Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Whats wrong with FEMA & what are alternatives

jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 1:31:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This question goes out to libertarians and conservatives because I want it answered specifically from a "small-government", constitutionalist point of view. Two questions actually.
- What exactly is wrong with FEMA?
- What method is a better alternative to FEMA?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 1:48:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It's taxpayer funded.

It's distributed to these things called districts, some of which are more politically important than others.

It quite seriously blocks aid by other parties-- not just crowding out but outright forbidding it: http://www.cato.org...

Better? GTFO the way, leave people to take responsibility for the risks of where they live. If charities want to help, fine, if businesses want to sell help in the event of a disaster (probably by insurance before the disaster) fine. Most important, no taxing involved :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 2:07:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/27/2011 1:48:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It's taxpayer funded.


So is the army, the police, the hospitals, the . . .

It's distributed to these things called districts, some of which are more politically important than others.


Indeed.

It quite seriously blocks aid by other parties-- not just crowding out but outright forbidding it: http://www.cato.org...


Indeed.


Better? GTFO the way, leave people to take responsibility for the risks of where they live. If charities want to help, fine, if businesses want to sell help in the event of a disaster (probably by insurance before the disaster) fine. Most important, no taxing involved :).

Ah, the live and let die method, it works, DON'T HELP STARVING CHILDREN LET THEM DO THE RIGHT THING AND MOVE TO AN DIFFERENT AREA AND GET JOBS! Screw charities, asking for my money, the bastards. Have no problem with selling assistance but in most areas that have the sh!t hitting the fan the money literally becomes worth the same amount as tissue and napkins. Moderate tax isn't all that bad, excessive tax is bad.

My solution: http://www.ted.com... Let them build the stuff they need using the scraps left over, and then they can sell us some shrimp, everybody wins!
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 2:19:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/27/2011 2:07:56 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 8/27/2011 1:48:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It's taxpayer funded.


So is the army, the police, the hospitals, the . . .

It's distributed to these things called districts, some of which are more politically important than others.


Indeed.

It quite seriously blocks aid by other parties-- not just crowding out but outright forbidding it: http://www.cato.org...


Indeed.


Better? GTFO the way, leave people to take responsibility for the risks of where they live. If charities want to help, fine, if businesses want to sell help in the event of a disaster (probably by insurance before the disaster) fine. Most important, no taxing involved :).

Ah, the live and let die method, it works, DON'T HELP STARVING CHILDREN LET THEM DO THE RIGHT THING AND MOVE TO AN DIFFERENT AREA AND GET JOBS! Screw charities, asking for my money, the bastards. Have no problem with selling assistance but in most areas that have the sh!t hitting the fan the money literally becomes worth the same amount as tissue and napkins. Moderate tax isn't all that bad, excessive tax is bad.

My solution: http://www.ted.com... Let them build the stuff they need using the scraps left over, and then they can sell us some shrimp, everybody wins!

Also: http://www.ted.com...
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 2:29:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/27/2011 2:07:56 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 8/27/2011 1:48:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It's taxpayer funded.


So is the army, the police, the hospitals, the . . .
Also a problem. :)

Better? GTFO the way, leave people to take responsibility for the risks of where they live. If charities want to help, fine, if businesses want to sell help in the event of a disaster (probably by insurance before the disaster) fine. Most important, no taxing involved :).

Ah, the live and let die method, it works, DON'T HELP STARVING CHILDREN LET THEM DO THE RIGHT THING AND MOVE TO AN DIFFERENT AREA AND GET JOBS! Screw charities, asking for my money, the bastards. Have no problem with selling assistance but in most areas that have the sh!t hitting the fan the money literally becomes worth the same amount as tissue and napkins.
In regards to the last sentence, huh? Which money?

Moderate tax isn't all that bad, excessive tax is bad.
Moderate robbery...
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 2:51:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/27/2011 2:29:28 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/27/2011 2:07:56 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 8/27/2011 1:48:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
It's taxpayer funded.


So is the army, the police, the hospitals, the . . .
Also a problem. :)


I don't see it that way.


Better? GTFO the way, leave people to take responsibility for the risks of where they live. If charities want to help, fine, if businesses want to sell help in the event of a disaster (probably by insurance before the disaster) fine. Most important, no taxing involved :).

Ah, the live and let die method, it works, DON'T HELP STARVING CHILDREN LET THEM DO THE RIGHT THING AND MOVE TO AN DIFFERENT AREA AND GET JOBS! Screw charities, asking for my money, the bastards. Have no problem with selling assistance but in most areas that have the sh!t hitting the fan the money literally becomes worth the same amount as tissue and napkins.
In regards to the last sentence, huh? Which money?


When sh!t hits the fan your can of tuna that originally went for 50 cents will probably be worth more than somebodies 100 dollar bill.

