Bitcoin Forum
December 04, 2016, 08:26:42 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: $50,000 Loans that Don't Have to be Repaid  (Read 8888 times)
CNMOH
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56



View Profile
July 01, 2011, 11:42:59 PM
 #21

When I'm in trouble, I use insurance. Again, something I signed
for instead of having it shoved down my throat without having
been asked.

Are you some sort of commie ?
Good for you. Insurance is not an option for everyone, like those under the poverty line. But only the rich should be allowed to live, right? Everyone else is just trash.
Even if you can afford insurance, a lot of people choose not to do so because they believe that catastrophic things never happen to them. But then it does. Should a person be deprived of their right to live just because they were naive?

And yes, yes I am.

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480883202
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480883202

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480883202
Reply with quote  #2

1480883202
Report to moderator
1480883202
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480883202

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480883202
Reply with quote  #2

1480883202
Report to moderator
1480883202
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480883202

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480883202
Reply with quote  #2

1480883202
Report to moderator
Anonymous
Guest

July 01, 2011, 11:43:08 PM
 #22

So, you believe in the right of slavery -- the right to enslave others to feed, shelter and sustain others that are deemed worthy by the slaver. How humanitarian.
I do not.

Let me clarify; as I said earlier, I do NOT support the existence of the state. I believe it should be a choice to participate in a socialized society, but if you choose not to participate, you will not receive any of the benefits. This means two different societies are necessary: the socialized, and the non-socialized. That way, both can get what they want. Those who want to live by objectivistic ideals can do so. Those who want to live by socialist ideals can do so. In a society with no state, there would be no "slaver".

Of course, this is very idealistic and is not likely to happen in the near future. Therefore I am willing to accept the state, for now.

You're using very strong words, though. It is true that everyone is forced to participate, but everyone is still paid for their labor, and everyone benefits from a socialized society (although some more than others)

No, I am not paid objectively nor fairly. I am paid by the desires of the few and not the actual people. I rather deal with my fellow man face-to-face.

In addition, I hope you enjoy watching all the producers in your socialized society move to the free state.
Anonymous
Guest

July 01, 2011, 11:44:03 PM
 #23

When I'm in trouble, I use insurance. Again, something I signed
for instead of having it shoved down my throat without having
been asked.

Are you some sort of commie ?
Good for you. Insurance is not an option for everyone, like those under the poverty line. But only the rich should be allowed to live, right? Everyone else is just trash.
Even if you can afford insurance, a lot of people choose not to do so because they believe that catastrophic things never happen to them. But then it does. Should a person be deprived of their right to live just because they were naive?

And yes, yes I am.

You have the right to sustain yourself. You do not have the right to live on the lives of others. In addition, in a efficient society based on fair exchange, the poor would be much better off. The people who actually want to see these people live will be able to more effectively accomplish their goals.
asdf
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 527


View Profile
July 01, 2011, 11:44:30 PM
 #24

Uh, so it's all fine and dandy to steal my money, then you can help me out when it's convenient?

FUCK YOU, PARASITE! There's no other way to say it. You have no respect for man! You only have respect when its convenient for your whims and desires!
Parasite, eh? The buzzword of objectivists, nothing more. I have respect for human rights. I respect the human right to food and shelter, the human right to live. Should the common man be punished for the failure of capitalism? No.

Sure you have a right to live, but you don't have any rights that impose obligations on others.

Illustration:
You sit on your ass all day and produce no goods or services that society needs or wants, but you have a right to food and shelter. Where does this food and shelter come from? You're hard working, productive peers are obliged to give it to you through the force of the government. You are a parasite.
Jack of Diamonds
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252



View Profile
July 01, 2011, 11:45:30 PM
 #25

be happy you're in america. you don't want to know how much of our money in germany goes to some real parasites. you wouldn't want to pay $2.20/ltr gasoline, of which $0.95 is energy taxes and another $0.20 vat, either. you wouldn't want energy prices of about 35c/kWh. just be happy to be able to help your neighbors who actually pay taxes.
I'll help my neighbors by my own accord. I need no man to tell me who and how I should help with the fruits of my own labor. I am still being coerced which is not an acceptable compromise. I am either entitled to myself or a slave.

