You think lack of regulation is what allowed Madoff to run a ponzi scheme? There is no evidence to support that claim.

Somalia is not representative of people respecting other's rights or what happens when people are free. A libertarian state does not mean anarchy and I already said that. Police are still present, there is still a military, there is still the rule of law, there is still a gov't but it is a skeleton crew of sorts, why you assume these things are absent is the fault of your understanding, not the system that I'm talking about. Saying you won't endorse the idea that free people can prosper and regulate themselves until you actually see it being done in practice is a pretty obtuse stance. You admit that this country is mostly free, and also claim you wouldn't be able to make the opportunities for yourself unless you were here. Logically it seems like you would at least entertain the idea that MORE of what was able to make you prosper in the first place would be better. I'm beginning to think that you are a bit of an elitist by your statements.

The gov't is far from being "us" any longer. There is 300m people here, divide that up amongst the members in the HofR. And as you pointed out in your own post, the judges that interpret the Constitution slant their decisions based on party affiliation. I don't think I need to comment further on that.

How can you say insider trading does not violate other's rights??? Or fraud for that matter? Are you saying that no one loses when stock prices are manipulated? Are you saying that someones money (productivity, that is theirs by natural right) is not a vested interest of their life?? Absurd example.

You're making assumptions about the regulations being imposed. Any person that wants to go discover the facts for themselves will see that those regulations you're so happy about are nonsense of the highest order and boil down to money to grow the gov't. I'm not going to list them, if you're truly interested in learning something you can do it yourself.

I had a friend who was growing weed in CA, was arrested and spent thousands of dollars on lawyers and other costs and is now on probation. Flimsy example, again. Federal law trumps state's rights nowadays O.N.

Again, you use examples where people's rights are being violated and would be illegal in a libertarian state, you can't go around polluting water or any of the other ludicrous examples you gave. Obviously your understanding of what Libertarians want is completely fucked up. I would guess it's because you live in San Francisco and don't have much information coming to you other than what some liberal has told you. That or you're just being a contrarian which has seemed to be your M.O. lately.

Either way, what is obvious to me is that you have made your mind up based on a faulty understanding and you are not going to budge on your decisions. Disappointing, but on other stuff I agree with you so I guess I'll take the good with the bad.

I am taking a Gender Studies course in college this semester. It is a small class, no more then fifteen students. I am looking forward to the texts and discussion since I am coming in with my PUA paradigm. I'm assuming I will be in constant debate since I hold sexist views but if I can defend them, I can be confident in my stance on Feminism, Gender and Masculinity.

I was touched by a friend who told me as a woman in America she does not know what she should be. I think the taking away of gender roles has caused quite an identity crisis for many women in America. Her upbringing is not average in the least so she may be an isolated opinion ( she was home schooled, had two parents in the household growing up in a traditional setting,raised by a stay at home mom and a Navy SEAL dad).

Another friend of mine, who is a woman from Colombia ,stated that in America she loves it since she doesn't have to "act like a girl" compared to Colombia where gender roles are defined and those breaking down the barriers through their own self expression (be it masculine or feminine) are seen as taboo.

I am looking forward to this class.

-Ish

Ish - Good post.

The Colombian you speak of might find this cute and liberating on the surface to be able to act like a tomboy, I mean in Colombia women are told that even playing soccer is butch. They are covered in pink from head to toe from birth, so I can see her bieng a little relieved that she can dress down in a t-shirt and feel normal. I am willing to waiver, that when she see's the ugly side of the sexual market ruined by overly masculinzed females she will no doubt become turned off to it.

In a place like Colombia almost all the women I saw made an effor to keep their men. A woman with a kid still ate healthy and dressed sexy. Compare that to the all too common American girl who might put on 30lbs just from marriage, never mind kids, that might be another 30lbs. That is just surface observation, but if you look at the overall spoiled entitled attitude of a good % of the girls on the N.American dating market it gets scarier.

Quote: (01-19-2011 11:08 AM)Rocco81 Wrote:  

- Nemesis, no offence but you are telling me things I already know and in deed there is no argument. Your point about a building bieng a church is well understood. I AGREE that the US was not defined as a Christian Nation. It was largely influenced however by Christian values and culture. Agree or not?

This is very vague. What are those "Christian values"? Do not judge others? Failed. Turn another cheek if slapped? Failed. Help those who are in need? Failed. Slavery? Success!

Quote:Quote:

- Your point again in Culture. That is your opinion. You seem to pick things that are progressive changes, however I can do the same for negative changes.

My point is that a lot of those changes which we now consider as progressive (abolition of slavery, desegregation, interracial marriage) were in past considered negative by a large number of people. Probably even the majority of people. Personally I try to keep an open mind, especially on changes like gay marriage which do not affect me in any possible way.

Quote:Quote:

- Again I am not talking about what the Church says necessarily. But why can the Gov't not give me a tax break for living with a guy friend? Why can't I add a friend of mine to my insurance? Do I have to bang him to do so? These are questions that are not revolving around the church but around what the Gov't says I can do as a single male.

I don't really understand your example here. Are you asking why you cannot get the same benefits a married couple has just for living with someone else (like your girlfriend)? It is a slightly different topic then. Ask your insurance company why you cannot add a friend of yours to your insurance, it is their policy, not government's. I do not see how your questions are relevant for the gay marriage case, could you please explain?

Quote:Quote:

- I am amazed at the age of consent in the Vatican state. But no need to quote stats on the Vatican to me.

No, there is a point. You provided an example of Holland allegedly attempting to lower the age of consent from 14 to 13 (and if you studied the charter, you'd see that age of consent in Netherlands was 16, and not 14). The point is that lowering age of consent seem to be a step toward "Christian (Catholic) values" as only Vatican has a fixed statewide age of consent at 12. Even if you look on US states, it seems to be lower on religious states (Arkansas, Iowa, Missisipi) than on more secular states (CA, OR, NY).

Quote:Quote:

Local gov't has better insight into local spending and it is a large part of the successful past of the USA.

There are some local governments with really good money management skills.

