Mother of 15 Kids: “Somebody needs to pay for all my children."

[ALPHA.]

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/unbelievable-mother-of-15-kids-somebody-needs-to-pay-somebody-needs-to-be-held-accountable_12012011

“Somebody needs to pay for all my children and my – for all my suffering. Somebody needs to be held accountable, and they need to pay.”

ಠ_ಠ Yes, somebody needs to be enslaved to pay for YOUR CHOICES.

[Gabi]

Children cannot be held responsible for parents choice. Not their fault their parents are idiot.

[ALPHA.]

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.

[JA37]

Start locating the father/s. They should pay for their offspring.

[Vandroiy]

It's okay Alpha, we all know it's going to destabilize.

This is the Bitcoin forum. No bail-outs, no charge-backs, no way back if you get hacked. We prepare to live by hard rules and build on them. If you want to warn people of what's ahead... I guess this forum doesn't really need the warning.

What I find strange is that the topic is shunned in many places. People like to say it's possible to support everyone under all circumstances, but they mostly mean to support selected people in rich countries only, leaving the rest to die. To me, personally, there is no reason to support children in the USA or Europe any more than those in Sudan, Zimbabwe or wherever. And that means we require an idea how to solve things globally. Piling debt to delay a collapse is no valid strategy.

Game theory is brutal, it will eliminate the entire setup within few generations.

[boonies4u]

If she believes that the state is responsible because her husband was mistreated by the state regarding his arrest I would understand the part where she says that someone should be accountable.

I'm having a hard time picturing her and her husband (who we know so little about) raising these 15 children. I suppose that she was a full time mom, so she didn't have time to earn an income beyond what the husband brought home.

I guess the question to you Alpha, is... What do you do with the children if she can't take care of them?

It's okay Alpha, we all know it's going to destabilize.

This is the Bitcoin forum. No bail-outs, no charge-backs, no way back if you get hacked. We prepare to live by hard rules and build on them. If you want to warn people of what's ahead... I guess this forum doesn't really need the warning.

What I find strange is that the topic is shunned in many places. People like to say it's possible to support everyone under all circumstances, but they mostly mean to support selected people in rich countries only, leaving the rest to die. To me, personally, there is no reason to support children in the USA or Europe any more than those in Sudan, Zimbabwe or wherever. And that means we require an idea how to solve things globally. Piling debt to delay a collapse is no valid strategy.

Game theory is brutal, it will eliminate the entire setup within few generations.

If a dollar a day will help a child in Africa, couldn't it help a child in North America?

[rainingbitcoins]

Slavery is freedom and taxes are slavery.

If I say this dumb shit in literally every post I make, it will come true.

P.S. I have never actually paid taxes

[rainingbitcoins]

I guess the question to you Alpha, is... What do you do with the children if she can't take care of them?

They die, of course. People have been dying for thousands of years. You think people back in prehistoric times complained about dying? Hell no! So what's the big deal?

[ineededausername]

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.

[ALPHA.]

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.

[rainingbitcoins]

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.

[ALPHA.]

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.

[rainingbitcoins]

What the fuck are you talking about? Just because you attempt to write like the poor man's version of a wordy 19th century author doesn't mean you have any sympathy for an actual poor man, and neither does it disguise the fact that you harbor nothing but contempt for him.

You have a clear double standard, a great example of which I pointed out in your thread about drunk driving, but you decided to ignore that post and then stopped posting in the thread once I asked you why you were ignoring it.

[Matthew N. Wright]

What the fuck are you talking about? Just because you attempt to write like the poor man's version of a wordy 19th century author doesn't mean you have any sympathy for an actual poor man, and neither does it disguise the fact that you harbor nothing but contempt for him.

You have a clear double standard, a great example of which I pointed out in your thread about drunk driving, but you decided to ignore that post and then stopped posting in the thread once I asked you why you were ignoring it.

Double standard indeed. Have you ever known someone that made you jump through hoops, call for, email for, and finally register a company just to claim a 'gift'?

[ALPHA.]

It's funny how all the friends I have that live in double-wide trailers are Libertarians.

[ineededausername]

One of the most peculiar things I have encountered is the concept of morality.  Everyone has their own version, yet everyone thinks everyone else should agree with them on the fundamentals.  I eventually realized, after pondering the subject for a little bit, that morality is subjective in the extreme.  Where do your rights come from?  Did the flying spaghetti monster come down from the sky and give them to you?  Why should I recognize your rights?  Indeed, why should a system of morals be consistent at all?  Morality is what you think is fair.  

Morality comes from your conscience, which comes from evolution.  It isn't meant to be rational.
To me, coercion is justified in these circumstances, because I believe in fairness of opportunity.  To you, Atlas, it is not, because you believe in a set of fundamental rights.  Still others, such as Marxists and socialists, believe in equality of outcomes.  

And you know what?  We can debate all night long but in the end neither of us is right.  We're merely talking past each other.

[ALPHA.]

http://coffeeforclosers.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/might_is_right_lg.gif

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.

[Matthew N. Wright]

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.

Atlas, you could killed so easily. You're a loud mouthed high school kid that posts his personal information on the internet. Does that mean that the killer is more 'fit' than you, or that you're not 'fit' enough to live?