How do you physically prevent a group of 50 people with assault rifles from stealing the fruits of your labor just because they're stronger than you?

All I'm saying is, I'll be first to admit I can't do shit against looters on my own even if I had guns. Doesn't have to be the apocalypse, just something like hurricane Katrina in New Orleans a few years ago.

The only thing keeping people from banding together and looting every home and village, is the fact there are heavily armed police officers within a 10 mile radius of my house. That's reality.

If you don't believe it, go to Congo or Somalia. The state barely exists there. Only the warlord with the most physical force gets to decide anything.
Poorest states in the world, most rapes and robberies, living hell on Earth.

1f3gHNoBodYw1LLs3ndY0UanYB1tC0lnsBec4USeYoU9AREaCH34PBeGgAR67fx
CNMOH
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56



View Profile
July 01, 2011, 11:45:50 PM
 #26

No, I am not paid objectively nor fairly. I am paid by the desires of the few and not the actual people. I rather deal with my fellow man face-to-face.

In addition, I hope you enjoy watching all the producers in your socialized society move to the free state.
Even producers enjoy security and integrity.

asdf
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 527


View Profile
July 01, 2011, 11:47:34 PM
 #27

When I'm in trouble, I use insurance. Again, something I signed
for instead of having it shoved down my throat without having
been asked.

Are you some sort of commie ?
Good for you. Insurance is not an option for everyone, like those under the poverty line. But only the rich should be allowed to live, right? Everyone else is just trash.
Even if you can afford insurance, a lot of people choose not to do so because they believe that catastrophic things never happen to them. But then it does. Should a person be deprived of their right to live just because they were naive?

And yes, yes I am.

The "poverty line" would be allot higher if the government wasn't arbitrarily redistributing wealth, stifling economic growth.
Anonymous
Guest

July 01, 2011, 11:48:01 PM
 #28

No, I am not paid objectively nor fairly. I am paid by the desires of the few and not the actual people. I rather deal with my fellow man face-to-face.

In addition, I hope you enjoy watching all the producers in your socialized society move to the free state.
Even producers enjoy security and integrity.
Yes, that's why they will leave where they won't be subject to inefficient, one-size-fits-all security but a place that has an extensive selection in security companies that can actually fail if they fail to provide quality service.
CNMOH
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56



View Profile
July 01, 2011, 11:49:28 PM
 #29

You have the right to sustain yourself. You do not have the right to live on the lives of others. In addition, in a efficient society based on fair exchange, the poor would be much better off. The people who actually want to see these people live will be able to more effectively accomplish their goals.
So you say. But if a person is starving, what do you believe should be society's course of action? Just let him starve, and hope someone is charitable enough to voluntarily help him?

Sure you have a right to live, but you don't have any rights that impose obligations on others.

Illustration:
You sit on your ass all day and produce no goods or services that society needs or wants, but you have a right to food and shelter. Where does this food and shelter come from? You're hard working, productive peers are obliged to give it to you through the force of the government. You are a parasite.
Does this include people who truly, honestly are trying as hard as they can to find a job, but are unable because there is simply not enough demand for labor? Does it include the sick and disabled, who are unable to work? Are they parasites, who should be left to die?

Anonymous
Guest

July 01, 2011, 11:50:49 PM
 #30

be happy you're in america. you don't want to know how much of our money in germany goes to some real parasites. you wouldn't want to pay $2.20/ltr gasoline, of which $0.95 is energy taxes and another $0.20 vat, either. you wouldn't want energy prices of about 35c/kWh. just be happy to be able to help your neighbors who actually pay taxes.
I'll help my neighbors by my own accord. I need no man to tell me who and how I should help with the fruits of my own labor. I am still being coerced which is not an acceptable compromise. I am either entitled to myself or a slave.

How do you physically prevent a group of 50 people with assault rifles from stealing the fruits of your labor just because they're stronger than you?

All I'm saying is, I'll be first to admit I can't do shit against looters on my own even if I had guns. Doesn't have to be the apocalypse, just something like hurricane Katrina in New Orleans a few years ago.

The only thing keeping people from banding together and looting every home and village, is the fact there are heavily armed police officers within a 10 mile radius of my house. That's reality.

