiently large scale can not be made hand-to-hand. (You can't put a hundred million dollars in my hand as I put a skyscraper in yours)

Point 3: This requires written agreements, detailing when, where, and how components of these large-scale exchanges will take place (such as an agreement to give you 100 million dollars over the span of 99 years. This example is what is referred to as a 'lease')

Point 4: These written agreements are not worth the paper they're written on if not backed up by something.

Point 5: In a political vacuum, violence is the best method to insure contractual obligations are met

Point 6: Civil Law has existed for centuries as a way of arbitrating disputes between contractors

Point 7: This service, therefore, has value

Point 8: Not everyone sees the value in Civil Law

Point 9: These people should be free to sign contracts and commit to handshake agreements if they do not wish to have Civil Law involved

Point 10: A government can then offer to insure the mutual value of a contract (since the value will be mutually insured, mutual consent to have Civil Law insure this contract is needed), deriving a percentage of the respective contractor's take in the contract. So if I agree to give you 100 million dollars at 10% interest over 100 years, I would owe them 100 000 dollars a year (until the contract expires) if, let's say, the contractual insurance rate is 10%. You would owe them a lump sum, equal to that same percentage of the total value you derived, split at either end of the contractual term. So, let's say you get 110 million dollars from me over that 100 year period, you would owe the government 5.5 million dollars at the beginning, and 5.5 million dollars at the end.

Point 11: The government would derive a massive amount of funds, voluntarily, from large-scale, credit- or contract-based endeavours. More than is needed to fund the civil judiciary alone. Criminal law, police, and national defence could also be bankrolled by these insurance policies. But not projects as large-scale as healthcare or education. These industries (if there be demand for them) would be undertaken by private entities.

"Point 9: These people should be free to sign contracts and commit to handshake agreements if they do not wish to have Civil Law involved

Point 10: A government can then offer to insure the mutual value of a contract (since the value will be mutually insured, mutual consent to have Civil Law insure this contract is needed)"

Okay, so it's voluntary. That is not government. If you can choose not to participate, then it's a private service, not a government. Congrats, you're an anarchist. I think you should lay this out in a syllogism form so that each premise formulates some conclusion.

Sorry for the flaws in my mathematics, but these are only meant as examples. This is why I'm not an accountant :p

The Civil Law aspect of this social conception is voluntary, the Criminal Law aspect is not. It costs nothing to charge someone with a crime, and if the investigators involved in your case find sufficient grounds, the specific section of the criminal law that applies to your case will be applied to you.

In other words, there would IMMUTABLE laws against murder, theft, rape, asault, fraud, and other variants on these sorts of crimes. If you are found guilty, you would not have the option of not recognizing the court's authority. They would seize you, and they would initiate force against you if you resisted. Why? Not because I'm a tyrant, but because I know the tyranny of crime, and it is far worse than a government who only gets involved when someone is harmed.

While I still disagree with you that government should have the monopoly of force, I've never heard of that alternate way of funding. That's brilliant.

However, what if a private company offered to do it as well? They would have to compete and set prices lower and lower. Then the government may not have enough funding to pay for it's criminal law enforcement. If they can't fund it, then what?

Yes, but remember the essential element a government would have over a private contract insurer. Compliance.

You can hire a wise man to settle your disputes for you at a lower rate than the government offers, and there's nothing wrong with that, but if you're dealing with someone who will breech your contract, then he likely has no concern for the arbitrator either, and will need to be made to comply with a decision, somehow. That 'somehow', ideally, is the threat of criminal prosecution.

But in such a system, where initiation of force is monopolized in law, the only means of profit would be production and commerce, and so the only times the law would come into play would be honest disputes and criminal breeches.

Also, a monopoly on the initiation of force does not prevent people from owning self defence apparatus, such as handguns, however their use and sale would be regulated by the criminal justice system (legislative or judicial or both).

I should also remind you that the idea of contractual insurance is not mine. I first came across it in the book, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, by Ayn Rand, in the essay "Government Finance in a Free Society".

"Opposing any taxation whatsoever, wanting no government military, not wanting police, opposing all war, wanting to get rid of the Federal Reserve, not wanting government court system, supporting the allowance of prostitution and drugs, is hardly a Republican political view.

"lilburtonboy7489 said:

"Opposing any taxation whatsoever, wanting no government military, not wanting police, opposing all war, wanting to get rid of the Federal Reserve, not wanting government court system, supporting the allowance of prostitution and drugs, is hardly a Republican political view.

You are right , your questionable point of view is neither democrat nor republican . After reading some of your posts  I've found your perspective a combination of  narcissism and anarchism which is indeed inapplicable in the current world . "

"Yes, but remember the essential element a government would have over a private contract insurer. Compliance.

You can hire a wise man to settle your disputes for you at a lower rate than the government offers, and there's nothing wrong with that, but if you're dealing with someone who will breech your contract, then he likely has no concern for the arbitrator either, and will need to be made to comply with a decision, somehow. That 'somehow', ideally, is the threat of criminal prosecution.

But in such a system, where initiation of force is monopolized in law, the only means of profit would be production and commerce, and so the only times the law would come into play would be honest disputes and criminal breeches.