You want to live in peace, you need to sacrifice. You don't want peace. Why don't you just get it over with an assassinate someone like you're going to do in a few years anyway.

[ALPHA.]

I have yet to be killed; I am still winning.

[rainingbitcoins]

It's funny how all the friends I have that live in double-wide trailers are Libertarians.

No, it's not funny, just sad that people can be so easily misled into supporting things that would make their current standard of living objectively worse.

And of course, it doesn't really help with trying to dodge my point for the third or fourth time, but then we all know you don't argue very honestly.

I have yet to be killed; I am still winning.

You don't deserve to die. You deserve to live as a wage slave in a libertarian dystopia for another 60 or 70 years and then drop dead on the eve of your first day off from work in a decade.

[ALPHA.]

I have yet to be killed; I am still winning.

You don't deserve to die. You deserve to live as a wage slave in a libertarian dystopia for another 60 or 70 years and then drop dead on the eve of your first day off from work in a decade.

Heh, no worker would oblige to such conditions. Maybe in North Korea where there is no choice.

[rainingbitcoins]

He would if the choice was between that, a dozen other jobs exactly like that, or starving to death. We know this because it has actually happened, unlike your fairytale capitalism that could never exist. But hey, at least he had a choice! That's freedom, baby! I can choose to die in the coal mines or the salt mines!

[ALPHA.]

He would if the choice was between that, a dozen other jobs exactly like that, or starving to death. We know this because it has actually happened, unlike your fairytale capitalism that could never exist. But hey, at least he had a choice! That's freedom, baby! I can choose to die in the coal mines or the salt mines!

It's irrational to assume this would happen in a free society. Obviously nobody likes working in such places. The only people who would are those with no valuable skills. Of course, after working, in say, a salt mine for a year or two one would then gain the skills to move up: the individual gained value and is thus more desirable. Anybody could desire him whether it be an individual with capital or a company. Obviously not everybody would start at the bottom rung of the latter.

I honestly don't see anything wrong with starting out with a crappy job and working your way up. That's what most factory workers do in India: they work for a period or two then save up to start their own business. To me that is freedom.

[rainingbitcoins]

Oh look, another example of capitalism working out wonderfully in theory even though it repeatedly fails in the real world. Why don't you ask some of those early 20th century American coal miners how easy it was for them to work their way up to management or save up enough to start a business and listen to them laugh their asses off (well, I mean, if they hadn't died of black lung 70 years ago).

I notice, too, that the DUI thing continues to go unanswered, so I'll just assume that you're the type of person who likes to ignore his own blatantly contradictory beliefs rather than try to confront them and figure out why they conflict. A hardline, uncompromising ideology is always more important than logic and common sense, right?

[FreeMoney]

Start locating the father/s.

You volunteering? Or planning on making someone else pay for that search?

[FreeMoney]

Oh look, another example of capitalism working out wonderfully in theory even though it repeatedly fails in the real world. Why don't you ask some of those early 20th century American coal miners how easy it was for them to work their way up to management or save up enough to start a business and listen to them laugh their asses off (well, I mean, if they hadn't died of black lung 70 years ago).

I notice, too, that the DUI thing continues to go unanswered, so I'll just assume that you're the type of person who likes to ignore his own blatantly contradictory beliefs rather than try to confront them and figure out why they conflict. A hardline, uncompromising ideology is always more important than logic and common sense, right?

Oh oh oh look at all this capitalism. Yum, can someone pass the permits with a side of going to jail for selling lemonade? Also, tax and restrictions for desert please.

[rainingbitcoins]

My apologies. Since we don't have the One True Capitalism yet, every instance of profit-seeking businesses acting unethically in the pursuit of profit is obviously the government's fault because _________.  And getting rid of laws that prevent businesses from killing their workers and customers would actually make them more ethical. Got it. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Save your annual Little Girl Gets Fined For Running a Lemonade Stand news story for the cheesy human interest story section of the paper, please.

[SgtSpike]

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.

I'd have to agree with ALPHA on this one.  Why is it right to force other people to work so that more people can live?

And if we are forcing other people to work so that more people can live, where do we draw the line on life or death?  If it costs $10 to keep a person alive, do we force people to do it?  What about $10,000?  What about for $10,000,000?  At some point, we will have enslaved ourselves entirely to the diminishing returns of saving people's lives.  But shouldn't saving lives be optional in the first place?  And if not, who decides who lives and who dies?  It's a scary place to be when the government is dictating those choices for us.

[JA37]

Start locating the father/s.

You volunteering? Or planning on making someone else pay for that search?

Well, either the father/s pays, or the state pays. The children shouldn't suffer.
Would you prefer to pay for the search or for the well-being of the children?

[rainingbitcoins]

I'd have to agree with ALPHA on this one.  Why is it right to force other people to work so that more people can live?

And if we are forcing other people to work so that more people can live, where do we draw the line on life or death?  If it costs $10 to keep a person alive, do we force people to do it?  What about $10,000?  What about for $10,000,000?  At some point, we will have enslaved ourselves entirely to the diminishing returns of saving people's lives.  But shouldn't saving lives be optional in the first place?  And if not, who decides who lives and who dies?  It's a scary place to be when the government is dictating those choices for us.

