Watch them, folks, as they fart into the wind, defending organized, systematic, theft.
Leave the housing development run by the home owner's association that you pay dues to, and go live in another housing development then. The nation you live in was here before you, and it doesn't need you. |
|
|
|
Did we get to taxes yet?
We're pretty much there. A kidney at gunpoint is his metaphor for tax collectors in blue suits with guns. |
|
|
|
You say greedy and selfish like they are bad things. Self-interest is what keeps you alive.
If the UD examples had been things like 1 person casting off a 12-person lifeboat, that would be one thing. But they weren't. They were all examples of parasitic fucks wanting a piece of someone else's productivity.
You didn't really comprehend the examples, did you? |
|
|
|
So, my question is, what is the opposite of "Fuck you, got mine?" "I am a caring, compassionate, and empathetic person, who cares about the betterment of society". You have two kidneys. Give me one. People do give kidneys. I know a person who ran in an election for district supervisor and lost. She then donated a kidney. Do you need a kidney? I'm not talking about donations. I'm talking about taking, at gunpoint. Why are you talking about taking a kidney at gunpoint? Donations are voluntary. I wasn't discussing voluntary transactions. None of the examples in the UD definition are voluntary transactions. In case you didn't notice, you're defending a belief system so despicable, it gets the label "Fuck you, got mine." Did you not notice the use of language, and what it implies? In case you didn't notice, the terminology used says one thing loud and clear: "You're a greedy selfish shit." If you were smart, you would have stayed out of this thread, because by defending it, you're also admitting to being what it implies. |
|
|
|
He likes that kind of thing. Getting popcorn before the link between kidneys and taxes is fully established.
I'll get some Jolly Ranchers. Save my seat. |
|
|
|
So, my question is, what is the opposite of "Fuck you, got mine?" "I am a caring, compassionate, and empathetic person, who cares about the betterment of society". You have two kidneys. Give me one. People do give kidneys. I know a person who ran in an election for district supervisor and lost. She then donated a kidney. Do you need a kidney? I'm not talking about donations. I'm talking about taking, at gunpoint. Why are you talking about taking a kidney at gunpoint? |
|
|
|
So, my question is, what is the opposite of "Fuck you, got mine?" "I am a caring, compassionate, and empathetic person, who cares about the betterment of society". You have two kidneys. Give me one. People do give kidneys. I know a person who ran in an election for district supervisor and lost. She then donated a kidney. Do you need a kidney? |
|
|
|
|
Ah, the pleasantries of being ignored by gas bags. They have to admit to unignoring you to comment on the content of your post. Otherwise, we can discuss their stupidity amongst our peers without having to listen to their responses which inevitably contain circular logic and hypocrisy. Furthermore, the public can read our analysis of the ignorer's posts without having to deal with the ridiculousness of their retorts.
It's like being able to listen to a gang of thugs planning their next crime and comment on it without them being aware.
|
|
|
|
|
"Fuck you, got mine" vs. "I have enough, here's some for you."
|
|
|
|
I asked for a diagnosis from a qualified person. You provided books, not results of a diagnosis. The first reference does not address your premise. It does not serve as coherent evidence to prove that the names you cited were afflicted by sociopathy. Sometimes you just know 'em when you see 'em….
Historical sociopaths: Hitler, Stalin, Rasputin, Eichmann, Pol Pot, John Gotti That is not a diagnosis, that is an assumption without any reasonable explanation or evidence. Did you read the book? It's available on Kindle, you could start reading it in less than a minute. Perhaps a little longer if you have to search Pirate bay. Oh the irony. I'll accept this as nullification of everything you've ever said while in the absence of knowledge to be found in the books I recommended and which you pointedly refused to read because they would cost you effort to read. Don't make me point to all the posts where you complained about being asked to read a book that might require you to pay money or hike your ass down to the library. Find the links and start reading. I don't have a PhD. She does. He requested a diagnosis from a "qualified person." I am not such. She is. You, presumably, understand the subject you wish "educate" me on. That makes you qualified to explain it to me. I don't want scientific studies, I want your personal opinions on the matter. You know where you can stick them. As you said, you perceive me to be qualified to educate you on these matters. That may be so, but I simply don't desire to be the equivalent of a two semester teacher for you, especially when there are several books written by those with PhDs on the subject. And thank you for valuing my personal opinion. However, again, it would be better for both of us if you read the books I recommended. |
|
|
|
By the way:
This is another thread littered with the emotional droppings of AugustoCreepo and FirstAsshat.
I highly suggest to everyone here to please add these assballs to your ignore list and ignore what they say. They're empty-headed emotional wreckballs of hate. The more attention you give them, the more they fulfill their goal: sabotaging discussion of ideas that terrify them.
