gvg

Seriously? Just like one cannot choose the color of their skin, one cannot choose their sexual orientation. WHy should their civil rights be trampled? because a book made by mid-eastern nomads says so? Give me a break. That's absolutely ridiculous. See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-4WSgiiYR8 Enough. Civil Rights is Civil Rights. I am not gay, I am fighting for the civil rights of those who are.

http://www.change.org/petitions/ask-the-dallas-cowboys-to-make-an-it-gets-better-video It's a petition to ask the Dallas Cowboys (American Football) to make one of those gay rights videos (one was recently done by the SF Giants (baseball)). So, for those who agree.... sign it . I only have three sig's so far, including mine. i need more.

So, me and my dad decided that we want to do a youtube series (titled above). We'll probably get people we know on the show to debate local, state, and national issues. We are open to suggestions, and we'll probably do a segment at the end of each show answering comments from youtube and here. We do, nhowever, need to start amassing a list of topics. We'll obviously do some of the bigger one's (healthcare, Lybia), but is there anything else that you can think of that we'll do? And it won't only be politics; we might do religious stuff 9depends). It's just a show to get opinions from people who aren't political analysts, politicians, etc. So... Comments? (Note: Whenever we do an episode, we'll link it to this forum. I don't know if it'll be weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, etc. We still need to figure out the details.)

This is true. I just think fed. gov. should stay out of social/political issues all together, unless it's something stupidly dangerous (which i can't think of right now). if they said "f*** it, drugs are leagl, gay marriage is legal, tc.", that would make me a happy man. Let me explain what I believe the gov. should be for: An economic regulator, preventing the rich from screwing people over and preventing corporations/wall street from forming impenitrable monopolies that basically eliminate the free market. A social protector, protecting the rights, like legalized weed (or something already in place, like civil rights laws), not limiting them as republicans are wont to do. A welfare provider to help those who can't help themselves until they can get bcak on their feet (and working to eliminate as many 'free riders' as possible) A physical protector, with an army, a police force, etc. that defends our country, not our oil interests. An enviornmental protector, and innovation supporter (such as funding physics experiments), and an infrasctructure provider. Really, this looks like a lot, but all of these can basically be classified under regulator, protector, progressor. (i'm sure there are minor exceptions that are out of these three, but nothing extremely important.) Basically all the things I want (that haven't been said up there) can fit under these three. For instance, eductaion goes under progressor. Alt. Energy goes under progressor. Free/ more affordable healthcare/college (like the stuff in many successful European countries) goes under either progressor or protector (of health). Seperation of church and state, I would argue, goes under protector. You, as an anarchist, probably thinks this is a lot. But i don't want a social rgulator. I don't want a militarist army. I don't want to waste our money on useless areas, like Afghanistan, where the people hate us anyway were it not FOR our money. And i think my ideas can easily be acheived through voting, the slow, contnuous process of constant voter education (with or withour compulsory voting, which i support) and education in general. No more paying corporations oil subsidies and what not. No more of all the bullsh*t. It'll take a while, but I think it's possible. And I think government is needed to acheive that. I don't trust an unfettered free market. i don't trust the general intelligence of the public (yet). And I can't see any of my ideas coming to life without a government. I just don't see it. THe DRO's, I know you claim otherwise, are acting as a sort of governing body. Government, my firend, is: gov·ern·mentnoun /ˈgəvər(n)mənt/  governments, plural 1.The governing body of a nation, state, or community - an agency of the federal government - government controls 2.The system by which a nation, state, or community is governed - a secular, pluralistic, democratic government 3.The action or manner of controlling or regulating a nation, organization, or people - rules for the government of the infirmary 4.The group of people in office at a particular time; administration - the election of the new government 5.All bonds issued by the US Treasury or other federal agencies 6.The relation between a governed and a governing word Basically, anything that governs. You are simply, in my mind, suggesting, with the use of the DRO's, a very limited, very privately influenced gov. that is, nonetheless still a government. it is simply a very liberterian one, which I respect but respectfully disagree with. I think my views can be summed up as social (as in socialist) capitalist, liberterian in social/political freedom issues. *passionate rant now over*