These questions require some effort and cost/benefit analysis, which is hard. Therefore, we should just let them all die.

In libertarian crazy world, the only thing worse than a government taking lives is a government saving lives.

[SgtSpike]

I'd have to agree with ALPHA on this one.  Why is it right to force other people to work so that more people can live?

And if we are forcing other people to work so that more people can live, where do we draw the line on life or death?  If it costs $10 to keep a person alive, do we force people to do it?  What about $10,000?  What about for $10,000,000?  At some point, we will have enslaved ourselves entirely to the diminishing returns of saving people's lives.  But shouldn't saving lives be optional in the first place?  And if not, who decides who lives and who dies?  It's a scary place to be when the government is dictating those choices for us.

These questions require some effort and cost/benefit analysis, which is hard. Therefore, we should just let them all die.

In libertarian crazy world, the only thing worse than a government taking lives is a government saving lives.

I'm open to suggestions.  I don't think it should be up to a government panel though.  I think it should be up to individuals what lives they want to save.

[crawdaddy]

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.

Your arrangement is just about percents? So, at what point does one become a slave? 50%, 75%, 95%, 99.999999999% ? what then?

[Hawker]

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.

Your arrangement is just about percents? So, at what point does one become a slave? 50%, 75%, 95%, 99.999999999% ? what then?

You missed the point.  There are real slaves.  There are people who pay income tax.  Its sad to see people pretending they are slaves because they pay income tax.

[Gabi]

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.

But the children are more valuable than you.

They have a higher potential than you, they can become important scientists or what else, so it's in the interest of the nation to help them.

[ALPHA.]

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.

But the children are more valuable than you.

They have a higher potential than you, they can become important scientists or what else, so it's in the interest of the nation to help them.

No, you value the children more than me. It's not in the interest of the nation to help them. A nation does not think, feel... It is not a sentient organism -- you are. It is in YOUR interest to help them and YOU want to steal for me to meet YOUR DESIRE: to help the children.

[ineededausername]

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.

But the children are more valuable than you.

They have a higher potential than you, they can become important scientists or what else, so it's in the interest of the nation to help them.

No, you value the children more than me. It's not in the interest of the nation to help them. A nation does not think, feel... It is not a sentient organism -- you are. It is in YOUR interest to help them and YOU want to steal for me to meet YOUR DESIRE: to help the children.

Why is theft bad? Good luck arguing that point.

[ALPHA.]

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.

Your arrangement is just about percents? So, at what point does one become a slave? 50%, 75%, 95%, 99.999999999% ? what then?

You missed the point.  There are real slaves.  There are people who pay income tax.  Its sad to see people pretending they are slaves because they pay income tax.

A real slave has little to no say in how much of his labor he can keep. An income tax sounds the same as slavery to me: a limitation of choice by an external force.  

[ALPHA.]

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.

But the children are more valuable than you.

They have a higher potential than you, they can become important scientists or what else, so it's in the interest of the nation to help them.

No, you value the children more than me. It's not in the interest of the nation to help them. A nation does not think, feel... It is not a sentient organism -- you are. It is in YOUR interest to help them and YOU want to steal for me to meet YOUR DESIRE: to help the children.

Why is theft bad? Good luck arguing that point.

Property rights encourage the sustention of life by giving incentive for production.

Go read some Nietzsche. This is basic philosophy here, friend. There's nothing original here. There is no morality, no meaning...  nothing intrinsic... Yes, we know. Truisms. We're discussing preferences. Go ahead and go nihilistic on us but it proves nothing extraordinary.

We all prefer life. We are discussing the means to meet that end.

[Gabi]

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.

But the children are more valuable than you.

They have a higher potential than you, they can become important scientists or what else, so it's in the interest of the nation to help them.

No, you value the children more than me. It's not in the interest of the nation to help them. A nation does not think, feel... It is not a sentient organism -- you are. It is in YOUR interest to help them and YOU want to steal for me to meet YOUR DESIRE: to help the children.

It is a fact that they have more potential than an adult person.

[ALPHA.]

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.

But the children are more valuable than you.

They have a higher potential than you, they can become important scientists or what else, so it's in the interest of the nation to help them.

No, you value the children more than me. It's not in the interest of the nation to help them. A nation does not think, feel... It is not a sentient organism -- you are. It is in YOUR interest to help them and YOU want to steal for me to meet YOUR DESIRE: to help the children.

It is a fact that they have more potential than an adult person.

It doesn't matter. Only an individual can value that in the end. You do and you want to steal/hurt/kill to meet this desire of yours. I certainly don't care if a child may have more potential than me. I won't commit suicide or inhibit the ability to sustain myself or somebody else to help the child.

[Hawker]

http://nation.foxnews.com/homelessness/2011/12/01/homeless-lady-15-kids-somebody-needs-pay-all-my-children

Seriously, she got locked up for swearing in front of a child?  Her husband got arrested because there may have been a child in the room when they were having sex and is still awaiting trial?  As a result, she is left homeless and is arrested again on suspicion that she might have had sex with another man?  What kind of crazy system is that?