Moderate tax isn't all that bad, excessive tax is bad.
Moderate robbery...

You don't have to pay your taxes, just expect the primary corporation within your area that pays for your defense, roads, [etc . . . etc . . .] to take back everything they have given to you [your rights to keep property, speak freely, piss in your back yard, not get raped when you bend over to tie your shoe laces, . . .]. Its simply you paying for the price of business, government is the company and to pay for all of this stuff they have to charge you money [they know that you as individuals probably wouldn't be able to scrounge up enough cash in order to pay for half the stuff you use but do not think about on the daily basis]. If you wish to abolish governments means of making money expect to see companies offering up the same service [government] by charging people within their borders money via usage fees [paying for the usage of my army to defend your arse, my construction of the electric grid, roads, hospitals, etc . . . etc . . .] which is all that tax is, an voluntary usage fee, you don't have to pay it just expect to lose your rights and privileges as an citizen if you don't, plus you could always move to Somalia or an Shanty Town/City if you really don't want to pay taxes.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 3:11:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/27/2011 2:51:07 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
In regards to the last sentence, huh? Which money?


When sh!t hits the fan your can of tuna that originally went for 50 cents will probably be worth more than somebodies 100 dollar bill.
Then buy an insurance contract that brings food instead of money.

You don't have to pay your taxes, just expect the primary corporation within your area that pays for your defense, roads, [etc . . . etc . . .] to take back everything they have given to you [your rights to keep property, speak freely, piss in your back yard, not get raped when you bend over to tie your shoe laces, . . .]
Rights aren't given. If they were taking away services (such as protection from OTHER people violating your rights) that's fine, it's no longer taxes but user fees. But instead of taking away services they just stick you in a cage-- i.e., instead of just leaving you to your own devices in case someone else violates your rights, they engage in the violation themselves. They shouldn't do that.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 3:13:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Besides, buying police protection is of value to me, buying FEMA is not.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 3:18:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/27/2011 3:13:35 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Besides, buying police protection is of value to me, buying FEMA is not.

I cannot argue with this, I personally think FEMA was an super-massive waste of tax payer dollars, we could have simply payed the Home Depot and several Red Necks to open up an few mobile stores down there and help them rebuild but no, they had to go with the cheap skates who used asbestos and lead trailers.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 3:34:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/27/2011 3:11:59 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/27/2011 2:51:07 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
In regards to the last sentence, huh? Which money?


When sh!t hits the fan your can of tuna that originally went for 50 cents will probably be worth more than somebodies 100 dollar bill.
Then buy an insurance contract that brings food instead of money.


Unfortunately that is not an direction in which most insurance companies would ever go but I might do it [thanks for the idea, I have never thought of this before] and I can say with quite an bit of certainty that no company in the US has ever made such an deal [but in the old world the first currencies were backed in non-perishable foods stored in holy temples and granaries so in a manner of context insurance contracts guaranteeing you food did exist at one point].


You don't have to pay your taxes, just expect the primary corporation within your area that pays for your defense, roads, [etc . . . etc . . .] to take back everything they have given to you [your rights to keep property, speak freely, piss in your back yard, not get raped when you bend over to tie your shoe laces, . . .]
Rights aren't given. If they were taking away services (such as protection from OTHER people violating your rights) that's fine, it's no longer taxes but user fees. But instead of taking away services they just stick you in a cage-- i.e., instead of just leaving you to your own devices in case someone else violates your rights, they engage in the violation themselves. They shouldn't do that.

Hey technically all land in the US is property of the US Government and is on rent to its citizens and therefore by extension all individuals who refuse to pay the "rent" of their land within the US are subject to being kicked out or punished by said landowners [Government]. Just look at it like the rise of Feudal lords, they were simply barbarian fighters, there is an village with land owned by the villagers being attacked and these barbarians fought the other barbarians in exchange for goods/services of the villagers, the villagers then realize that they actually need much more long term defense and contract the barbarians to stay in exchange for payment that all the villagers pitch in to pay for, these barbarians are now tasked with the defense of the entire village, but let use suppose that eventually one villager decides not to pay, the barbarians would be offering defense of the land from foreign invaders for free to individuals who decide not to pay and that is not fair [it goes against the original contract that stated that all of the able villagers would pitch in] to those who have paid for the defense of the entire village and therefore those individuals shall be punished [probably just face exile or death because one must consider the barbarians are putting their lives on the line for the defense of the village] as long as they remain within the borders.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 3:52:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Also, since technically you have lost all rights, does this not mean that I can put you in a cage and hire an Asian dude to poke you with an sharpened bamboo stick?
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 3:59:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/27/2011 1:48:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Better? GTFO the way, leave people to take responsibility for the risks of where they live.