There's this Looney Toons cartoon. A little tiny dog keeps hovering around a big bull dog. He keeps saying "So what do you want to do today?" "You want to chase a cat?" "You want to chase a car?" The little dog hangs on, sucking up to the bigger dog. All I see you do is pat the other guys on the shoulder, sucking up, throwing out insults to the opposition in the cocoon of safety of your gang. You've now made four posts in a row like that. One or two wouldn't call too much attention to yourself, but you've made four in a row. In each, you never actually demonstrate any substantive thought process, argument, logic, or provision of fact. I don't recall ever actually seeing any substance from you, ever. All I see from you is the behavior of an ass kisser, a suck up, and an intellectual wimp hanging out with others to inflate your own self importance. |
|
|
|
I asked for a diagnosis from a qualified person. You provided books, not results of a diagnosis. The first reference does not address your premise. It does not serve as coherent evidence to prove that the names you cited were afflicted by sociopathy. Sometimes you just know 'em when you see 'em….
Historical sociopaths: Hitler, Stalin, Rasputin, Eichmann, Pol Pot, John Gotti That is not a diagnosis, that is an assumption without any reasonable explanation or evidence. Did you read the book? It's available on Kindle, you could start reading it in less than a minute. Perhaps a little longer if you have to search Pirate bay. Oh the irony. I'll accept this as nullification of everything you've ever said while in the absence of knowledge to be found in the books I recommended and which you pointedly refused to read because they would cost you effort to read. Don't make me point to all the posts where you complained about being asked to read a book that might require you to pay money or hike your ass down to the library. Find the links and start reading. |
|
|
|
I think you need to read history and learn how rulers rise to power. It's amazing how you apply such a lack of imagination to ideas which challenge your dream society. Regarding AnCap, I can't think of a more optimal playground for a power grab.
Since you clearly have this well-planned out, if you were making a power grab in an AnCap society, just how would you go about it? I don't have it planned out. I'm not really interested in power. I don't think you have it planned out either. Consider these terms though: economics, wealth, inequality, disenchantment, minimal laws, complacency, cults, charisma, takeovers, buyouts, rallies, speeches, terrorism, sabotage, propaganda, influence, mob, poverty, etc. Do you ever do anything but list concepts? Do you ever combine those concepts? Ever put them in an order that makes sense? Or is life just one big word cloud for you? Yes I do. And you know I do. I'm not going to waste my time linking to the countless examples. Regardless, does your asking of such questions negate the possibilities that exist within your dream society that I have implied? Absolutely not. |
|
|
|
I think you need to read history and learn how rulers rise to power. It's amazing how you apply such a lack of imagination to ideas which challenge your dream society. Regarding AnCap, I can't think of a more optimal playground for a power grab.
Since you clearly have this well-planned out, if you were making a power grab in an AnCap society, just how would you go about it? I don't have it planned out. I'm not really interested in power. I don't think you have it planned out either. Consider these terms though: economics, wealth, inequality, disenchantment, minimal laws, complacency, cults, charisma, takeovers, buyouts, rallies, speeches, terrorism, sabotage, propaganda, influence, mob, poverty, etc. Those all exist in your society. I see no difference from any other society where a tyrant, dictator or criminal rises to power. There's nothing special about AnCap. EDIT: added mob and poverty to the list. |
|
|
|
Sociopaths also will exist in AnCap, and render their personal brand of hell in all their ways within such a society as well. What is your point again? In a free society the damage sociopaths can cause to society will finally be limited to what they can accomplish via their own efforts instead of amplified by access to armies, nuclear weapons, police forces and taxation. What you mean, then, is they could never be worse than, say, someone like Hitler, as they gain wealth and power and a following? Nothing in AnCap precludes the accumulation of wealth, weapons, leverage through business, influence and followers. Good try, though. Everything in AnCap, however, precludes the use of those resources for conquest. A business built on producing high-quality automobiles will have a hard time turning into a military force. What nonsense. Is AnCap only composed of automobile production companies? Does not AnCap also have people, weapons manufacturers, money, external suppliers, recessions, disenchanted individuals, criminals, defense companies, hatred, sociopaths, influential people, wealthy people, etc., etc., etc? And besides, who do you think built tanks and airplanes in the U.S. during WWII? Yes, an automobile manufacturer could switch to making tanks. or bombs. But who will drive those tanks? Who will drop those bombs? What I am saying that workers in industry do not, and cannot, become soldiers overnight simply because their employer wishes it. Defense agencies are geared and staffed for defense, not offense. He would have to build, with his own money - or an external bankroll - a private army comprised solely of thugs and criminals. He would then have to take that private army, and set it against not only the defense agencies - businesses built around stopping exactly this sort of thing - but also every armed citizen in the region, who will be fighting to defend their homes. Who do you think is going to win that fight? I think you need to read history and learn how rulers rise to power. It's amazing how you apply such a lack of imagination to ideas which challenge your dream society. Regarding AnCap, I can't think of a more optimal playground for a power grab. |