Old Nemisis,

Watch these videos and if you want to take issue further I'll be happy to speak with you about it. If not, please quit putting out misinformation.

And for the record, a lot of Americans also died ending slavery. Your own country is up there with the worst human rights violations of all time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLD6VChcWCE

Quote: (01-19-2011 02:21 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

You think lack of regulation is what allowed Madoff to run a ponzi scheme? There is no evidence to support that claim.

You missed my question. I see how more regulation would prevent Madoff. My question was: how in your opinion a completely free market would prevent it?

Quote:Quote:

Somalia is not representative of people respecting other's rights or what happens when people are free. A libertarian state does not mean anarchy and I already said that.

Somalia is a good up-to-date example of how people generally self-organize themselves when they "free" themselves from the government. If you look back into history, you'll find a lot of similar examples. And I cannot remember a single example when in such case people managed to organize themselves into a libertarian society. This is why I call it utopia.

Quote:Quote:

Saying you won't endorse the idea that free people can prosper and regulate themselves until you actually see it being done in practice is a pretty obtuse stance.

Do you believe that Communism would work too? You know, the general idea is really great for creating a perfect society. Sure, it never worked in past as described despite multiple attempts, but this was - as they claimed - because it wasn't implemented properly.

Now I'll quote from here:

There are roughly 200 nations to which you could emigrate. They are the product of an anarcho-capitalist free market: there is no over-government dictating to those sovereign nations. Indeed, the only difference between the anarchy of nations and libertopia is that anarcho-capitalists are wishing for a smaller granularity. These nations have found that it is most cost-efficient to defend themselves territorially.

If any other market provided 200 choices, libertarians would declare that the sacred workings of the market blessed whatever choices were offered. The point is that choices do exist: it's up to libertarians to show that there is something wrong with the market of nations in a way they would accept being applied to markets within nations.

Libertaria is a combination of values that just doesn't exist: the government equivalent of a really posh residence for very little money. You can find nations which have much lower taxes, etc.: just don't expect them to be first class.

And the reason these combinations don't exist is probably simple: the free market of government services essentially guarantees that there is no such thing as the free lunch libertarians want. It's not competitive.

Quote:Quote:

and also claim you wouldn't be able to make the opportunities for yourself unless you were here.

I didn't claim that.

Quote:Quote:

How can you say insider trading does not violate other's rights???

You mentioned three things - life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Insider trading does not violate any of them. Neither does fraud. Even if you lost your 401(k), you still have your life and liberty, and could continue your pursuit of happiness.

Quote:Quote:

Or fraud for that matter? Are you saying that no one loses when stock prices are manipulated?

Insider trading is not about losing money, it is about unrealized gains. An example: you bought stocks for $10, and current price is $50 so you're holding them. I'm offering you $60 and buying them all from you. Next week stocks go up to $100. Now if I knew the stock price would go up, it would be a crime. But if I didn't know that and was just speculating - happens all the time with stocks - it is legitimate behavior. But no matter if I knew it or not, the situation doesn't change for you!

Quote:Quote:

Are you saying that someones money (productivity, that is theirs by natural right) is not a vested interest of their life??

Money vested into stock market do not guarantee any returns, and may be lost completely. This is not a good example.

Quote:Quote:

I'm not going to list them, if you're truly interested in learning something you can do it yourself.

Translation: you do not have any evidence to support your theory, so you expect me to find it out for you. Sorry, but this is just lame.

Quote:Quote:

I had a friend who was growing weed in CA, was arrested and spent thousands of dollars on lawyers and other costs and is now on probation.

In your previous post you mentioned people who are in jail for smoking weed. Your friend was arrested (and still not in jail, btw) for growing weed. Do you really see no difference?

Quote:Quote:

Again, you use examples where people's rights are being violated and would be illegal in a libertarian state, you can't go around polluting water or any of the other ludicrous examples you gave.

Interesting. So let's discuss it. You're saying it would be illegal, which means there should be laws against that. Since there is a law, there must be an enforcement system, with fines and inspections, as people tend to ignore the laws which are not enforced. Since there are fines, the businesses will want to have permits and equipment certification to ensure their installation would be working fine and would not violate the law. Of course those inspectors should be from a neutral party, not employed by those businesses they inspect. And we do not want them to be paid only from fines either (what if there are no violations? no food for tonight?) so they're paid salaries from the government. So your libertarian government will have some kind of EPA, and collect taxes to pay for that. And this is the same for every case I mentioned. You'll end up with exactly the same government, if not worse.

Quote:Quote:

Obviously your understanding of what Libertarians want is completely fucked up.

This is partly because vast majority of libertarians cannot explain their position at all, and instead ask me to "search the internet" to learn more about them. Sorry pal, if you are telling me this is a great idea, but you cannot be bothered to answer some basic questions about it, or explain it in the details, why would I waste any time on it?

And I do not live in SF, it annoys me.

Quote: (01-19-2011 08:33 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

Sorry, but this is just lame.

I agree, I just read a bunch of this thread.

Aloha!

Quote: (01-19-2011 08:12 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

Watch these videos and if you want to take issue further I'll be happy to speak with you about it.

What should I find there? I'm asking because watching a video is a big deal for me. First, my listening English is not that good, and second I read much faster than most people do, so I prefer to read texts. My personal pet peeve is "video news". No, I didn't see a single video Roosh put into his blog either.

Quote:Quote:

If not, please quit putting out misinformation.

Why do you think you have any authority to judge?

OldNemesis - I am over this thread and I do want to spend more than a minute or two replying to you. I get the distinct impression that your mind is made up no matter what anyone else says and that is ok. You seem to have a hard on for Christians and the Catholic church in particular and I am not interested in trying to convert you, nor was I ever.