[ineededausername]

http://nation.foxnews.com/homelessness/2011/12/01/homeless-lady-15-kids-somebody-needs-pay-all-my-children

Seriously, she got locked up for swearing in front of a child?  Her husband got arrested because there may have been a child in the room when they were having sex and is still awaiting trial?  As a result, she is left homeless and is arrested again on suspicion that she might have had sex with another man?  What kind of crazy system is that?

Oh wow, that's pretty fucked-up.

[ALPHA.]

I'm glad she no longer has custody of the children. I'm glad people don't want her to have any more children.

[Hawker]

I'm glad she no longer has custody of the children. I'm glad people don't want her to have any more children.

Suddenly seeing why the state might have its place in child protection?

[ineededausername]

I'm glad she no longer has custody of the children. I'm glad people don't want her to have any more children.

Suddenly seeing why the state might have its place in child protection?

Atlas sees the light!
Of course, he will defend to his death the mother's right to be free from coercion and to keep her children, probably.

[ALPHA.]

I'm glad she no longer has custody of the children. I'm glad people don't want her to have any more children.

Suddenly seeing why the state might have its place in child protection?

Nope. The state isn't the only one capable of providing such services. People provide services and they do so because they desire to do so. People obviously desire children to be care for: It's human instinct. They will be cared for regardless of a tyrannical state.

[ALPHA.]

I'm glad she no longer has custody of the children. I'm glad people don't want her to have any more children.

Suddenly seeing why the state might have its place in child protection?

Atlas sees the light!
Of course, he will defend to his death the mother's right to be free from coercion and to keep her children, probably.

The mother has the right to herself as long she doesn't infringe the rights of other individuals: the children and the slaves of the state.

[cbeast]

I'm glad she no longer has custody of the children. I'm glad people don't want her to have any more children.

Suddenly seeing why the state might have its place in child protection?

Nope. The state isn't the only one capable of providing such services. People provide services and they do so because they desire to do so. People obviously desire children to be care for: It's human instinct. They will be cared for regardless of a tyrannical state.

Even Thomas Jefferson realized that this is not so when he proposed the General Welfare clause “to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare .”

[ALPHA.]

I'm glad she no longer has custody of the children. I'm glad people don't want her to have any more children.

Suddenly seeing why the state might have its place in child protection?

Nope. The state isn't the only one capable of providing such services. People provide services and they do so because they desire to do so. People obviously desire children to be care for: It's human instinct. They will be cared for regardless of a tyrannical state.

Even Thomas Jefferson realized that this is not so when he proposed the General Welfare clause “to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare .”

Thomas Jefferson is rolling in his grave. It only means to act within the powers that are enumerated within the constitution: that doesn't include coercive, involuntary welfare. So, Thomas Jefferson had no such thoughts in regards to voluntary charity. Hopefully he doesn't kill you in your sleep.

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148

[Explodicle]

Regarding the "children have potential" argument - what about the kids with little chance of significant contribution, like those born with severe mental disabilities?

This should be about children's rights, not expected futures. Children have enough to deal with without feeling indebted to society for existing.

[ALPHA.]

Regarding the "children have potential" argument - what about the kids with little chance of significant contribution, like those born with severe mental disabilities?

This should be about children's rights, not expected futures. Children have enough to deal with without feeling indebted to society for existing.

You are not the only one that cares for them. What about them? Those who want to care for them, should do so. It's very simple.

If you want something, it doesn't mean you are entitled to steal and enslave to get it.

[deuxmill]

Regarding the "children have potential" argument - what about the kids with little chance of significant contribution, like those born with severe mental disabilities?

This should be about children's rights, not expected futures. Children have enough to deal with without feeling indebted to society for existing.

Children are humans. They are not different. And they are not in dept to anyone , and none owes  them nothing.
That means we should help all children but not forced to.

[cbeast]

We should all take personal responsibility for the children in our community. If you are not a parent, then at least do something directly to be involved with helping children become a part of the community. I have little respect for any older adult that lived selfishly and did nothing significant to help children. I would not enter into any serious business venture with such a person because I simply would not trust someone that lives that way.

[deuxmill]

We should all take personal responsibility for the children in our community. If you are not a parent, then at least do something directly to be involved with helping children become a part of the community. I have little respect for any older adult that lived selfishly and did nothing significant to help children. I would not enter into any serious business venture with such a person because I simply would not trust someone that lives that way.

See no need for slavery.

[cbeast]

See no need for slavery.

No worries, mate. Slavery has been abolished for centuries in most regions.

[Explodicle]

Regarding the "children have potential" argument - what about the kids with little chance of significant contribution, like those born with severe mental disabilities?

This should be about children's rights, not expected futures. Children have enough to deal with without feeling indebted to society for existing.

Children are humans. They are not different. And they are not in dept to anyone , and none owes  them nothing.
That means we should help all children but not forced to.

I generally agree. The area where I think we may differ is whether or not taking away the child's right to move freely by privatizing land justifies reimbursement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_dividend

You guys sensationalize "X is theft, Y is SLAVERY" all the time, and then justify stealing from every child born too late to claim scarce resources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!

So yeah, we all do owe something to children. They are entitled to their share of this planet we all got for free.

[Hawker]

I'm glad she no longer has custody of the children. I'm glad people don't want her to have any more children.

Suddenly seeing why the state might have its place in child protection?