While I'm definitely not in favor of FEMA, this is a bit of an unreasonable expectation. Just because someone's born in a city with a lot of natural disasters doesn't mean we can simply say "it's your own damn fault, shouldn't have lived there. better go move." First of all, it costs big money to move. Secondly, what if it's a young child with no parents? I guess it' their own fault right? Shouldn't have been born there huh.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 5:12:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/27/2011 3:59:30 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/27/2011 1:48:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Better? GTFO the way, leave people to take responsibility for the risks of where they live.

While I'm definitely not in favor of FEMA, this is a bit of an unreasonable expectation. Just because someone's born in a city with a lot of natural disasters doesn't mean we can simply say "it's your own damn fault, shouldn't have lived there. better go move." First of all, it costs big money to move. Secondly, what if it's a young child with no parents? I guess it' their own fault right? Shouldn't have been born there huh.

If they are a young child with no parents, they are free to try walking somewhere else. No one is entitled to be born in a risk-free scenario. There are no guarantees in life. Even if it's just dumb luck, you were just born, your mother died giving birth, no daddy, hurricane coming right now.... well, first of all, there's no way in hell you'd survive long enough for FEMA to save you anyway, secondly taxpayers don't bear any responsibility for your bad luck.

It does not cost money to move, it costs money to take stuff with you. An orphan such as you have described probably doesn't have anything to haul anyway.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 5:17:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/27/2011 3:34:47 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 8/27/2011 3:11:59 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/27/2011 2:51:07 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
In regards to the last sentence, huh? Which money?


When sh!t hits the fan your can of tuna that originally went for 50 cents will probably be worth more than somebodies 100 dollar bill.
Then buy an insurance contract that brings food instead of money.


Unfortunately that is not an direction in which most insurance companies would ever go
That's why we have entrepreneurs, to try different directions.

Rights aren't given. If they were taking away services (such as protection from OTHER people violating your rights) that's fine, it's no longer taxes but user fees. But instead of taking away services they just stick you in a cage-- i.e., instead of just leaving you to your own devices in case someone else violates your rights, they engage in the violation themselves. They shouldn't do that.

Hey technically all land in the US is property of the US Government
NO IT IS NOT. The US government never legitimately acquired all or most land in the US, even currently classified federal lands. The government claims it but that claim is not legitimate.

Also, since technically you have lost all rights
No I haven't. If I don't pay a user fee in a minarchy, I lose police protection, I don't lose rights.

does this not mean that I can put you in a cage and hire an Asian dude to poke you with an sharpened bamboo stick?
If you're a private citizen and I didn't pay my user fee... well, no one will stop you unless I do. If you're the government... doing that makes you no longer a minarchy, i.e. no longer a government I support whether I was a user fee payer before or not.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 5:27:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/27/2011 5:17:41 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/27/2011 3:34:47 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 8/27/2011 3:11:59 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/27/2011 2:51:07 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
In regards to the last sentence, huh? Which money?


When sh!t hits the fan your can of tuna that originally went for 50 cents will probably be worth more than somebodies 100 dollar bill.
Then buy an insurance contract that brings food instead of money.


Unfortunately that is not an direction in which most insurance companies would ever go
That's why we have entrepreneurs, to try different directions.


True.



Rights aren't given. If they were taking away services (such as protection from OTHER people violating your rights) that's fine, it's no longer taxes but user fees. But instead of taking away services they just stick you in a cage-- i.e., instead of just leaving you to your own devices in case someone else violates your rights, they engage in the violation themselves. They shouldn't do that.

Hey technically all land in the US is property of the US Government
NO IT IS NOT. The US government never legitimately acquired all or most land in the US, even currently classified federal lands. The government claims it but that claim is not legitimate.


Technically, most modern Americans claim to land is not legitimate, but you don't see any serious people complaining [only those damn dirty hippies :)].

Also, since technically you have lost all rights
No I haven't. If I don't pay a user fee in a minarchy, I lose police protection, I don't lose rights.


They pay for the defense of the entire nation, it is not practical to defend only the willing taxpayers houses from invaders rather than to defend the entire land from foreign conquest without having to look at an list of who can get what.

does this not mean that I can put you in a cage and hire an Asian dude to poke you with an sharpened bamboo stick?
If you're a private citizen and I didn't pay my user fee... well, no one will stop you unless I do. If you're the government... doing that makes you no longer a minarchy, i.e. no longer a government I support whether I was a user fee payer before or not.

Government is composed of people and what said people do with their money and during their lunch breaks [such as locking you in a cage and paying an Asian guy to poke you with an sharpened bamboo stick] is their own private business.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 5:59:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/27/2011 5:27:46 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:

Technically, most modern Americans claim to land is not legitimate
That man planted a farm. His claim to that farm is legitimate.
That man bought a farm from someone who planted it. His claim to that farm is legitimate.