If you don't believe it, go to Congo or Somalia. The state barely exists there. Only the warlord with the most physical force gets to decide anything.
Poorest states in the world, most rapes and robberies, living hell on Earth.
Somalia is still subject to state force. The fighting that only occurs is over people trying to establish a monopoly on force. It's a living hell because of its previous tyranny.

If a force of 50 people can easily be started up, I will be just as able to form my own force. Heck, my neighbors probably value my service to the community, so they will help me out with their arms. If not, I could hire another force. If I can't afford to hire them, I probably don't have anything valuable to protect.
SgtSpike
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344



View Profile
July 01, 2011, 11:51:28 PM
 #31

Man, I need to work on getting behind on my mortgage then!  Can barely pay it every month, but since I manage to be responsible for keeping a roof over my head, I don't get any kind of help whatsoever...  Maybe if I just fruitlessly waste my money, or just quit my job, I can get behind on my mortgate and have the government start paying for everything for me.

The socialistic attitude in this country just makes me sick.
Anonymous
Guest

July 01, 2011, 11:52:28 PM
 #32

You have the right to sustain yourself. You do not have the right to live on the lives of others. In addition, in a efficient society based on fair exchange, the poor would be much better off. The people who actually want to see these people live will be able to more effectively accomplish their goals.
So you say. But if a person is starving, what do you believe should be society's course of action? Just let him starve, and hope someone is charitable enough to voluntarily help him?
Yes. because people will come to help him. I will certainly feel obliged to help. Human empathy is a powerful instinct.
Anonymous
Guest

July 01, 2011, 11:53:57 PM
 #33

Also, there is always enough demand for labor unless there are artificial restrictions on labor.
nebiki
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
July 01, 2011, 11:54:04 PM
 #34

be happy you're in america. you don't want to know how much of our money in germany goes to some real parasites. you wouldn't want to pay $2.20/ltr gasoline, of which $0.95 is energy taxes and another $0.20 vat, either. you wouldn't want energy prices of about 35c/kWh. just be happy to be able to help your neighbors who actually pay taxes.
I'll help my neighbors by my own accord. I need no man to tell me who and how I should help with the fruits of my own labor. I am still being coerced which is not an acceptable compromise. I am either entitled to myself or a slave.

How do you physically prevent a group of 50 people with assault rifles from stealing the fruits of your labor just because they're stronger than you?

All I'm saying is, I'll be first to admit I can't do shit against looters on my own even if I had guns. Doesn't have to be the apocalypse, just something like hurricane Katrina in New Orleans a few years ago.

The only thing keeping people from banding together and looting every home and village, is the fact there are heavily armed police officers within a 10 mile radius of my house. That's reality.

If you don't believe it, go to Congo or Somalia. The state barely exists there. Only the warlord with the most physical force gets to decide anything.
Poorest states in the world, most rapes and robberies, living hell on Earth.
Somalia is still subject to state force. The fighting that only occurs is over people trying to establish a monopoly on force. It's a living hell because of its previous tyranny.

If a force of 50 people can easily be started up, I will be just as able to form my own force. Heck, my neighbors probably value my service to the community, so they will help me out with their arms. If not, I could hire another force. If I can't afford to hire them, I probably don't have anything valuable to protect.

wow, americans are some aggressive folk. you're only talking about violence :< there have been some philosophers who thought a lot about humanity already, i'd go reading their thoughts and stop discussing this for now.

1DWttUPMiDL1ou64SoUriZ29bxdoChjPns
CNMOH
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56



View Profile
July 01, 2011, 11:55:16 PM
 #35

Yes. because people will come to help him. I will certainly feel obliged to help. Human empathy is a powerful instinct.
You will? Does that not go against your objectivist ideals? You believe that the meaning of life is the pursuit of one's own happiness, yes? How would this action benefit you?