- Christian values, of course nothing is 100% perfect. Of course you could show some hypocrisy in what some interpret as Christian law and our punishments of those who break those laws, but when talking about "christian" values and laws, we can simply say that we designed our laws after the basic principles of good behaviour as listed in the 10 commandments. Though there is a seperation of Church and state, what rules were most laws based off of? Unlike other cultures which migh stone you to death for a theft or allow you to barter your way out of a crime with a goat, we actually try and protect our society from theives, murderers, rapists etc. by atleast somewhat fair punishment. Again this is relative, as I know that many of our laws in the USA are out dated and I agree we have some strict laws on petty crimes which need to be repealed, but if you compare it to what some other Countries do, we are fairly progressive in some areas while still remaining tough on other criminals where places like Western Europe has failed.

- You do seem to keep returning to Slavery. Again Slavery was one of the Cultural changes that I tried to use as an example of a bad cultural change, however I do not see the relationship between Slavery and Christianity as direct as you are suggesting. Slaves were held in most cultures/religions and in certain parts of Africa (where we learned the Slave trade to start with) they still hold slaves, not a Christian influence that caused it, though you make it out to be so.

- Cultural Change..again you describe cultures as ever "evolving" but that is not always the case. Nazi Germany was a huge cultural Change..would you call it good? Stalin and the boys in your home country, a bit of a Cultural change? I would say. Positive, I think not. Also I might add both of these cultural changes started with power resting in the hands of a totalitarian government and absolute disregard for individual states or counties rights which you also seem to have a problem with.

"You missed my question. I see how more regulation would prevent Madoff. My question was: how in your opinion a completely free market would prevent it"?

No you missed the point. Your question implies that regulation would have prevented it, and there is no evidence that it would.

Somalia is not a good example. Your use of Somalia proves that you aren't grasping the concept. In a republic where the gov't is beholden to the people (and ours is hardly that nowadays) gov't regulation is at a minimum, and the size of gov't correlates to that. Private business runs as much as possible the functions being carried out by the gov't today. For example, TSA.

Communism looks horrible on paper. In communism someone's "need" is a priority to someone else's ability. Basically saying that a complete stranger has a mortgage on someone else's life because of their need. The end result is that everyone is enslaved to everyone else. This sounds like shit to someone like myself who believes a man has the right to his own life. Horrible example. AGAIN.

"Translation: you do not have any evidence to support your theory, so you expect me to find it out for you. Sorry, but this is just lame."

Incorrect. Translation: I don't have the patience or interest to educate you if you don't have the desire to do anything but argue your skewed perspective.

and also claim you wouldn't be able to make the opportunities for yourself unless you were here.

"I didn't claim that."

You did claim that on a previous thread when you were bragging about how much money you made after coming here. It's why I gave you a rep point.


"You mentioned three things - life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Insider trading does not violate any of them. Neither does fraud. Even if you lost your 401(k), you still have your life and liberty, and could continue your pursuit of happiness."

This is absurd. If someone steals from you they have violated your rights. When you have the right to your own life it is a logical extension that you have the right to keep what your life produces. You make a lot of logical fallacies sometimes, maybe it's the language barrier.


"Interesting. So let's discuss it. You're saying it would be illegal, which means there should be laws against that. Since there is a law, there must be an enforcement system, with fines and inspections, as people tend to ignore the laws which are not enforced. Since there are fines, the businesses will want to have permits and equipment certification to ensure their installation would be working fine and would not violate the law. Of course those inspectors should be from a neutral party, not employed by those businesses they inspect. And we do not want them to be paid only from fines either (what if there are no violations? no food for tonight?) so they're paid salaries from the government. So your libertarian government will have some kind of EPA, and collect taxes to pay for that. And this is the same for every case I mentioned. You'll end up with exactly the same government, if not worse".

You are drawing a lot of completely illogical conclusions from my statement. Businesses do not need "permits" and "inspections" by the gov't to insure that there are no violations. That is exactly the point of a free market, these "permits" and other things you seem to be in love with are what actually blocks competition and keeps potential business owners from entering the market. Why are you so in love with how well the gov't does things? Quality control is done by the consumer. It is in a business's best interest to provide a quality product. Private enterprise has always done a better job. Do me a favor and draw the conclusion of what would happen if many businesses were competing for the consumers dollar. Enforcement of basic laws has always been the mark of a free people, I'm not saying it again because it's becoming exhausting, "the rule of law is still present". What is not present is an Army of DMV clerks, IRS agents, District attorneys making private citizens spend thousands of dollars for growing weed (also legal in California so your little hairsplitting comment is moot, the point was to illustrate how much money is being wasted prosecuting ridiculous crimes), are just a few examples. For someone that thinks they are smart, I'm disappointed that you can't think outside of the "that's gov'ts job" paradigm.

"This is partly because vast majority of libertarians cannot explain their position at all, and instead ask me to "search the internet" to learn more about them. Sorry pal, if you are telling me this is a great idea, but you cannot be bothered to answer some basic questions about it, or explain it in the details, why would I waste any time on it"?

Have you encountered the "vast majority" of Libetarians? That's doubtful. I'm trying to explain it as well as I can, maybe these people you're referring to don't care for you attitude and deem it a lost cause to someone who thinks communism sounds just as good "on paper" as freedom.

Watch these videos and if you want to take issue further I'll be happy to speak with you about it.

"What should I find there? I'm asking because watching a video is a big deal for me. First, my listening English is not that good, and second I read much faster than most people do, so I prefer to read texts. My personal pet peeve is "video news". No, I didn't see a single video Roosh put into his blog either."

I asked you to watch these videos because the gentleman speaking in them is better at explaining the philosophical primaries and logical consequences better than I can. In short, it will answer the questions you claim no one can answer.

If it's your personal "pet peeve" then that's your personal problem. Maybe you should consider it an exercise in learning English better since you have a hard time hearing it.

If not, please quit putting out misinformation.

"Why do you think you have any authority to judge"?

It was a polite request.

Anyway, I believe you are more interested in winning an argument than trying to understand a concept or collaborate on an idea. To me the idea that a man has the right to his own life is a self evident truth. The truths that flow from that belief are what leads to freedom. Your examples are not representative and you insist on using them over and over. This leads me to believe that it's pointless to speak about it further.

Quote: (01-20-2011 12:09 PM)Rocco81 Wrote:  

OldNemesis - I am over this thread and I do want to spend more than a minute or two replying to you. I get the distinct impression that your mind is made up no matter what anyone else says and that is ok.