Also, since technically you have lost all rights
No I haven't. If I don't pay a user fee in a minarchy, I lose police protection, I don't lose rights.


They pay for the defense of the entire nation, it is not practical to defend only the willing taxpayers houses from invaders
Invaders don't invade "Houses." The purpose of the US army is not to defend individual Americans, it is to prevent other nations from exercising jurisdiction over the US. The fact that the army exists does you no good when your neighbor is raping and killing you, hence you aren't getting a free ride. National defense is a cost of doing business for governments, it comes out of the police user fees.

does this not mean that I can put you in a cage and hire an Asian dude to poke you with an sharpened bamboo stick?
If you're a private citizen and I didn't pay my user fee... well, no one will stop you unless I do. If you're the government... doing that makes you no longer a minarchy, i.e. no longer a government I support whether I was a user fee payer before or not.

Government is composed of people and what said people do with their money and during their lunch breaks [such as locking you in a cage and paying an Asian guy to poke you with an sharpened bamboo stick] is their own private business.
True enough, but what's your point? What a government employeee does off duty is not a government action.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 6:21:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/27/2011 5:59:34 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/27/2011 5:27:46 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:

Technically, most modern Americans claim to land is not legitimate
That man planted a farm. His claim to that farm is legitimate.
That man bought a farm from someone who planted it. His claim to that farm is legitimate.


Kill Native American, take said Natives land, legitimate claim to the land?
But then again, the US purchased the Louisiana Purchase, Alaska, and several other masses.

Also, since technically you have lost all rights
No I haven't. If I don't pay a user fee in a minarchy, I lose police protection, I don't lose rights.


They pay for the defense of the entire nation, it is not practical to defend only the willing taxpayers houses from invaders
Invaders don't invade "Houses." The purpose of the US army is not to defend individual Americans, it is to prevent other nations from exercising jurisdiction over the US. The fact that the army exists does you no good when your neighbor is raping and killing you, hence you aren't getting a free ride. National defense is a cost of doing business for governments, it comes out of the police user fees.



Americans pay the US military to defend its borders from foreign power, an individual refuses to pay, does said individual deserve to be defended from said individuals from a foreign power? So two solutions may emerge, one we punish you simply to make ourselves feel better [you have no rights and therefore it is not a crime] or two we will send an bill to your house [only during times of defense, meaning this shall only happen if the US is being attacked and your property was in the line of attack that the government adverted or border invasions that were averted] and if you do not pay [remember you have no rights] we will enter your house and take an piece of property that would cover the standard taxation of an average individual.

does this not mean that I can put you in a cage and hire an Asian dude to poke you with an sharpened bamboo stick?
If you're a private citizen and I didn't pay my user fee... well, no one will stop you unless I do. If you're the government... doing that makes you no longer a minarchy, i.e. no longer a government I support whether I was a user fee payer before or not.

Government is composed of people and what said people do with their money and during their lunch breaks [such as locking you in a cage and paying an Asian guy to poke you with an sharpened bamboo stick] is their own private business.
True enough, but what's your point? What a government employeee does off duty is not a government action.

Exactly and because they feel like locking you up and poking you during their lunch break [even though they are still in uniform and irregardless of the fact they feel like doing this due to the fact you don't pay taxes] you cannot complain that its the governments fault [government worker decides to run an facility for the caging and poking of non-taxpayers which is coincidentally connected to the prison used for convicts].
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 6:55:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/27/2011 6:21:31 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 8/27/2011 5:59:34 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/27/2011 5:27:46 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:

Technically, most modern Americans claim to land is not legitimate
That man planted a farm. His claim to that farm is legitimate.
That man bought a farm from someone who planted it. His claim to that farm is legitimate.


Kill Native American, take said Natives land, legitimate claim to the land?
No modern American did any such thing.

Americans pay the US military to defend its borders from foreign power
The US army and the border patrol are two different things. It doesn't particularly matter if a foreign power sends a dude across the border, unless that dude is trying to exercise jurisidiction.

an individual refuses to pay, does said individual deserve to be defended from said individuals from a foreign power?
Said defense is meaningless, as they aren't defended from the neighbor. Again, defense of individual homes is not the purpose of the US army. There's no service to "Deserve." If you are a taxpayer today and China were for some reason to send a uniformed but sneaky soldier to grenade your house, you would not be able to sue the US government for failure to protect your property.

Exactly and because they feel like locking you up and poking you during their lunch break [even though they are still in uniform and irregardless of the fact they feel like doing this due to the fact you don't pay taxes] you cannot complain that its the governments fault [government worker decides to run an facility for the caging and poking of non-taxpayers which is coincidentally connected to the prison used for convicts].
How would they connect it to government property?