Nope. The state isn't the only one capable of providing such services. People provide services and they do so because they desire to do so. People obviously desire children to be care for: It's human instinct. They will be cared for regardless of a tyrannical state.

Only the state can forcibly take the children away from her.  Unless you are proposing a free for all in which anyone can snatch a child ?

[ALPHA.]

I'm glad she no longer has custody of the children. I'm glad people don't want her to have any more children.

Suddenly seeing why the state might have its place in child protection?

Nope. The state isn't the only one capable of providing such services. People provide services and they do so because they desire to do so. People obviously desire children to be care for: It's human instinct. They will be cared for regardless of a tyrannical state.

Only the state can forcibly take the children away from her.  Unless you are proposing a free for all in which anyone can snatch a child ?

Heh, there will never be a free-for-all where anybody can snatch a child. In the end, it will be the strongest desire of the people. People do not want undeterred child abductions.

[Hawker]

I'm glad she no longer has custody of the children. I'm glad people don't want her to have any more children.

Suddenly seeing why the state might have its place in child protection?

Nope. The state isn't the only one capable of providing such services. People provide services and they do so because they desire to do so. People obviously desire children to be care for: It's human instinct. They will be cared for regardless of a tyrannical state.

Only the state can forcibly take the children away from her.  Unless you are proposing a free for all in which anyone can snatch a child ?

Heh, there will never be a free-for-all where anybody can snatch a child. In the end, it will be the strongest desire of the people. People do not want undeterred child abductions.

The strongest desire of the people is that social services are provided for children such as these.  Part of that if forcibly taking the children from the family.  Only the state can authorise that.

[ALPHA.]

I'm glad she no longer has custody of the children. I'm glad people don't want her to have any more children.

Suddenly seeing why the state might have its place in child protection?

Nope. The state isn't the only one capable of providing such services. People provide services and they do so because they desire to do so. People obviously desire children to be care for: It's human instinct. They will be cared for regardless of a tyrannical state.

Only the state can forcibly take the children away from her.  Unless you are proposing a free for all in which anyone can snatch a child ?

Heh, there will never be a free-for-all where anybody can snatch a child. In the end, it will be the strongest desire of the people. People do not want undeterred child abductions.

The strongest desire of the people is that social services are provided for children such as these.  Part of that if forcibly taking the children from the family.  Only the state can authorise that.

It is not the strongest desire of the people. The government is not the people. It only happens to be the power in charge. Anything can happen as long as the might allows it, even revolution.

[Hawker]

I'm glad she no longer has custody of the children. I'm glad people don't want her to have any more children.

Suddenly seeing why the state might have its place in child protection?

Nope. The state isn't the only one capable of providing such services. People provide services and they do so because they desire to do so. People obviously desire children to be care for: It's human instinct. They will be cared for regardless of a tyrannical state.

Only the state can forcibly take the children away from her.  Unless you are proposing a free for all in which anyone can snatch a child ?

Heh, there will never be a free-for-all where anybody can snatch a child. In the end, it will be the strongest desire of the people. People do not want undeterred child abductions.

The strongest desire of the people is that social services are provided for children such as these.  Part of that if forcibly taking the children from the family.  Only the state can authorise that.

It is not the strongest desire of the people. The government is not the people. It only happens to be the power in charge. Anything can happen as long as the might allows it, even revolution.

You are dodging the point.  We are in agreement the children need to be taken into care.  Only the state can do that - you can't be advocating a situation where private individuals can come to someone's house and take their children on their own authority, can you?

[ALPHA.]

I'm glad she no longer has custody of the children. I'm glad people don't want her to have any more children.

Suddenly seeing why the state might have its place in child protection?

Nope. The state isn't the only one capable of providing such services. People provide services and they do so because they desire to do so. People obviously desire children to be care for: It's human instinct. They will be cared for regardless of a tyrannical state.

Only the state can forcibly take the children away from her.  Unless you are proposing a free for all in which anyone can snatch a child ?

Heh, there will never be a free-for-all where anybody can snatch a child. In the end, it will be the strongest desire of the people. People do not want undeterred child abductions.

The strongest desire of the people is that social services are provided for children such as these.  Part of that if forcibly taking the children from the family.  Only the state can authorise that.

It is not the strongest desire of the people. The government is not the people. It only happens to be the power in charge. Anything can happen as long as the might allows it, even revolution.

You are dodging the point.  We are in agreement the children need to be taken into care.  Only the state can do that - you can't be advocating a situation where private individuals can come to someone's house and take their children on their own authority, can you?

Yes, I am, if the general society allows it. I don't think there should be a monopoly on such things. Monopolies are hard to hold accountable.

[Hawker]

I'm glad she no longer has custody of the children. I'm glad people don't want her to have any more children.

Suddenly seeing why the state might have its place in child protection?

Nope. The state isn't the only one capable of providing such services. People provide services and they do so because they desire to do so. People obviously desire children to be care for: It's human instinct. They will be cared for regardless of a tyrannical state.

Only the state can forcibly take the children away from her.  Unless you are proposing a free for all in which anyone can snatch a child ?

Heh, there will never be a free-for-all where anybody can snatch a child. In the end, it will be the strongest desire of the people. People do not want undeterred child abductions.