Anonymous
Guest

July 01, 2011, 11:57:10 PM
 #36

Yes. because people will come to help him. I will certainly feel obliged to help. Human empathy is a powerful instinct.
You will? Does that not go against your objectivist ideals? You believe that the meaning of life is the pursuit of one's own happiness, yes? How would this action benefit you?
I derive value from people just being inherently human. They share my same struggles and perception. Preserving another man pays for itself in my perception. I can imagine most people having the same value.
Anonymous
Guest

July 01, 2011, 11:58:13 PM
 #37

be happy you're in america. you don't want to know how much of our money in germany goes to some real parasites. you wouldn't want to pay $2.20/ltr gasoline, of which $0.95 is energy taxes and another $0.20 vat, either. you wouldn't want energy prices of about 35c/kWh. just be happy to be able to help your neighbors who actually pay taxes.
I'll help my neighbors by my own accord. I need no man to tell me who and how I should help with the fruits of my own labor. I am still being coerced which is not an acceptable compromise. I am either entitled to myself or a slave.

How do you physically prevent a group of 50 people with assault rifles from stealing the fruits of your labor just because they're stronger than you?

All I'm saying is, I'll be first to admit I can't do shit against looters on my own even if I had guns. Doesn't have to be the apocalypse, just something like hurricane Katrina in New Orleans a few years ago.

The only thing keeping people from banding together and looting every home and village, is the fact there are heavily armed police officers within a 10 mile radius of my house. That's reality.

If you don't believe it, go to Congo or Somalia. The state barely exists there. Only the warlord with the most physical force gets to decide anything.
Poorest states in the world, most rapes and robberies, living hell on Earth.
Somalia is still subject to state force. The fighting that only occurs is over people trying to establish a monopoly on force. It's a living hell because of its previous tyranny.

If a force of 50 people can easily be started up, I will be just as able to form my own force. Heck, my neighbors probably value my service to the community, so they will help me out with their arms. If not, I could hire another force. If I can't afford to hire them, I probably don't have anything valuable to protect.

wow, americans are some aggressive folk. you're only talking about violence :< there have been some philosophers who thought a lot about humanity already, i'd go reading their thoughts and stop discussing this for now.

The thing is there would be no violence. It would be at a stand-off. It wouldn't be profitable for the agressing party to steal my crap. Too much potential loss.
benjamindees
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288


View Profile
July 02, 2011, 12:05:57 AM
 #38

And, just to get this thread back on the rails, we're not talking about people who are poor and starving.

We're talking about people who 1) own houses and 2) whose mortgages are at least $50,000 in the red.

Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics
asdf
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 527


View Profile
July 02, 2011, 12:08:52 AM
 #39

Sure you have a right to live, but you don't have any rights that impose obligations on others.

Illustration:
You sit on your ass all day and produce no goods or services that society needs or wants, but you have a right to food and shelter. Where does this food and shelter come from? You're hard working, productive peers are obliged to give it to you through the force of the government. You are a parasite.
Does this include people who truly, honestly are trying as hard as they can to find a job, but are unable because there is simply not enough demand for labor? Does it include the sick and disabled, who are unable to work? Are they parasites, who should be left to die?

Look, your problem is that you think the state is the solution to the problem of the poor and sick. I reality, all measures the state takes to help them actually creates more poverty. You don't understand how a free capitalist society produces wealth and, ironically, advocate policies which destroy wealth with the goal of eliminating poverty.

No, this person should not be left to die, but forcing people to pay a bureaucracy to institute some incredibly inefficient welfare program to help them is a terrible solution. People in a free productive society will help these poor on their own, without state coercion.

What to you believe, that if not forced, no one will help the poor? or do you believe that there are people who will allocate some of their disposable income to the needy? If the former, that implies that no one actually gives a shit, in which case, who give a shit. if the latter, then there is no need for coercion. which is it? you can't have it both ways.
Anonymous
Guest

July 02, 2011, 12:11:02 AM
 #40

Sure you have a right to live, but you don't have any rights that impose obligations on others.

Illustration:
You sit on your ass all day and produce no goods or services that society needs or wants, but you have a right to food and shelter. Where does this food and shelter come from? You're hard working, productive peers are obliged to give it to you through the force of the government. You are a parasite.
Does this include people who truly, honestly are trying as hard as they can to find a job, but are unable because there is simply not enough demand for labor? Does it include the sick and disabled, who are unable to work? Are they parasites, who should be left to die?
If the former, that implies that no one actually gives a shit, in which case, who give a shit. if the latter, then there is no need for coercion. which is it? you can't have it both ways.
+1 This thread is done.
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!