Regardless, that's not what happens today, and there is no particular incentive for a government worker to do it in the absence of policy. Make such a regime (minus the connection to givernment property) and I'm okay, today's regime I'm not.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 7:05:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/27/2011 6:55:01 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/27/2011 6:21:31 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 8/27/2011 5:59:34 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/27/2011 5:27:46 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:

Technically, most modern Americans claim to land is not legitimate
That man planted a farm. His claim to that farm is legitimate.
That man bought a farm from someone who planted it. His claim to that farm is legitimate.


Kill Native American, take said Natives land, legitimate claim to the land?
No modern American did any such thing.


Old Americans did it, but since it was not their land to give does any modern person have rights to claim said land?


Americans pay the US military to defend its borders from foreign power
The US army and the border patrol are two different things. It doesn't particularly matter if a foreign power sends a dude across the border, unless that dude is trying to exercise jurisidiction.


Potatoes Potatoes, either way tax still has to pay for said service.

an individual refuses to pay, does said individual deserve to be defended from said individuals from a foreign power?
Said defense is meaningless, as they aren't defended from the neighbor. Again, defense of individual homes is not the purpose of the US army. There's no service to "Deserve." If you are a taxpayer today and China were for some reason to send a uniformed but sneaky soldier to grenade your house, you would not be able to sue the US government for failure to protect your property.


This is the defense of the entire land which the government has jurisdiction over, not the police, the police [alongside courts] deal with disputes between individuals.



Exactly and because they feel like locking you up and poking you during their lunch break [even though they are still in uniform and irregardless of the fact they feel like doing this due to the fact you don't pay taxes] you cannot complain that its the governments fault [government worker decides to run an facility for the caging and poking of non-taxpayers which is coincidentally connected to the prison used for convicts].
How would they connect it to government property?


They rented a few acres of land from the government that is near the prison and built an connecting passage to the rest of the prison and pay fees for said usage.

Regardless, that's not what happens today, and there is no particular incentive for a government worker to do it in the absence of policy. Make such a regime (minus the connection to givernment property) and I'm okay, today's regime I'm not.

http://www.debate.org...
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 9:11:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/27/2011 7:05:18 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 8/27/2011 6:55:01 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/27/2011 6:21:31 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 8/27/2011 5:59:34 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/27/2011 5:27:46 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:

Technically, most modern Americans claim to land is not legitimate
That man planted a farm. His claim to that farm is legitimate.
That man bought a farm from someone who planted it. His claim to that farm is legitimate.


Kill Native American, take said Natives land, legitimate claim to the land?
No modern American did any such thing.


Old Americans did it, but since it was not their land to give does any modern person have rights to claim said land?
Not on the grounds of inheriting from those Americans.

On the grounds of use or purchase on the open market, in the absence of a living victim claiming contrary...

(Not to mention the adverse possession doctrine in common law, and the fact that most Native Americans never had a concept of exactly which individual owned which land in the first place so there was nothing to steal, though that doesn't excuse all the killing).

Potatoes Potatoes, either way tax still has to pay for said service.
Not true, I've outlined the alternative funding model approximately 9000 times.

This is the defense of the entire land which the government has jurisdiction over, not the police, the police [alongside courts] deal with disputes between individuals.
In other words, it's a government defending its jurisdiction (cost of doing business), the INDIVIDUAL IS NOT FREE RIDING. As you just admit, the service is not there for individuals.




Exactly and because they feel like locking you up and poking you during their lunch break [even though they are still in uniform and irregardless of the fact they feel like doing this due to the fact you don't pay taxes] you cannot complain that its the governments fault [government worker decides to run an facility for the caging and poking of non-taxpayers which is coincidentally connected to the prison used for convicts].
How would they connect it to government property?


They rented a few acres of land from the government that is near the prison and built an connecting passage to the rest of the prison
That sounds like trespassing.

and pay fees for said usage.
A government does not rent out prison space to private parties. If it did that would be a security problem.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 10:49:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/27/2011 9:11:17 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/27/2011 7:05:18 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 8/27/2011 6:55:01 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/27/2011 6:21:31 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 8/27/2011 5:59:34 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/27/2011 5:27:46 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:

Technically, most modern Americans claim to land is not legitimate
That man planted a farm. His claim to that farm is legitimate.
That man bought a farm from someone who planted it. His claim to that farm is legitimate.


Kill Native American, take said Natives land, legitimate claim to the land?
No modern American did any such thing.


Old Americans did it, but since it was not their land to give does any modern person have rights to claim said land?
Not on the grounds of inheriting from those Americans.

On the grounds of use or purchase on the open market, in the absence of a living victim claiming contrary...


Well the US still purchased/conquered most of those landmasses, so therefore your argument primarily just applies to the first 13 colonies.