... didn't we just fight against that in the other thread? And btw, you basically described state laws. I have said for a while: On social and political issues, i would rather have the federal gov. say that everything reasonable (like weed, gay marriage, etc.) is legal and/or recognized. Now, this would be kinda hard to do becaue of those conservatives in Texas =) So, if necessary (which i don't think it has to be) I would then go with what Ron Paul said: Let the staes decide. If all the conservatives want to move to texas then because it most matches their views, i don't give a damn. There is, however, a problem: Half the country would be behind dramatically in terms of social/political evolution. Their 'zeitgeist', as Richard Dawkins calls it, wouldn't move nearly as fast as the others. And that can create issues. So i would MUCH MUCH MUCH rather have the Federal government say (for example) "weed's legal all over, if you don't like it don't participate." That makes the situations better, and actually increases social evolution in a way. When envengelical teens see gays married.... and realize the anti-christ ISN'T killing people because of it... they'll realize "Oh, it's not too bad then. Huh." That was part of the problem pre-civil war. The States in the south said "slavery, mwuhahaha", and the north didn't like that. Bam, civil war (yes i know it was officially to save the union, but slavery played a part), and suddenly, slavery is illegal. What happens? look at most people now, even in the south. While they aren't as civil-rights oriented as me and my fellow northerners are ( ), I doubt most would be OK with slavery, and the ones who are OK with it are usually viewed as wackos. And btw, UtF, this is one of (not the biggest, but one of) the problems i have with anarchy: humanity isn't ready for it yet. people are not naturally charitable. White southerners would have issues with helping poor black families, even today (yes, I'm generalizing). It can't work YET. That is why I am a statist. If it was a group like those in this thread, hell even if it was all of brainden. i'm sure it would work. but society as a whole? Not ready.

I'm pro-choice, but I HATE abortions. With a passion. I would rather the fetus develop and be born, and then given up for adoption. But then, I respect a woman's right to choose. It is her body, and that thing (the fetus) is not a human, nor is it living, nor can it suffer (all of these eventually happen, of course, but until they do, that thing is more like a tapeworm- a parisitic thing that takes and grows). As george Carlin said brilliantly, most (not all) pro-lifers are simply antiwoman: I am OK with abortions up to a certain point- after it can, if it leaves the womb, be a living thing and live on its own, which i believe medically happens around- 6 months? Something like that.

UtF: Um, that's what Robin hood did, no? Look, i know you want me to say no, and then you'll turn around and say "Well that's our gov." Truth is, emphasising the word forcibly is really not that scary. i have no issue with what you're saying, as long as you don't go communist and say "It's all mine." That's different. But if you take, say, 66% (Reagan's tax on rich), which would basically mean (in my book) 66% of, say, 1 or 2 mil (my 'rich person' cut off), leaving that guy with plently of money to have his basic needs and still buy a beautiful car, and you would then use that money to fund medicare, fund our schools, etc. which would help a hell of a lot more people, then you know what? No, i have no problem with it. Because the money you took would help more people than it would have if that guy had instead kept it and invested it in, say, the stocks of a company that was outsourcing our jobs or in the midst of becoming a monopoly (AT&T is actualyy very close to coming under the juristiction of our anti-trust laws, since they are merging with T-Mobile). So basically, i would support you. Even if it was me that the money was being taken from. I would support you. Because that money would do far more good to far more people than it would have if I selfishly keep it in my pocket. Because once again, it's not even our money if you think about it. It's the fed's, which prints our money and is a private bank. So, yeah. To me, whatever does the most good for the most people is the best choice. If you had to kill me to save the lives of 3 people, I'd be OK with that. So on and so forth. Read this: http://www.cracked.com/article_16239_5-psychological-experiments-that-prove-humanity-doomed.html Humanity can't work in an anarchaic system.

You mean like Robin Hood? I love the guy =) Yes, in fact, if you set up such a gov., I would support you. Especially if your gov. prevented monopolies like the standard oil company, prevented the crimes commited by Wall Street, etc. Ah yes, what would a DRO do in the case of Wall Street? You think they care about economic ostra... whatever? (I can't spell =)) They can afford to live off their wealth that they collected,, often illegally (Hence the view of many, including myself, that the perpetrators should be jailed and massively fined). And when they die, what're you gonna do, continue the 'punishment' upon their children, who obviously did nothing wrong? The rich would get away with more. I'll reply to the rest tomorrow, or some other time. I am sleepy now =)