This is only partially true. I'm trying to keep an open mind, but I'm definitely not going to start researching the subject until someone persuades me it is worth researching. I never buy "look on it, and you might like it" arguments - if those who advocate a specific idea cannot be bothered to spend their time looking for facts, why would I even bother?

Quote:Quote:

- Christian values, of course nothing is 100% perfect. Of course you could show some hypocrisy in what some interpret as Christian law and our punishments of those who break those laws, but when talking about "christian" values and laws, we can simply say that we designed our laws after the basic principles of good behaviour as listed in the 10 commandments.

This is not true at all. Have you ever looked on 10 commandments? Half of them did not ever get into the laws, and the rest half has been the law of pretty much every country around the world long time before the bible was ever written. "Do not kill/do not steal" is definitely NOT a christian value.

"Do not kill/do not steal" laws are not based on 10 commandments

Quote:Quote:

Though there is a seperation of Church and state, what rules were most laws based off of?

Did you heard about Code of Hammurabi?

Quote:Quote:

Again this is relative, as I know that many of our laws in the USA are out dated and I agree we have some strict laws on petty crimes which need to be repealed, but if you compare it to what some other Countries do, we are fairly progressive in some areas while still remaining tough on other criminals where places like Western Europe has failed.

Sure if you compare USA with Afganistan or UAE, the USA would look fairly progressive. But if you make a more valid comparison, for example with Canada, Australia or UK?

Quote:Quote:

- Cultural Change..again you describe cultures as ever "evolving" but that is not always the case. Nazi Germany was a huge cultural Change..would you call it good? Stalin and the boys in your home country, a bit of a Cultural change?

Nothing you mentioned here was cultural change. Beatles and Rock'n'Roll were, abolition of slavery was. Electing Bush or Hitler was not a cultural change.

Quote:Quote:

Also I might add both of these cultural changes started with power resting in the hands of a totalitarian government and absolute disregard for individual states or counties rights which you also seem to have a problem with.

As I stated several times, I support a slow transition of most of the political power from counties and states to Federal government. I see both advantages and disadvantages there, but in my opinion the overall result would be positive. I understand this is not a very popular point here, but honestly I don't give shit. So far nobody was able to provide any more arguments why it would be a disadvantage than I already know. And, believe me, quite a lot of people tried. We have quite a bunch of libertarians in skydiving community.

Quote: (01-20-2011 02:05 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

No you missed the point. Your question implies that regulation would have prevented it, and there is no evidence that it would.

I take it as your admission that free market would not prevented it. This was my point.

Quote:Quote:

Somalia is not a good example. Your use of Somalia proves that you aren't grasping the concept.

Your concept is based on an unverified theory that a large amount of people (a whole state) is able to self-organize themselves, and they do not need the government to organize them (aka "being mommy and daddy"). Somalia is a good example which proves that in lack of government the people do horrible job in self-organizing themselves. You also missed the part when I mentioned that pretty much every scenario in history when the government was overthrown without another government replacing it resulted in scenarios like Somalia. I have never heard about a single case when the people overthrew the government and then organized themselves in a libertarian way. This means your concept failed the real life test, and this is exactly why I call it utopia.

Quote:Quote:

Communism looks horrible on paper. In communism someone's "need" is a priority to someone else's ability. Basically saying that a complete stranger has a mortgage on someone else's life because of their need. The end result is that everyone is enslaved to everyone else.

This is not what Communism is about; I wonder where did you study it.

Quote:Quote:

Incorrect. Translation: I don't have the patience or interest to educate you if you don't have the desire to do anything but argue your skewed perspective.

Explain please. Are you saying that you just need to state something as a fact and then it is my job to find the supporting evidence for your facts? This is a joke.

Quote:Quote:

You did claim that on a previous thread when you were bragging about how much money you made after coming here. It's why I gave you a rep point.

This has nothing to do with your claim that I wouldn't be able to make as much anywhere else (which is actually kind of strange argument, you don't even know me).

Quote:Quote:

When you have the right to your own life it is a logical extension that you have the right to keep what your life produces.

It is not logical extension, it is fantasy as I've never seen any US court to come to such interpretation.

Quote:Quote:

You are drawing a lot of completely illogical conclusions from my statement. Businesses do not need "permits" and "inspections" by the gov't to insure that there are no violations.

Yes, they do. Just look around - businesses still violate environment protection laws right now, even if there are inspections and hefty fines. Look on BP for example. If you're speculating that they would stop doing so as soon as there are no inspections and fines, you're living in utopia. And one indeed can provide quality products while polluting the environment; BP gasoline didn't get worse because of the spill.

Quote:Quote:

Why are you so in love with how well the gov't does things? Quality control is done by the consumer.

Because I do not want to do quality control for things I'm paying money for. For example, I do not want to buy an infant toy which contains poisonous components, even if it makes the toy production ten times cheaper. Sure, after hundred or so infants die while doing "quality control", the manufacturer will change the components, but I do not want my son to be part of this "QA team".

Quote:Quote:

It is in a business's best interest to provide a quality product. Private enterprise has always done a better job.

Nope, not anymore - for both cases. I did a research about it some time ago, but since you feel like you don't need to support any of your statements with facts, I do not see any reasons to do it either.

Quote:Quote:

What is not present is an Army of DMV clerks, IRS agents, District attorneys making private citizens spend thousands of dollars for growing weed (also legal in California so your little hairsplitting comment is moot, the point was to illustrate how much money is being wasted prosecuting ridiculous crimes), are just a few examples.

They enforce the existing laws. And no, it is still illegal to grow weed in California, because the Federal law forbids it. If you don't like the law, you have means to change it.

Quote:Quote:

For someone that thinks they are smart, I'm disappointed that you can't think outside of the "that's gov'ts job" paradigm.

I couldn't care less, honestly.

Quote:Quote:

I asked you to watch these videos because the gentleman speaking in them is better at explaining the philosophical primaries and logical consequences better than I can.