(Not to mention the adverse possession doctrine in common law, and the fact that most Native Americans never had a concept of exactly which individual owned which land in the first place so there was nothing to steal, though that doesn't excuse all the killing).


The land was technically for rent [that is how the Natives viewed the contracts they signed] but the colonists thought it was for sale.

Potatoes Potatoes, either way tax still has to pay for said service.
Not true, I've outlined the alternative funding model approximately 9000 times.


You don';t have to pay tax, it is voluntary just expect to be thrown into a cage and poked by an Asian dude if you don't.

This is the defense of the entire land which the government has jurisdiction over, not the police, the police [alongside courts] deal with disputes between individuals.
In other words, it's a government defending its jurisdiction (cost of doing business), the INDIVIDUAL IS NOT FREE RIDING. As you just admit, the service is not there for individuals.


You are free riding, only individuals who pay for my services deserved to be defended from the imperialism of other nations who may force the people I defend to adopt new cultures, customs, and laws. It is impractical to defend an entire city with the exception of 3 houses within said city who do not wish to be defended.




Exactly and because they feel like locking you up and poking you during their lunch break [even though they are still in uniform and irregardless of the fact they feel like doing this due to the fact you don't pay taxes] you cannot complain that its the governments fault [government worker decides to run an facility for the caging and poking of non-taxpayers which is coincidentally connected to the prison used for convicts].
How would they connect it to government property?


They rented a few acres of land from the government that is near the prison and built an connecting passage to the rest of the prison
That sounds like trespassing.


Not if the government allows it.

and pay fees for said usage.
A government does not rent out prison space to private parties. If it did that would be a security problem.

Nah, they just share the front desk, electricity, and sanitation, it streamlines movement and prevents extra entrances/exits from forming.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 11:36:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/27/2011 10:49:55 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 8/27/2011 9:11:17 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/27/2011 7:05:18 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 8/27/2011 6:55:01 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/27/2011 6:21:31 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 8/27/2011 5:59:34 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/27/2011 5:27:46 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:

Technically, most modern Americans claim to land is not legitimate
That man planted a farm. His claim to that farm is legitimate.
That man bought a farm from someone who planted it. His claim to that farm is legitimate.


Kill Native American, take said Natives land, legitimate claim to the land?
No modern American did any such thing.


Old Americans did it, but since it was not their land to give does any modern person have rights to claim said land?
Not on the grounds of inheriting from those Americans.

On the grounds of use or purchase on the open market, in the absence of a living victim claiming contrary...


Well the US still purchased/conquered most of those landmasses
Conquest is not a legitimate means of acquisition, purchase is only a legitimate means of acquisition when buying it legit in the first place.

(Not to mention the adverse possession doctrine in common law, and the fact that most Native Americans never had a concept of exactly which individual owned which land in the first place so there was nothing to steal, though that doesn't excuse all the killing).


The land was technically for rent [that is how the Natives viewed the contracts they signed] but the colonists thought it was for sale.
If you're talking treaties that's irrelevant to my point. And it doesn't matter how it was viewed, what matters in a contract is the text.


Potatoes Potatoes, either way tax still has to pay for said service.
Not true, I've outlined the alternative funding model approximately 9000 times.


You don';t have to pay tax, it is voluntary just expect to be thrown into a cage and poked by an Asian dude if you don't.
That's not voluntary when the party demanding payment and the party throwing in cage are the same party or allied.

You are free riding, only individuals who pay for my services deserved to be defended from the imperialism of other nations who may force the people I defend to adopt new cultures, customs, and laws.
You won't be defended, you'll be dead because your neighbor shot you, furthermore, the purpose is not to defend cultures and customs. Defending the law is defending the government, not the individual.

It is impractical to defend an entire city with the exception of 3 houses within said city who do not wish to be defended.
Again, the occupants of those houses are not defended. Defense of city and defense of individuals are totally distinct things. The individuals aren't a part of the city, they just share space with it, when it is not the space being defended but a monopoly on jurisdiction (which the individual is not the owner of).

Not if the government allows it.
A minarchist government does not collude with such people.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2011 11:58:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/27/2011 11:36:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/27/2011 10:49:55 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 8/27/2011 9:11:17 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/27/2011 7:05:18 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 8/27/2011 6:55:01 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/27/2011 6:21:31 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 8/27/2011 5:59:34 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/27/2011 5:27:46 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:

Technically, most modern Americans claim to land is not legitimate
That man planted a farm. His claim to that farm is legitimate.
That man bought a farm from someone who planted it. His claim to that farm is legitimate.


Kill Native American, take said Natives land, legitimate claim to the land?
No modern American did any such thing.


Old Americans did it, but since it was not their land to give does any modern person have rights to claim said land?
Not on the grounds of inheriting from those Americans.

On the grounds of use or purchase on the open market, in the absence of a living victim claiming contrary...