Also, a monopoly on the initiation of force does not prevent people from owning self defence apparatus, such as handguns, however their use and sale would be regulated by the criminal justice system (legislative or judicial or both).

I should also remind you that the idea of contractual insurance is not mine. I first came across it in the book, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, by Ayn Rand, in the essay "Government Finance in a Free Society"."

"daniel_beck_90 said:

"lilburtonboy7489 said:

"Opposing any taxation whatsoever, wanting no government military, not wanting police, opposing all war, wanting to get rid of the Federal Reserve, not wanting government court system, supporting the allowance of prostitution and drugs, is hardly a Republican political view.

You are right , your questionable point of view is neither democrat nor republican . After reading some of your posts  I've found your perspective a combination of  narcissism and anarchism which is indeed inapplicable in the current world . "

Narcissistic? Really?"

Now come on,  beck, that is a patently specious argument.

If a gay person wants the right to marry, then their motivation to get the law changed is seen by you as selfish?

If a person is thrown in jail for selling a product to a willing consumer, and wants to be free is selfish?

WE'RE ALL FUCKING SELFISH, that isn't the issue in law or politics, the issue in law and politics is justice and justification. Can there be a justification for theft? No. Can there be a justification for throwing a person in jail for pursuing their own happiness (at the expense of no one else)? No.

Any law to infringe on that person's rights for the sake of some other person's moral code is a more nefarious form of selfishness, because it infringes on the selfishness of others

"prinny_god said:

"oh well in a few months when obama starts putting people that disagree with him in slave camps you'll all wake up"

I ask again, how old are you?"

 And YES we needed to be at war. We are a nation that can't be pushed aside. We were founded on good principles from some of the greatest men ever. 

"

Here's the thing: they're both pretty crappy presidents.

I have never really been an Obama supporter, mostly because he's throwing money away like M.C. Hammer. But, here's the thing that put me over the top:

It's ok guys, I just informed Ms. Napolitano and the Department of Homeland Security. He'll be one of the first we imprison.

"

I know very little about the workings of the economy, but I'm sure that all the bailouts that are supposed to help the economy get better are in fact part of the tripling of the deficit that you speak of. 

Somebody needs to resurrect Reagan to save us.

Guys, check it out, I've got ill-formed political opinions, are you interested?

"lilburtonboy7489 said:

"daniel_beck_90 said:

"lilburtonboy7489 said:

"Opposing any taxation whatsoever, wanting no government military, not wanting police, opposing all war, wanting to get rid of the Federal Reserve, not wanting government court system, supporting the allowance of prostitution and drugs, is hardly a Republican political view.

You are right , your questionable point of view is neither democrat nor republican . After reading some of your posts  I've found your perspective a combination of  narcissism and anarchism which is indeed inapplicable in the current world . "

Narcissistic? Really?"

  Absolutely , Opposing any taxation whatsoever, Supporting the allowance of prostitution and drugs and ......is a profoundly selfish agenda . "

"lilburtonboy7489 said:

"AgentJ said:

"lilburtonboy7489 said:

"Suicrat said:

"Wars are supposed to be profitable exercises.World War II ended the Great Depression, some say. Problem is now the spoils of war have to be returned to the people from the country you bombed."

That's bullshit. War is never good for an economy. The people that think WWII ended the Depression are saying so because they learned it in high school history, not economics. "

So what ended the depression?"

The government cut spending by about 35%. The people in the military, the CCC, and other government agencies then went to work in the private sector. All the money that was used for this wasteful spending was diverted into production of goods and services which created economic growth and employment which was used to productive goals, rather than employment being the goal itself. Saying that war is good for an economy commits the broken window fallacy. "

links plz"

They're both fucktards. Jeff for president - he'll turn this recession around with bottles of Jolly Rancher soda for everyone!

"They're both fucktards. Jeff for president - he'll turn this recession around with bottles of Jolly Rancher soda for everyone!"

one thing is that why people hate bush so much mainly is cause that yes we needed to go to war and at the time like 80% of us agreed to it its just that we didnt plan/ do it correctly. we needed to plan things out more.
Why_So_Serious said:

" 

Our founding fathers are rolling over in the graves because of judgemental people who blame others for things that AREN'T their fault. I would also like to point out in the 60 days Obama has been in office he has trippled(sp?) the amount of defecit we are in. Bush exited with $3.3 trillion of defecit and with all the bills Obama has passed in 60 days he has caused up to $9.9 trillion in defecit. How do you think the rest of his 4 years will be?

"

I'm surpise KingGeorge hasn't reply to this thread.

And to whoever said we needed to revive Reagan, true but why not just revive George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, andThomas Jefferson? They are three of few people who know the true meaning of our country.

"

Stop blaming Bush for squandering the multibillion dollar surplus that the Clinton administration left him?  Uh... okay dude.

"iAmJohn said:

"Stop blaming Bush for squandering the multibillion dollar surplus that the Clinton administration left him?  Uh... okay dude."

The Clinton administration didn't leave Bush shit. I don't know where your coming from. Clinton was almost impeached and he was one of the worst presidents we have had. If there was a surplus it sure as hell wasn't cause of that fucktard."