|
|
|
Sociopaths also will exist in AnCap, and render their personal brand of hell in all their ways within such a society as well. What is your point again? In a free society the damage sociopaths can cause to society will finally be limited to what they can accomplish via their own efforts instead of amplified by access to armies, nuclear weapons, police forces and taxation. What you mean, then, is they could never be worse than, say, someone like Hitler, as they gain wealth and power and a following? Nothing in AnCap precludes the accumulation of wealth, weapons, leverage through business, influence and followers. Good try, though. Everything in AnCap, however, precludes the use of those resources for conquest. A business built on producing high-quality automobiles will have a hard time turning into a military force. What nonsense. Is AnCap only composed of automobile production companies? Does not AnCap also have people, weapons manufacturers, money, external suppliers, recessions, disenchanted individuals, criminals, defense companies, hatred, sociopaths, influential people, wealthy people, etc., etc., etc? And besides, who do you think built tanks and airplanes in the U.S. during WWII? |
|
|
|
Sociopaths also will exist in AnCap, and render their personal brand of hell in all their ways within such a society as well. What is your point again? In a free society the damage sociopaths can cause to society will finally be limited to what they can accomplish via their own efforts instead of amplified by access to armies, nuclear weapons, police forces and taxation. What you mean, then, is they could never be worse than, say, someone like Hitler, as they gain wealth and power and a following? Nothing in AnCap precludes the accumulation of wealth, weapons, leverage through business, influence and followers. Good try, though. |
|
|
|
So, again, is your argument that the sociopaths won't want the power, or that the government does not provide a means to that power?
Yes, that is my argument... Are you dense? You have not answered my question. Which is your argument? That sociopaths do not want power? That government does not provide a position of power? He did answer your question. Just because he preceded the answer with a 'Yes, that is my argument' does not mean he did not provide a sufficient answer to your question in the sentence after it. I never claimed that government departments offer jobs exclusively to sociopaths (though an argument could be made for military positions, they cater more to psychopaths, than sociopaths), I simply claimed that sociopaths are uniquely suited to achieving government office, and that they would seek government office, because of the power such a position offers.
And millions of sociopaths also live their lives in relative anonymity too, creating personal hell for their spouses, children and acquaintances. And conversely, non-sociopaths seek political office as well. Sociopaths also will exist in AnCap, and render their personal brand of hell in all their ways within such a society as well. What is your point again? |
|
|
|
The government makes more money by having drugs illegal for human consumption rather than taxing it so it can be used medically or recreationally. Government departments get more power within the government the larger the budget they have. It does not matter if the government taxes people that want to smoke pot, it already taxes EVERYONE in the United States to not use pot. This year the federal and state government spent about $40 billion to keep people from not using drugs. This does not include the cost of incarcerating people or the revenue governments have collected by asset forfeiture. That is about $133 per American each year to keep other Americans from using drugs (this does not include the interest on the borrowed money to pay for this budget). If you can get a tax for Americans to use drugs legally that will double that amount then you might have a shot of legalizing drugs that are currently illegal. The question is, "How many Americans used cannabis at least once a year? I can not find any reliable statistics, but it is known that ~20% of the population smokes cigarettes. So lets assume that only 10% of Americans use cannabis at least once a year. This means that those 10% of users need to make up the revenue that is lost from the other 90% of taxpayers that do not use cannabis and would never pay a tax on cannabis. Each of those cannibis users would need to pay at least $1,330 each year in taxes to make up for the lost departmental budgets. Kind of a silly spin, don't you think? Assume there is no pot tax. Then Americans continue paying the same tax they do now, except the money doesn't go to drug enforcement infrastructure, but other more productive programs. Or, in the absence of drug enforcement infrastructure, Americans pay less in taxes. Or, in the absence of drug enforcement infrastructure, plus a pot tax, tax revenue is increased and the savings plus the tax go to other programs or deficit reduction. Granted, some people are out jobs, but they can possibly be put to use doing things which produce well being, rather maintain a non-productive process. You are thinking too rationally and on the side of tax payers. You are assuming those people out of jobs (DEA, judges, ect) have no power with their monstrous budgets. This is the way government beuracracies work. Those with the largest budgets get more power and they don't want to give up that power. No. I'm just pointing out your spin and the failed mathematics within it. That's all. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