Well the US still purchased/conquered most of those landmasses
Conquest is not a legitimate means of acquisition, purchase is only a legitimate means of acquisition when buying it legit in the first place.


Are the individuals who lost their land due to said conquest here to claim it now?

(Not to mention the adverse possession doctrine in common law, and the fact that most Native Americans never had a concept of exactly which individual owned which land in the first place so there was nothing to steal, though that doesn't excuse all the killing).


The land was technically for rent [that is how the Natives viewed the contracts they signed] but the colonists thought it was for sale.
If you're talking treaties that's irrelevant to my point. And it doesn't matter how it was viewed, what matters in a contract is the text.


What matters is that this was the end result of 2 separate peoples who viewed said contract as two separate things due to minute language boundaries. But they are all dead so who cares?


Potatoes Potatoes, either way tax still has to pay for said service.
Not true, I've outlined the alternative funding model approximately 9000 times.


You don';t have to pay tax, it is voluntary just expect to be thrown into a cage and poked by an Asian dude if you don't.
That's not voluntary when the party demanding payment and the party throwing in cage are the same party or allied.


It is, you don't have to pay just expect to be thrown into a cage and poked because you didn't pay to keep your rights. It is very similar to the old You don't work you don't eat policies of the first colonies.

You are free riding, only individuals who pay for my services deserved to be defended from the imperialism of other nations who may force the people I defend to adopt new cultures, customs, and laws.
You won't be defended, you'll be dead because your neighbor shot you, furthermore, the purpose is not to defend cultures and customs. Defending the law is defending the government, not the individual.


The police would defend you from your neighbor shooting you [unfortunately you didn't pay for that service], the military branches of the nation defend from foreign imperialist powers which would attempt to forcibly change you way of life [such as backing money with rice, making you wear kimonos, and forcing you to eat sushi]. The initial people within said nation agreed to law terms and said law may be changed in accordance to mandates set in said original contract.

It is impractical to defend an entire city with the exception of 3 houses within said city who do not wish to be defended.
Again, the occupants of those houses are not defended. Defense of city and defense of individuals are totally distinct things. The individuals aren't a part of the city, they just share space with it, when it is not the space being defended but a monopoly on jurisdiction (which the individual is not the owner of).


You live in the city and your land takes up space within the city, therefore your land is a part of the city unless you attempt to make some new zoning laws that make your house separate from the rest of the city. Groups are made up of individuals and therefore an attack upon the group is an attack upon individuals within said group. You may not consider yourself to be a part of society but by living within said society you become part of it unless you build an gigantic enclosure and make new zoning rules for yourself, AKA Petoria.

If your land is within the city I am defending then by extension I am defending your land.

Not if the government allows it.
A minarchist government does not collude with such people.

It would because it is getting paid for it, such as how many roads are being leased off to private companies.

So to conclude, stop freeloading off of taxpayer money or else we shall put you into an box and pay Asians to poke y'all with sharp sticks. You don't pay you don't get rights, it is that simple.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 12:27:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
But Wesley Snipes should be an exception.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 1:01:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/27/2011 11:58:56 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 8/27/2011 11:36:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/27/2011 10:49:55 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 8/27/2011 9:11:17 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/27/2011 7:05:18 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 8/27/2011 6:55:01 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/27/2011 6:21:31 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 8/27/2011 5:59:34 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/27/2011 5:27:46 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:

Technically, most modern Americans claim to land is not legitimate
That man planted a farm. His claim to that farm is legitimate.
That man bought a farm from someone who planted it. His claim to that farm is legitimate.


Kill Native American, take said Natives land, legitimate claim to the land?
No modern American did any such thing.


Old Americans did it, but since it was not their land to give does any modern person have rights to claim said land?
Not on the grounds of inheriting from those Americans.

On the grounds of use or purchase on the open market, in the absence of a living victim claiming contrary...


Well the US still purchased/conquered most of those landmasses
Conquest is not a legitimate means of acquisition, purchase is only a legitimate means of acquisition when buying it legit in the first place.


Are the individuals who lost their land due to said conquest here to claim it now?

The individuals who use the land falsely claimed by the government are. You're effectively asking for something to counter the possession presumption of ownership when the government isn't engaging in possession anyway.

It is, you don't have to pay just expect to be thrown into a cage and poked because you didn't pay to keep your rights. It is very similar to the old You don't work you don't eat policies of the first colonies.
That's not at all similar. It's more similar to "You don't work, we pump your stomach, tape your mouth shut and you can't leave to work somewhere else."

The police would defend you from your neighbor shooting you [unfortunately you didn't pay for that service]
Therefore they don't protect you

the military branches of the nation defend from foreign imperialist powers
They defend THE GOVERNMENT (themselves).