I am interested in discussion, not in consuming raw propaganda. This "gentleman" you're referring me to is a paid politician with a specific agenda (not even his own), so it is would be extremely naive to expect him to present a fair and unbiased view. Even more, I cannot discuss fine points with him, or ask him questions, or ask for evidence when he claims something and this means the video has zero value to me. Sorry if I hurt your feelings.

Quote:Quote:

If it's your personal "pet peeve" then that's your personal problem.

It is not a problem at all. I just don't do it. Fortunately there is still enough news available in text form.

Quote:Quote:

Anyway, I believe you are more interested in winning an argument than trying to understand a concept or collaborate on an idea.

I firmly believe that if someone thinks he's got a great idea or concept, it is his job to persuade me that his concept is worthy spending time on researching it. And if I ask basic questions, but from the answers it is obvious that the person does not have any evidence to back up his claims and therefore did not research the subject himself but just relies on common propaganda, I see no reasons to spend any time on that concept.

After all, there is a lot of people with ideas who can stand up behind what they say. They know something is true because they researched it themselves, not because they wrote it in a "what you need to know about X" pamphlet. This means they can answer the questions with proper facts and evidence instead of copy-pasting the propaganda. This is kind of people I prefer to have a discussion with. Unfortunately this seems to be not a case, and therefore I agree that there is no reason to continue this discussion.

Quote: (01-20-2011 04:24 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

As I stated several times, I support a slow transition of most of the political power from counties and states to Federal government. I see both advantages and disadvantages there, but in my opinion the overall result would be positive. I understand this is not a very popular point here, but honestly I don't give shit. So far nobody was able to provide any more arguments why it would be a disadvantage than I already know. And, believe me, quite a lot of people tried. We have quite a bunch of libertarians in skydiving community.

I don't know how long you've lived here, but if you HONESTLY think the Federal Government is efficient at anything and should control more and more of the American Economy we can't have a rational discussion.

You completely fail to see what was unique about America and why it was the greatest country despite it's youth. Sadly, a fair number of Americans who should know better feel the same way.

Just the CONCEPT of a huge federal Government Nanny State is so beta and offensive to me. It basically tells you: YOU are not smart enough to be allowed to spend your money as you wish. YOU cannot find a job without our protection. If YOU want to do this or that, YOU will require our blessings filled out in triplicate. Worst of all is all the bloated Union middle managers in DC that produce NOTHING but red tape.

Oldnemisis, you talk out of both sides of your mouth.

How about an exercise to make the posts here more positive and maybe share some good info about travel, money, and girls?

If you are unhappy with the direction our country is headed, which foreign country would you choose to live in besides (or in addition, if you are happiest is the U.S.)

I'll start - my choice would be Deutchland (Germany). The great love of my life (so far) was there. Naturally beautiful (very little makeup), incredibly soft skin, amazing breasts, incredibly smart and free spirited with high self esteem (less issues in my opinion). I love their frankness, but I have to agree the accent can be a bit harsh (and opinions very critical) unless the girl has just the right pitch to complement it (she did).

I love the "nanny state" aspect of excellent universal health care, almost free post secondary education, overall very liberal views on alcohol and sex (most places) and great transportation infrastructure (extremely reliable and timely). Their economy is not too shabby also. Of course, VAT and other higher taxes exist as a consequence of the government "nannying". But overall, the ones I've met seem pretty happy with the trade off. 1 to 2 months vacation a years definitely helps too.

It's also located within a short hop to emerging europe and other fun countries for visits and having short/long affairs for those who can afford the traveling and lifestyle.

Implied in this exercise is that you must have traveled to other countries and have swooped girls. And, preferably, have disposable income.

Jfree

P.S. I love the U.S. But I'm quite sure that I don't agree with many of the "christian" posters as to why I love it and why the U.S. is great. Remember, we are the largest economy by far and 3rd largest country in both territory and population with an immigrant history from all over so numerous different experiences and opinions should be expected.

One more thing, Lufthansa is a great hub airline. If you travel business or first the FF program, Miles and More, is one of the best too as you get 2x and 3x plus level bonus respectively. This is especially so if you have accounts there to access the airline miles partners. It's also part of star alliance.

Jfree

OldNemesis - You have just contradicted yourself so many times. I am done trying to discuss anything other than the color of the sky with you and I am sure you would find a way to say its not really the color it seems on a clear sunny day.

-So the beatles are a cultural movement but something like the rise of National Socialism in Germany was not? They started in beer halls and factories, the brown shirts were just working class beer drinking sport loving gentlemen that carried away. Seems that you think like a typical beta lefty where you pick and choose what you want to see as a benefit to you and your world view, casting aside all else that you do not agree with as something that is off kilter, non cultured and out of whack.

- You say that Slavery was the fault of Christianity and NOT a cultural movement however the abolishment of Slavery was def a positive cultural movement but not Christian? Check your history.

- So, not lying killing stealing etc are NOT Christian values? Maybe they are also shared by other cultures and religions who might have been around same time or even before christianity, however it does not mean they aren't also Christian values. Again think about what you are saying.

I'm done with this thread. So far from you in varrious threads I have seen mostly US bashing , pro gay, pro swinging, pro lefty stuff with very little game advice other than telling us how you score and how ugly American women are. What do you do here anyways? Not talking shit just asking honestly.

Quote: (01-20-2011 07:51 PM)thekiller Wrote:  

I don't know how long you've lived here, but if you HONESTLY think the Federal Government is efficient at anything and should control more and more of the American Economy we can't have a rational discussion.

Yes, that's what I think, and that's what I support (and vote for, BTW).
No, we still can have a rational discussion, but only if the discussion is rational. I always listen to arguments, and I do my due diligence. Nobody here could say he disputed with me and presented solid arguments and I just ignored them completely. I spend a lot of time writing my posts because I stay behind what I wrote. This is my opinion - not some party propaganda I'm copying from - and I am ready to argue. So it is possible to have a rational discussion. It is, however, useless to have irrational discussion.

Quote:Quote:

You completely fail to see what was unique about America and why it was the greatest country despite it's youth. Sadly, a fair number of Americans who should know better feel the same way.

