 You speak of evolution. Yes, morality is just preferences... You seek fairness, I seek the ultimate sentient being this planet has yet to see. I want the power to be exclusively in the hands of the individual. I dream of each man being a god. That is all I wish to achieve. Morality is irrelevant when every man can stand on his own two feet without being phased by those who try to be above him. Anyways, morality is just preferences. I only treat them as such. If you truly want to win, get an army -- or become one. I treat every individual as a god for that's who I want them to be. |
|
|
|
|
edd, I suggest you give Ron Paul a shot on his campaign site for being a speaker. Try to sell him on Bitcoin. I would but it has a preference for event owners.
|
|
|
|
|
It's funny how all the friends I have that live in double-wide trailers are Libertarians.
|
|
|
|
Somebody has to care for them to want to enslave people to have these children cared for. Otherwise, they would be left to die. The fact that it's an issue shows they will be cared for. It's only a matter of expressing that compassion morally without tyranny. In the end, if violence has to occur, it's only due to laziness from the people who send the brutes to get the children cared for.
There are an estimated 30 million real, actual, no-foolin' slaves left in the world. By claiming that a billionaire who pays 15% tax on his capital gains is in the same league with them, and spending 99% of your time complaining about his "plight" while ignoring the real slaves, you pretty much make yourself out to be a disgusting piece of shit. A man chooses and a slave obeys; that is the only thing that separates the two. I prefer man to have unilateral choice over his life regardless of wealth. I judge men by the content of their character, their sentience and their unalienable rights -- not by their arbitrary wealth. I care not if a man lives in luxury and happiness nor if he lives in a box and glum: I will defend his right to himself until the very end. |
|
|
|
Children should be given equal opportunities in life regardless of their parents' decisions. Though the mother is clearly an idiot for saying that "someone should be held accountable" (you mean yourself? idiot), the children should not have to suffer for her lack of responsibility. If nobody is willing to support them voluntarily, then I must argue that this is one of the few cases where the coercion of the state is necessary and justified, not to guarantee equality of outcome, but to guarantee equality of opportunity for these kids.
However, the mother should not get a single cent for her irresponsible actions.
Somebody has to care for them to want to enslave people to have these children cared for. Otherwise, they would be left to die. The fact that it's an issue shows they will be cared for. It's only a matter of expressing that compassion morally without tyranny. In the end, if violence has to occur, it's only due to laziness from the people who send the brutes to get the children cared for. It's uncalled for. If you "care" so much about the children, go care for them yourself but don't force anybody else to do it. In the end, it's just a desire: you want the children cared for. You may also want your lawn mowed and a steak; that doesn't justify violence to achieve these ends. |
|
|
|
A whore is immoral Not to start an argument, and I would never knowingly have sex with one, but why is a whore immoral? We all use our bodies to work for us, be it our brains, our muscles or our beauty. In my case I am lucky to have all 3  . If someone chooses to have sex for money(this is how i understand the word whore) and not being forced into it because of drugs/pimps/whatever why not? If you want to do it, thats cool, if you are forced into it thats another story, but in either case, I do not think its immoral. It's religious morality: in other words, serious mental illness. |
|
|
|
|
Thank you all! : D
Also, Mr. Gage, I speak far differently.
|
|
|
|
You mean the website it's from?
Also, do you mean you'd like to know the source?
Yes to both. I want to see the full comic this was clipped from. Don't be too troubled if you don't know inherently. |
|
|
|
Taxes may take half of your earnings, but you'd spend that much providing the same services the government does (at least).
Prove it. |
|
|
|
...by moving...
To another country controlled by the central-banking oligarchy. Gotcha. |
|
|
|
Us property owners just voted to take your guns away and use them to force you into a gay marriage. How do you like us now? Unconstitutional on a federal-basis and -- again -- I hold that law should only apply to commercial code dealing with the protection of property. Social laws are unjustified in any case. |
|
|
|
Slavery involves physical punishment for not working how the slave owner demands. It's a defining characteristic. It's clear that you haven't studied much American history. If you had, you would have heard of Frederick Douglass. He was a slave that was allowed to earn wages by working at a shipyard. Each week, he was forced to give all of his wages to his master. In his autobiography, Frederick Douglass compared his master to a pirate who had a "right" to his wages only because his master had the power to compel him to hand it over. That sounds like taxation to me. Oh wait, as you say, the difference is that we don't have to work at all. We could just live in homeless shelters or in cardboard boxes. That's a real meaningful and important difference! "Don't like taxes? Jump in the ocean and drown, or be a bum." So Fredrick Douglass was forced under threat of violence to work a certain job for a certain length of time for no pay. How is this exactly the same as our current system of labor and income taxes? *No threat of violence *Not forced to work a job *Not forced to work any longer than you want *You get paid. You're right. That's exactly the same as slavery. Let's cover each of these individually: *No threat of violenceIf you do not pay taxes nor comply with working under taxation and slavery, your person will be raped. Yes, raped. It will be possessed by an external force to be put in jail or otherwise. If you do not comply with their whim, you will be threatened with force. Your life will be used to negotiate your compliance. Taxation does require a threat of violence.
*Not forced to work a jobA good portion of the populace is forced to work a job. If one does not work, one does not sustain. Of course, one can choose to "work" off the enslaved work of others. This is immoral. The fact is somebody has to work in order for people to sustain. The work is almost always under the condition of slavery. One could derive that if an organism has the right to sustain itself, she must have the right to work and associate with other individuals in the upmost degree. *Not forced to work any longer than you wantNot so. Somebody is forced to work as long as it takes to sustain the populace. *You get paid. By money earned through slavery. So, yes, it is very much the same. |
|
|
|
Children cannot be held responsible for parents choice. Not their fault their parents are idiot.
People cannot be held responsible for other people's choices. It's not their fault this mother chose to have 15 children. I am all for people voluntarily helping this mother's children but the idea other people must be HELD ACCOUNTABLE for HER CHOICES is disturbing. |
|
|
|
They aren't going to care. It's free campaigning as far as future President Paul is concerned. Ergo:  |
|
|
|
|
This is so tempting. Must resist... diversifying... Bitcoins... into Silver...
*holds hand away from keyboard*
|
|
|
|
can bitcoins somehow end up being lost in all this ?
tweet gets somewhere unwanted,
or receiver does't know what it is,
or just forgets about it, discards it, never collects and so on ?
Yes, which would be great. It would increase the value of Bitcoins for all of us. |
|
|
|
Why should people with little to nothing be allowed to vote away and steal the property of others?
Why would you like to remove yourself from the voting pool? I mean, you cannot vote right now but when you finally are old enough to do so you're free to not do it. You don't need any legislation to stop you. That's not the principle I am arguing for. I only want the law to stop allowing others to take property to only use for their own irrational self-interest. A good portion of the voting populace has nothing to lose from stealing through democratic means because they have no significant property that needs protection under the law. Property owners do. If the voting pool was left to only property owners, it would be against their self-interest to steal because it would mean their property would be stolen. Preventing me from voting is moot. It doesn't solve the issue at hand. It's not an individual one but a societal one dealing with property rights. If I were to ever gain significant property, I wouldn't want it to be voted away by other people and that does not include only myself. Again, your point is moot and irrelevant. |
|
|
|
I donated .788 BTC. You're the man, Evor.
Thanks!! Ron Paul told me he really appreciates it  Try to get Ron Paul at BitCon if you aren't joking. : P |
|
|
|
|
Mr. Coins has earned my respect. Failure, success, you have my admiration. Keep standing your ground.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