The initial people within said nation agreed to law terms
No they didn't, and they have no right to consent for us anyway.

You live in the city and your land takes up space within the city, therefore your land is a part of the city
Fallacy of equivocation, being "In the city" geographically and being a part of the city as a political entity are two completely different things. The city is a government, unless you are involved in that government you aren't part of it.

Groups are made up of individuals and therefore an attack upon the group is an attack upon individuals within said group.
The city is a group consisting of some individuals (those in the electoral majority in the present system) not all of them.

If your land is within the city I am defending then by extension I am defending your land.
No, you are defending its cityhood, which is not something I own. I own its househood or its farmhood, its cityhood is solely of material interest to the government.

It would because it is getting paid for it
It's not burger king, you don't just tip extra and have it your way, it offers services only on certain terms.

don't pay you don't get rights, it is that simple.
That's not even remotely compatible with what the word rights means. It's like saying if I don't buy a big enough shirt my stomach ceases to exist.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 2:48:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 1:01:22 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/27/2011 11:58:56 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 8/27/2011 11:36:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/27/2011 10:49:55 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 8/27/2011 9:11:17 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/27/2011 7:05:18 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 8/27/2011 6:55:01 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/27/2011 6:21:31 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 8/27/2011 5:59:34 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/27/2011 5:27:46 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:

Technically, most modern Americans claim to land is not legitimate
That man planted a farm. His claim to that farm is legitimate.
That man bought a farm from someone who planted it. His claim to that farm is legitimate.


Kill Native American, take said Natives land, legitimate claim to the land?
No modern American did any such thing.


Old Americans did it, but since it was not their land to give does any modern person have rights to claim said land?
Not on the grounds of inheriting from those Americans.

On the grounds of use or purchase on the open market, in the absence of a living victim claiming contrary...


Well the US still purchased/conquered most of those landmasses
Conquest is not a legitimate means of acquisition, purchase is only a legitimate means of acquisition when buying it legit in the first place.


Are the individuals who lost their land due to said conquest here to claim it now?

The individuals who use the land falsely claimed by the government are. You're effectively asking for something to counter the possession presumption of ownership when the government isn't engaging in possession anyway.


It is, you don't have to pay just expect to be thrown into a cage and poked because you didn't pay to keep your rights. It is very similar to the old You don't work you don't eat policies of the first colonies.
That's not at all similar. It's more similar to "You don't work, we pump your stomach, tape your mouth shut and you can't leave to work somewhere else."


The police would defend you from your neighbor shooting you [unfortunately you didn't pay for that service]
Therefore they don't protect you

the military branches of the nation defend from foreign imperialist powers
They defend THE GOVERNMENT (themselves).

The initial people within said nation agreed to law terms
No they didn't, and they have no right to consent for us anyway.

You live in the city and your land takes up space within the city, therefore your land is a part of the city
Fallacy of equivocation, being "In the city" geographically and being a part of the city as a political entity are two completely different things. The city is a government, unless you are involved in that government you aren't part of it.

Groups are made up of individuals and therefore an attack upon the group is an attack upon individuals within said group.
The city is a group consisting of some individuals (those in the electoral majority in the present system) not all of them.


If your land is within the city I am defending then by extension I am defending your land.
No, you are defending its cityhood, which is not something I own. I own its househood or its farmhood, its cityhood is solely of material interest to the government.

It would because it is getting paid for it
It's not burger king, you don't just tip extra and have it your way, it offers services only on certain terms.

don't pay you don't get rights, it is that simple.
That's not even remotely compatible with what the word rights means. It's like saying if I don't buy a big enough shirt my stomach ceases to exist.

Government is nothing but an business if you don't like the performance and ethics of said business you can always go to another or better yet try to start your own, but till then, no tax no rights.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 2:54:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Government is nothing but an business if you don't like the performance and ethics of said business you can always go to another or better yet try to start your own
Government is a monopoly business. That's what makes it a government, its monopoly on retaliatory (and initial if any) force.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
BennyW
Posts: 698
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 2:21:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It is the local community's job to prepare and deal with disasters.
You didn't build that-Obama
It's pretty lazy to quote things you disagree with, call it stupid and move on, rather than arguing with the person. -000ike
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2011 2:46:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/28/2011 2:54:11 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Government is nothing but an business if you don't like the performance and ethics of said business you can always go to another or better yet try to start your own
Government is a monopoly business. That's what makes it a government, its monopoly on retaliatory (and initial if any) force.

No it's not, see its competitors: http://en.wikipedia.org... . You can start your own if you can afford the start up costs, which would be buying uninhabited land masses, building islands, or paying soldiers to conquer lands. Saying government is an monopoly is like saying that when you go inside of Wal-Mart it is an monopoly but you fail to look at the Target and K-Mart down the street.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.