The strongest desire of the people is that social services are provided for children such as these.  Part of that if forcibly taking the children from the family.  Only the state can authorise that.

It is not the strongest desire of the people. The government is not the people. It only happens to be the power in charge. Anything can happen as long as the might allows it, even revolution.

You are dodging the point.  We are in agreement the children need to be taken into care.  Only the state can do that - you can't be advocating a situation where private individuals can come to someone's house and take their children on their own authority, can you?

Yes, I am, if the general society allows it. I don't think there should be a monopoly on such things. Monopolies are hard to hold accountable.

You are saying that random strangers should be able to take kids from people's homes on their own say so.  And this improves on what we have now how?

[ALPHA.]

I'm glad she no longer has custody of the children. I'm glad people don't want her to have any more children.

Suddenly seeing why the state might have its place in child protection?

Nope. The state isn't the only one capable of providing such services. People provide services and they do so because they desire to do so. People obviously desire children to be care for: It's human instinct. They will be cared for regardless of a tyrannical state.

Only the state can forcibly take the children away from her.  Unless you are proposing a free for all in which anyone can snatch a child ?

Heh, there will never be a free-for-all where anybody can snatch a child. In the end, it will be the strongest desire of the people. People do not want undeterred child abductions.

The strongest desire of the people is that social services are provided for children such as these.  Part of that if forcibly taking the children from the family.  Only the state can authorise that.

It is not the strongest desire of the people. The government is not the people. It only happens to be the power in charge. Anything can happen as long as the might allows it, even revolution.

You are dodging the point.  We are in agreement the children need to be taken into care.  Only the state can do that - you can't be advocating a situation where private individuals can come to someone's house and take their children on their own authority, can you?

Yes, I am, if the general society allows it. I don't think there should be a monopoly on such things. Monopolies are hard to hold accountable.

You are saying that random strangers should be able to take kids from people's homes on their own say so.  And this improves on what we have now how?

Yes because the system can adapt, fail and improve.

[Hawker]

...snip...
You are saying that random strangers should be able to take kids from people's homes on their own say so.  And this improves on what we have now how?

Yes because the system can adapt, fail and improve.

On the first day that its OK for random strangers to take kids on their own say so, a lot of paedophiles will be exhausted.  So many kids and so little Viagra.  Of course you are Ok with this as it allows the system to fail and improve. 

[deuxmill]

Regarding the "children have potential" argument - what about the kids with little chance of significant contribution, like those born with severe mental disabilities?

This should be about children's rights, not expected futures. Children have enough to deal with without feeling indebted to society for existing.

Children are humans. They are not different. And they are not in dept to anyone , and none owes  them nothing.
That means we should help all children but not forced to.

I generally agree. The area where I think we may differ is whether or not taking away the child's right to move freely by privatizing land justifies reimbursement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_dividend

You guys sensationalize "X is theft, Y is SLAVERY" all the time, and then justify stealing from every child born too late to claim scarce resources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!

So yeah, we all do owe something to children. They are entitled to their share of this planet we all got for free.

We got nothing for free . our ancestors fought for supremacy. They were lucky to be given intelligence. Unlike other life forms.

The children received life for free. That doesn't mean they owe something to their parents, the parents should feel in dept to the child because it's their fault the child exists  but if he doesn't ... maybe you should take him but how could you tell if he wants to come with you or not? If you can't, convince the parents to give him away, if they don't want to maybe you should do something .but let me out of it.

If they want property they can inherit it or buy it or fight for it just like we all did. Or maybe you want to give some of your property for free.

Yes property is theft  just as much as eating any life form is murder. So maybe you should stop murdering. I know i won't.

[ALPHA.]

...snip...
You are saying that random strangers should be able to take kids from people's homes on their own say so.  And this improves on what we have now how?

Yes because the system can adapt, fail and improve.

On the first day that its OK for random strangers to take kids on their own say so, a lot of paedophiles will be exhausted.  So many kids and so little Viagra.  Of course you are Ok with this as it allows the system to fail and improve. 

That won't happen. Greater societal forces will overcome any pedophile.

[Hawker]

...snip...
You are saying that random strangers should be able to take kids from people's homes on their own say so.  And this improves on what we have now how?

Yes because the system can adapt, fail and improve.

On the first day that its OK for random strangers to take kids on their own say so, a lot of paedophiles will be exhausted.  So many kids and so little Viagra.  Of course you are Ok with this as it allows the system to fail and improve. 

That won't happen. Greater societal forces will overcome any pedophile.

By magic?  If there is no legal restriction on taking other people's kids, you may find that a little more than magical thinking about "greater societal forces" is needed. 

[deuxmill]

...snip...
You are saying that random strangers should be able to take kids from people's homes on their own say so.  And this improves on what we have now how?

Yes because the system can adapt, fail and improve.

On the first day that its OK for random strangers to take kids on their own say so, a lot of paedophiles will be exhausted.  So many kids and so little Viagra.  Of course you are Ok with this as it allows the system to fail and improve. 

Are you OK with it? NO? Then stop them. Or you don't want to take that responsibility ?