This is start of irrational discussion. See, you're not even trying to prove your point. You start with assumption that you are right and everyone else who do not agree with you (I admit your honesty that it is more than just me though) are somehow wrong. This is type of discussion I do not want to have.

Now let's look on your arguments:

Quote:Quote:

Just the CONCEPT of a huge federal Government Nanny State is so beta and offensive to me.

Just because something is beta and offensive to you doesn't make it wrong.

Quote:Quote:

It basically tells you: YOU are not smart enough to be allowed to spend your money as you wish.

The government is right here - a lot of people here in US definitely aren't smart enough to spend their money as they wish. Just look on recent housing boom and overall state of baby boomer generation retirements.

Quote:Quote:

YOU cannot find a job without our protection. If YOU want to do this or that, YOU will require our blessings filled out in triplicate. Worst of all is all the bloated Union middle managers in DC that produce NOTHING but red tape.

Never heard any of that.

Quote: (01-20-2011 09:16 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

Oldnemisis, you talk out of both sides of your mouth.

I have no idea what it even means.

Oldnemisis, you talk out of both sides of your mouth.

"I have no idea what it even means".

It means you change your rebuttal to suit your needs no matter how inconsistent. I'm not even sure if you're aware of how many times you have contradicted yourself. It's really irritating because then you claim to be open to new ideas if someone can "persuade" you. This of course means you think you are worth persuading, which I no longer do. However in the interest of other readers coming across this thread, I'll be glad to expose you as the hypocrite you are. Please read on.

"I take it as your admission that free market would not prevented it. This was my point".

First, you use Madoff as an example of what happens in a free market despite the fact that we are in a mixed economy. You then completely disregard that point and change tactics trying to ask me if a free market would have prevented a Madoff scenario and simultaneously infer that MORE regulation would have prevented it. This logic is faulty on a variety of levels but you act like it proves some point. Madoff was a crook plain and simple, crooks will commit crimes and get caught after the fact. Crimes are punished to deter future criminals but rarely is regulation going to prevent a crime from being committed. The fact that he was caught AFTER the crime was committed in and already regulated economy, and the fact that laws in place to prosecute fraud exist prove that criminals will do criminal things despite those laws. In other words, your question is moot, and it hardly offers a valid reason not to have a free market.

However, in the thread with Rocco, (and now our arguments have overlapped) you claim that people are too stupid to govern themselves and you cite the housing bubble being the reason. Again, this is one of the dumbest arguments because the housing bubble was caused by the gov't giving people who would otherwise not have money, access to loans. In other words, the regulation you want is the cause of the problem, typically people like you will call for more regulation as the cure, thereby increasing the size and the power of gov't which leads me to my next point...

You complained in an earlier thread about Democrats taxing the hell out of people and then simultaneously argued for a shift of power from the states to the federal gov't, effectively arguing for central planning (which I challenge you to find a country the size of the U.S. that is well run with central planning) Then you backpedaled and said something along the lines of "well if they just don't tax the rich I'm ok with it". Of course this is inacurrate as the middle class already carries a huge part of the burden now but it's ridiculous to assume poor people will pay taxes from money they don't have. In effect you are saying you want to grow the gov't while complaining about taxes and then you say Ponzi schemes won't exist in a regulated environment when the gov't is already operating as a giant Ponzi scheme that a hundred Madoffs wouldn't come close to! Incredible! Or hadn't you noticed the deficit and the inevitable bankruptcy looming over our heads? Strangely, you seem to be unaware that our current tax system was devised by Karl Marx and his cronies and you won't see it being in the constitution but that won't stop you from citing the Supreme Court, albeit inaccurately.

While you're arguing for a more powerful, bigger gov't, with central planning (uh Communism!) you talk about how Communism it only looks good on paper and actually have the nerve to compare it to Freedom. I word for word explained what happens philosophically when the economic system devised by Karl Marx (a philosopher) is put into place which redistributes wealth from those who produce to those who "need" it. You say that is not what communism is. Please review the following quote

" In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"!

This last statement, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" means that those who produce are enslaved like sacrificial animals to those who "need" something. It is in effect a slavery. Somehow though you manage to tell me that the architect of Communism didn't quote what I just quoted and that and I somehow don't understand communism either. Ridiculous Old Nemisis, truly ridiculous.

When you have the right to your own life it is a logical extension that you have the right to keep what your life produces.

"It is not logical extension, it is fantasy as I've never seen any US court to come to such interpretation".

Every court in the U.S. recognizes that when someone steals from another person, that person owned that property and and someone who didn't own it, took it unlawfully, if the courts as you say have never reached that conclusion, then it would be impossible to charge someone with the crime of theft since they wouldn't be able to own anything to begin with. Ironically, here is another quote by Karl Marx “The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property”
You already said that laws against crimes such as Fraud, theft, etc exist. They exist because someone owned that property, bought with means they had from their own productivity. That is exactly the same thing I just said when I pointed out that a person's life is his own and the things he owns are his. This is what capitalism is based on, the ability to own property without fear of the gov't taking it away. How is this not a self evident truth? Only a person talking out of both sides of their mouth like you could try to argue both sides. See, in this country (and this is where Rocco and my arguments overlap again) our society and laws are based on three things. Judeo Christian values, Greco-Roman Philosophy, and Anglo Saxon law. Which brings up my next point.

Somehow, in your mind, the US would descend into the anarchy that takes place in Somalia if a free market economic system where in place. Somehow, in your convoluted mind, every U.S. citizen would carry an AK47 and join some roving band of raiders after permits (the word means to PERMIT) from entering business (and once again, that product you claim that kills people would only stop after 30 people have died in a free market are somehow magically rescued by a law that says you can't have unsafe products in a regulated one somehow stops criminal acts before criminals actually act. That is so fucking stupid btw) and other petty money generating regulations for the gov't are extiguished, the U.S. would plummet into chaos despite the fact that, that is how this country started out, and despite the fact that the U.S. generated more wealth in the History of the world while under that system.