[rainingbitcoins]

I'd love to know how these privatized CPS units (if that's what you're even suggesting - it's hard to tell sometimes) are going to turn a profit or where they'd get any of their money. Probably from the same endless charity well that will pay for the health care, education, and food for the millions of poor that charities can't afford right now, even with (crappy) social safety nets in place. And if that well runs dry, fuck it, they're just poors, right? The free market will adapt and if "adapt" in this sense means letting millions die, well then that was just the will of the almighty free market, hallowed be its name.

If, on the other hand, you're actually advocating a society where anyone can kidnap anyone else's kid if they suspect abuse, you're even crazier than I gave you credit for.

[ALPHA.]

...snip...
You are saying that random strangers should be able to take kids from people's homes on their own say so.  And this improves on what we have now how?

Yes because the system can adapt, fail and improve.

On the first day that its OK for random strangers to take kids on their own say so, a lot of paedophiles will be exhausted.  So many kids and so little Viagra.  Of course you are Ok with this as it allows the system to fail and improve. 

That won't happen. Greater societal forces will overcome any pedophile.

By magic?  If there is no legal restriction on taking other people's kids, you may find that a little more than magical thinking about "greater societal forces" is needed. 

Heh, it's not magic. People don't like kids getting rape. They'll get upset and defensive before then. There is something called desire and it isn't exclusively met by government.

[deuxmill]

I'm not OK with anyone taking someones children away.

[rainingbitcoins]

I feel like Atlas is getting less coherent and more extreme by the day. It's kind of disturbing.

Like what the fuck does this even mean:

There is something called desire and it isn't exclusively met by government.

It seems like there's at least one sentence in every one of his posts that I can't make heads or tails of.

[cbeast]

I feel like Atlas is getting less coherent and more extreme by the day. It's kind of disturbing.

Like what the fuck does this even mean:

There is something called desire and it isn't exclusively met by government.

It seems like there's at least one sentence in every one of his posts that I can't make heads or tails of.

I don't know his age, but I am getting the feeling that he may be a minor. I am putting him on ignore just to be safe.

[ALPHA.]

I am only a voluntaryist.

[beckspace]

"The attempt to make heaven on earth invariably produces hell." -- Karl Popper

I know many of you may have watched this already:

Milton Friedman - Freedom vs. Fairness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_7fu2lNNB8

[Explodicle]

Regarding the "children have potential" argument - what about the kids with little chance of significant contribution, like those born with severe mental disabilities?

This should be about children's rights, not expected futures. Children have enough to deal with without feeling indebted to society for existing.

Children are humans. They are not different. And they are not in dept to anyone , and none owes  them nothing.
That means we should help all children but not forced to.

I generally agree. The area where I think we may differ is whether or not taking away the child's right to move freely by privatizing land justifies reimbursement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_dividend

You guys sensationalize "X is theft, Y is SLAVERY" all the time, and then justify stealing from every child born too late to claim scarce resources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!

So yeah, we all do owe something to children. They are entitled to their share of this planet we all got for free.

We got nothing for free . our ancestors fought for supremacy. They were lucky to be given intelligence. Unlike other life forms.

The children received life for free. That doesn't mean they owe something to their parents, the parents should feel in dept to the child because it's their fault the child exists  but if he doesn't ... maybe you should take him but how could you tell if he wants to come with you or not? If you can't, convince the parents to give him away, if they don't want to maybe you should do something .but let me out of it.

If they want property they can inherit it or buy it or fight for it just like we all did. Or maybe you want to give some of your property for free.

Yes property is theft  just as much as eating any life form is murder. So maybe you should stop murdering. I know i won't.

Land was not privatized until after agriculture, before then it was free.

Asking me to unilaterally give away my land (if I had any) is just as nonsensical as asking rich supporters of income taxes to just give away their earnings - you're asking people to cooperate on a prisoner's dilemma instead of fixing the system.

And I am fighting for it, in part by helping this movement. When the world uses cryptocurrency, land taxes will be among the few that still work.

[deuxmill]

Regarding the "children have potential" argument - what about the kids with little chance of significant contribution, like those born with severe mental disabilities?

This should be about children's rights, not expected futures. Children have enough to deal with without feeling indebted to society for existing.

Children are humans. They are not different. And they are not in dept to anyone , and none owes  them nothing.
That means we should help all children but not forced to.

I generally agree. The area where I think we may differ is whether or not taking away the child's right to move freely by privatizing land justifies reimbursement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_dividend

You guys sensationalize "X is theft, Y is SLAVERY" all the time, and then justify stealing from every child born too late to claim scarce resources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!

So yeah, we all do owe something to children. They are entitled to their share of this planet we all got for free.

We got nothing for free . our ancestors fought for supremacy. They were lucky to be given intelligence. Unlike other life forms.

The children received life for free. That doesn't mean they owe something to their parents, the parents should feel in dept to the child because it's their fault the child exists  but if he doesn't ... maybe you should take him but how could you tell if he wants to come with you or not? If you can't, convince the parents to give him away, if they don't want to maybe you should do something .but let me out of it.

If they want property they can inherit it or buy it or fight for it just like we all did. Or maybe you want to give some of your property for free.

Yes property is theft  just as much as eating any life form is murder. So maybe you should stop murdering. I know i won't.

Land was not privatized until after agriculture, before then it was free.