Lastly, I pointed out that a lot of money is being wasted persecuting citizens for crimes such as smoking weed. You then said "go to California" where smoking weed is legal. I brought up a friend who was growing weed in CA, also legal in that state and pointed out that federal law doesn't recognize state's rights to bring light to the needless laws and show you the Libertarian philosophy. Then you go back and say growing weed is illegal in California (after you advised going there to begin with to smoke weed) and you say it is illegal because the fed gov't says so. Are you trying to prove my point for me?? Money being taken away from private citizens to defend themselves and pay fines and also money being taken away from private citizens (taxes) to prosecute those "crimes" is the biggest farce I can think of. But you, in all your analytical wisdom challenge me by saying you want to see some statistics. Here's your statistic smartass, go up to a cop while smoking a joint, then see what happens.

If you're making these conflicting assertions on purpose, you're being disingenuous, if it's because you don't know any better, then I gave you too much credit in the beginning. Either way....

Let's cover Madoff first as there seem to be a lot of confusion. I'll remind that my point was that in a truly free market there is no way to prevent things like Madoff to happen, while it is possible in a regulated market. This was my statement, and so far I haven't seen a reasonable challenge. But it seems to be difficult concept to grasp, so I'll explain.

I assume everyone knows what a Ponzi scheme is. This is basically when you ask people to invest money into your company, with a promise to pay dividends. If asked where the money come from you mention some "research projects". You use money from people who invest later to pay dividends to the people who joined first. The news about a new "get-rich-quick" spread fast, so more people come to you with their money, which in turn are used to pay earlier investors. At some moment, however, the cash income slows down and if every investor comes back asking for his money, the company wouldn't be able to pay them all. The founders move to Bermudas, and so do the money.

On a completely regulation-free market this scenario cannot be prevented at all. There is no visible difference between company A (which is Ponzi) and company B, with exception of company A paying larger dividends than B, and paying them more reliable. Of course, the competent accountant would be able to find it out, but since there are no regulations, he'll never get access to real accounting books.

Now you made a point that with existing regulations did not prevent Madoff. First, they did - while there still was a damage, Madoff was not able to run it all the way to the ground with extracting all the cash from it. Second, expecting any law (and regulation is basically a law) to prevent 100% of crime is extremely naive. We have laws against murder, but there are still murderers. Does it mean the law does not work, and should be abolished?

Next comes the housing bubble, and your argument that it was caused by the (apparently Republican) gov't giving money to those who should not have had them. This is a kind of argument, which I often hear from conservatives - and I traced it to some incredibly stupid Fox News article two years ago. However the government never forced anyone to buy a home. And the government never forced anyone to buy more home that one could afford. And the government never forced anyone to lie about their income to get loans. It is the people who got greedy and wanted to make quick buck, somehow not understanding that it is economically impossible for the whole country to get rich by flipping overpriced homes to each others. They screwed it up, and now blaming the gov't as in modern USA everything is always someone else's fault, not yours.

I came to USA in 2005, which was mid-bubble. All the pressure to buy and flip came from various mortgage brokers, real estate agents and paid "experts". I have several friends whose mortgage broker just said they should lie on their loan application, and the supportive paperwork will be "taken care of". Not a single time during 2005-2008 I ever received or seen any ads from the government persuading me to buy a home (especially one I cannot afford), or even offering me a loan. And the one we finally bought in 2008 was foreclosured and we paid $200K less than the previous owner paid for it.

Now, Communism. Your interpretation of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is flawed because it assumes there are two classes of people in Communism - the working class (who are "enslaved" as you said it) and the "beneficial" class who gets those benefits. However you should have known that Communism is based on abolition of classes. Those who work and those who get benefits are the same people. The idea of Communism is that everyone will have to work (and in Soviet Union it was illegal not to work unless sick/disabled), but they should only do what they want to do. You wanna be a doctor? Get into a med school. Engineer? Get into university. All education is free, and one could really become what he or she wants. Then the produced goods are shared withing the society according one's needs. The sharing part, obviously, required perfect people, and this was why it didn't work.

Now some Libertarian philosophy. You said that "When you have the right to your own life it is a logical extension that you have the right to keep what your life produces". This is what I said to that I haven't ever seen any court interpreting "have the right to your own life" as "having the right to keep what your life produces". This is your personal interpretation, and it doesn't account for a lot of things (taxes, for example). You, however, made a strawman about stealing.

And for smoking weed. You seem to forgot quite a few things, which I'll gladly remind you:
- It started with your claim that "Jails are full of people who smoke weed" (see your post #69). Which seem to be an urban myth, so I asked if you really had any statistics to support your claim, or you were just speculating?
- No, I did not say smoking weed is legal in California. I said this is a misdemeanor which is not punished by jail time (see post #73), which of course doesn't make it legal. So you lied when you said it were my words.
- When asked for evidence for your claim that jails are really full of people who got there because they smoked weed, you brought up someone who was growing weed (and who apparently got probation, so he is not even in jail), which I pointed out.
- And finally you came up with something. Now, attention. Here is how you prove your claim that "Jails are full of people smoking weed":

Quote:Quote:

Here's your statistic smartass, go up to a cop while smoking a joint, then see what happens.

What else can I say here? Not only you did not provide any information to support your groundless claim, you also have no balls to simply admit that you speculated and do not have such information.

So, to finalize our discussion:

Quote: (01-21-2011 02:18 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

It's really irritating because then you claim to be open to new ideas if someone can "persuade" you. This of course means you think you are worth persuading, which I no longer do.

Which is fine with me. Myself I see no value too of arguing with someone who makes things up (like "jails are full of people smoking weed"), and reacts like a 12yo on tantrum when asking if they have any statistics to support their claim. Sometime I feel sorry for Libertarians - I talked to probably 30 or so of them during my life, and they all seem to be like that - completely unable to participate in honest, civilized discussion without name calling, making false claims and actually supporting what they say with facts. This basically means you'll never be able to convert anyone who is not libertarian already, and your party will always be in low single digits.

God you are such a fraud.