Asking me to unilaterally give away my land (if I had any) is just as nonsensical as asking rich supporters of income taxes to just give away their earnings - you're asking people to cooperate on a prisoner's dilemma instead of fixing the system.

And I am fighting for it, in part by helping this movement. When the world uses cryptocurrency, land taxes will be among the few that still work.

So you are proposing communism right? Or more exactly anarchism? we all are equally wealthy even if some are imbeciles and other are quite bright . you are proposing the we can't individually own anything just as a community? or what exactly do you propose?

[Explodicle]

Regarding the "children have potential" argument - what about the kids with little chance of significant contribution, like those born with severe mental disabilities?

This should be about children's rights, not expected futures. Children have enough to deal with without feeling indebted to society for existing.

Children are humans. They are not different. And they are not in dept to anyone , and none owes  them nothing.
That means we should help all children but not forced to.

I generally agree. The area where I think we may differ is whether or not taking away the child's right to move freely by privatizing land justifies reimbursement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_dividend

You guys sensationalize "X is theft, Y is SLAVERY" all the time, and then justify stealing from every child born too late to claim scarce resources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!

So yeah, we all do owe something to children. They are entitled to their share of this planet we all got for free.

We got nothing for free . our ancestors fought for supremacy. They were lucky to be given intelligence. Unlike other life forms.

The children received life for free. That doesn't mean they owe something to their parents, the parents should feel in dept to the child because it's their fault the child exists  but if he doesn't ... maybe you should take him but how could you tell if he wants to come with you or not? If you can't, convince the parents to give him away, if they don't want to maybe you should do something .but let me out of it.

If they want property they can inherit it or buy it or fight for it just like we all did. Or maybe you want to give some of your property for free.

Yes property is theft  just as much as eating any life form is murder. So maybe you should stop murdering. I know i won't.

Land was not privatized until after agriculture, before then it was free.

Asking me to unilaterally give away my land (if I had any) is just as nonsensical as asking rich supporters of income taxes to just give away their earnings - you're asking people to cooperate on a prisoner's dilemma instead of fixing the system.

And I am fighting for it, in part by helping this movement. When the world uses cryptocurrency, land taxes will be among the few that still work.

So you are proposing communism right? Or more exactly anarchism? we all are equally wealthy even if some are imbeciles and other are quite bright . you are proposing the we can't individually own anything just as a community? or what exactly do you propose?

I'm proposing geoism, and in relation to this topic, a basic income for children, parents, everyone. It's compatible with anarchism (as geoanarchism) or an otherwise minarchist state, but not with communism (Marx hated the idea).

In a statist world, geoists generally advocate more economic freedom and land taxes.
In an anarcho-capitalist world, market forces will encourage land rent automatically, since it is more efficient. People wouldn't even call it a tax, they'd just call it rent.

[Crypt_Current]

The answer to all these soon-to-be moot arguments is the ever-increasing penetration of and dependence upon technology in society.  All your morals are applicable to humans, and humans are on the way out.  Note that this does not have to imply any sort of extinction or extinction-level event.

[Hawker]

I guess the question to you Alpha, is... What do you do with the children if she can't take care of them?

They die, of course. People have been dying for thousands of years. You think people back in prehistoric times complained about dying? Hell no! So what's the big deal?

Agreed, it's not a big deal at all. The only logical course of action is to do nothing.

I like how the correct answer came from someone who doesn't have the ability to form logical arguments and will resort to appeals to emotion every single time.

Its a question of values.  Your answer makes sense to you as it fits your values.  Others may feel that the children's lives are worth trying to save and their answer will be equally "logical."

[boonies4u]

I guess the question to you Alpha, is... What do you do with the children if she can't take care of them?

They die, of course. People have been dying for thousands of years. You think people back in prehistoric times complained about dying? Hell no! So what's the big deal?

Agreed, it's not a big deal at all. The only logical course of action is to do nothing.

I like how the correct answer came from someone who doesn't have the ability to form logical arguments and will resort to appeals to emotion every single time.

Its a question of values.  Your answer makes sense to you as it fits your values.  Others may feel that the children's lives are worth trying to save and their answer will be equally "logical."

Not only that, but neither of your answers came from Alpha, so they are equally unimportant to me.

Just kidding, but I would like some straightforward responses from Alpha.

[Hawker]

I guess the question to you Alpha, is... What do you do with the children if she can't take care of them?

They die, of course. People have been dying for thousands of years. You think people back in prehistoric times complained about dying? Hell no! So what's the big deal?

Agreed, it's not a big deal at all. The only logical course of action is to do nothing.

I like how the correct answer came from someone who doesn't have the ability to form logical arguments and will resort to appeals to emotion every single time.

Its a question of values.  Your answer makes sense to you as it fits your values.  Others may feel that the children's lives are worth trying to save and their answer will be equally "logical."

Not only that, but neither of your answers came from Alpha, so they are equally unimportant to me.

Just kidding, but I would like some straightforward responses from Alpha.

His role is to provide things to talk about every day.  He does that.  It seems unreasonable to expect him to do that and to debate us daily as well

[FlipPro]

Alpha exemplifies every single reason why I am a socialist.

[cbeast]

Alpha's arguments define why I am a positivist.