You keep mentioning Madoff like it's a point in your favor. It is not. Have you considered that the people who invested in his scheme had a false sense of security because of the impotent regulations put in place by the SEC? In a free market, people tend to scrutinize where they put their money with more vigilance.

The housing bubble being caused by banks being "regulated" by stopping the practice of redlining by having fannie mae and freddy mac insure bad loans is what caused the crisis. This is not even debatable, it's been documented to such a degree that it's an accepted truth and the only people still clinging to the idea that it wasn't the result of fucking with the economic system through regulation are people as obtuse as yourself. No before you get all high and mighty about sourcing, I will not even be bothered to provide a link. You can simply go believing whatever you wish. I write my rebuttal in one sitting over a 5-10 min period. And to be frank with you, you aren't worth the trouble of taking longer.

Now you're defending communism? Only a fool would back that up as a viable economic system since it has NEVER in the history of the world, allowed people to prosper. In contrast, in every part of the world, over and over, people who have changed their station in life have done it through capitalism. Your conclusions about communism is enough for any person to see you don't know what you're talking about.

As far as libetarian philosophy and my "strawman" I used the very material you commented on and I used and example of a thief because this is a very basic conclusion reached by the court of law in this country. It also does account for taxes since that is also something that should not be extorted from citizens except to provide for the very necessities of a minimalist gov't. In fact, I would assert taxes should be voluntary. You of course do not have the wherewithall to imagine a state where private enterprise provides most of the services you think the gov't should do. I don't really care.

The weed smoking example was an attempt to point out that jails are full of people who have committed crimes that shouldn't be crimes. You latched onto the literal statement and I understand that you are unable to draw simple conclusions from that. I apologize. For the record, there are a lot of people in jail, including crimes like smoking weed that should not be there and there should not be taxpayers money used to prosecute them nor should private citizens have to pay their money for a defense of such a silly crime. I also pointed out that there is an army of IRS agents, DMV clerks, TSA baggage checkers, and the list goes on and on. I realize now that you can't connect the two concepts about a large out of control gov't operating at a deficit that's only getting larger. You keep going on and on about my statistics and I don't really feel the need. EVERYONE knows someone who has been busted for a stupid crime.

I act like a 12yo throwing a temper tantrum? That's funny because you act like some irrational woman who thinks she's much smarter than she is while the whole time she's contradicting herself. I don't have patience for that kind of nonsense you've been spouting, all the way from this isn't a Christian country to Communism looks good on paper.

You feel sorry for Libertarians? We don't need your sympathy little guy.

Dude, it is really amazing that you call other people names while providing ZERO evidence to support your often incredibly ridiculous statements. Is there actually a single libertarian who could think outside their party affiliation? You're even more dogmatic that some hardcore Christians.

Madoff is a valid point if you actually think about it instead of blindly following Libertarian propaganda. I already asked you a very important question (which you ignored several times): how'd you find out who is Ponzi or who is not in a completely free market? How would you even put your money into a bank where there are no regulations, and basically everyone can call themselves a "Joe Smooth bank", and that all your investments are insured by (another unregulated) "Joe Smooth insurance company"?

You already claimed - with no evidence - that the housing bubble was caused by banks being "regulated". This time you mentioned Freddie/Fannie regulations. However you didn't describe why the government is responsible for the crisis which was caused by people going to all means to buy more that they could afford. This was exactly their personal decision, the government did not force anyone to buy beyond their means or to lie on mortgage loan applications (which is AFAIR a Federal offense). To me this means that a lot of people cannot be trusted to manage the money responsibly, which says a lot about their feeling of personal responsibility.

Communism - I am explaining why your interpretation is wrong, and that - as in more than one case here - you had no idea what you even talking about, relying on your personal interpretation of the words instead of reading and analyzing the source. And, as usual, instead of admitting you were wrong you just added more insults.

And no, you did not use any "material", there is little to no evidence in your posts for pretty much all your claims - there are just ad hominem and insults. You also keep constantly switching topics - for example when I say that no court interpreted the statement the way you described, you replied that libertarian philosophy interpret it like that.

Your example of weed smoking was a perfect example of how you discuss. You are saying - without any grounds or evidence - that "jails are full of people who have committed crimes that shouldn't be crimes". And you made a concept based on that statement. However before making a concept you need to show that your statement is true, which you did not. Then you blatantly lied about what I allegedly wrote (and for which you did not apologize, which tells me a lot about your understanding of "personal responsibility").

Now, to keep things simple I usually skip those parts where we have no argument, but here I feel like I need to state that I agree that there are some laws which are stupid and I'd support their repeal, even though I wouldn't benefit directly from it. For example, I voted for weed legalization last November even though I do not smoke. However I disagree that there is a lot of people in jails who committed victimless crimes, and we will definitely disagree with the required amount of regulations.

And last time I looked on poll digits, your party definitely looked like it would use some support. How many Representatives you have? How many Senators? You're not in position to choose if you want to survive.

It look like this forum runs better when it focuses on what we're all here for in the first place; the best way to get laid.

If you guys still need to argue, how about you do it over PM?

Wald

P.S. Lock thread?

There's nothing wrong with women having more rights. There is nothing wrong with equality. The problem is, many Western women are starting to cross the "line" from simple equal rights to "extreme feminism." This type of ideology makes women believe that men are not important in their societies. One thing is for them to be treated with respect, another is for them to start treating men like worthless beings. This is why many Western men are starting to cast their lots with foreign women, because foreign ladies still value us the way Western women use to (many years ago)

Now obesity is a whole different subject. You won't find too much sympathy for women who are overweight and out of shape. Most experts agree that most men prefer women who are in shape and have a thin waist, that's just the way it is. Another reason many Western men are flocking to foreign countries!

I read many books on foreign women including Roosh's book, (great book). One such book I recently read (it's only 7$ it's cheap as hell) has alot of information and can be found on http://www.foreignladieswantyou.com This guy explains why feminism and obesity make dating really in
Western society really tough, and he goes into details, very good.

Apart from reading these great books however, experience is the greatest teacher. Once you travel to foreign countries and date foreign women, it's really a no brainer!