UtF: The reason I say that a private court system won't work is as follows: You seem to think that having courts compete to give the best possible... would pay-back be the word to use here?... is a good idea. i find it scary. let me tell you why. First off, you seem to think that people would stop doing business with known criminals. I have an example to show you you're wrong: People are still doing business with Wall Street. Now, it is true that those who do have no choice to do otherwise, but you seem to have a different, more positive view of human nature than I do. This is a big difference to take into account. I instead see the following occuring: The store owner says "I will sell to you, but you have to pay X times the oriiginal price." if the criminals rich, well, there's no issue. All you've done is really punish the poor criminals only. And even if that didn't happen, what stops the criminal form killing the store manager? Then there's anothe DRO hearing, the criminal says "Screw you," and will continue to kill people who refuse to sell stuff to him or do business with him until people are scared into doing it anyway. Then what'll you do? Lynch him? Also, you say DRO's will compete through who gives the best rulings. Where the hell, first off, is the law code that they go by? I may have missed this if you wrote it, but that's important. What if everyone works on a different law code? how could you justify punishing someone who has a different law code than the supposed victim, and both parties have supporters? What happens then? Plus, i think punishments will actually get harsher than what they currently are through this system. Let's say DRO one gives rulings on, say, stealing an eraser that is equal to paying back the price of the eraser. But what if DRo 2 bases it on 1,000,000 times that price? WHo would they choose? Obviously, the second one, who gave their victim more money. But is it just? And I'm sure that you oppose the death penalty. Who says that a third DRO won't promise that the perpetrator of the theft is killed and all his/her stuff is given to the victim? I can easily see injustice run rampant in this system. (Obviously, my examples are exaggerration, but you get the point). And i just realized.... once one DRo takes over the region because the people enjoyed it's policies most.... and it effectively becomes a law enforcing monopoly... then it's a government! A very decntralized, unstable government yes, but a government nonetheless. Effectively destroying the anrachaic system. Also, you never answered the rest of my stuff. What about the examples of monopolies i gave you? And my other points? Please reply. And taxation is not the same as theft. You can choose to make no money, grow your own food, and accept welfare chaecks from the gov. (effectively then forcig them to supply you with money according to the governments own laws), and not pay any taxes, while on top of that using the roads and schools you are no longer paying for. Now, i would personally love to rat these people out of the system, but the point is, taxation is those who can afford to give helping those who can't, and to make it better, a progressive tax system works better. But the point is, you can technically opt out of taxation, and not theft. You don't want to have to pay for wars, for roads, etc.? Vote for people who won't make you! Yes, our voting system is in need of reform, but it is there to allow you to tell the gov. the type of people you want in control. Also (i know this is irrelevant, i just thought it was interesting), the two happiest nations on earth, Denmark and Canada (Or is it Sweden? Maybe they're third...) are social capitalist states with a progressive tax system and no wars on their hands (That I know of, unles they got involved in the US's mistakes). Again, i know it's irrelevant, just a fun fact =)

And not for nothing, but.... it is the government's (actually the Fed's, which is a private bank, but that's another issue) money. So in essence, they are being nice, and by you not paying taxes, you are the thief. Just another way to look at it.

My stuffs in red ok? I'll reply to your other post when I have more time

Quag: I do wonder, because I'm not sure of the answer: What's the difference between a parliament and the US's congress? i personally like our system, but it does need some reforms. But i do want to know the difference. What is it?

Well understood. Don't worry. There's more important stuff to do =)

The one really nagging issue I have is that Anarchy relies on a completely free free market, which, as I claimed earlier before you dismissed my claim, is paradoxical in nature: It needs to be slightly restricted so as not to destroy itself. I know you say that's BS, but let me explain: first off, there is evidence of this everywhere. Think of such examples as the Standard oil company or US Steel. They took advantage of the 'free' market to make, basically, their own empires that could not be controlled by competition because the competition was essentially destroyed. Why do you think that the US needed to put anti-trust laws in place? And think about the recent crash of 2008. That was caused in large part by wall street, for wall street, who ended up getting bonuses anyway. They speculated, they did their thing (i don't know how it works), and they f***** us up. Not completely the fault of wall street due to the wars (you seem to think that I'm a war-mongerer. i'm not; i too hate wars, especially the pointless ones we're in), but they still played a role. And you want to ive these people more freedoms? Really? You honestly think the Free market can stand up to the force of a huge a** monopoly? Then it ain't free anymore. Thus, thsat is why, up until a certain point, the freer the market is, the less free its people. i would love to hear evidence to the contrary; please enlighten me. (I also want to bring up: America's money is, basically, printed by a private bank, the Fed, to whom we owe 50% of our money to. That's how private corporations take over; the fed is owned by some of the richest non-Americans in the world, and we are basically enslaved to this private bank.) And npt for nothing, but the DFO's sound like a judicial system! Appeals, seperate courts... all your doing is privatizing it! I can't see how that's a good idea in anyway. Corruption takes place in gov. often, it's true, but more so in private areas. My dad's a business me; he knows first hand. He is involved in an anti-trust suit that is a risk to his business. The risk is real, and i see no method to control it without gov. I hope I don't sound to wacko; i haven't gotten that much sleep the past few days. But please answer, as these are really two of my biggest problems with anarchy. These, and the fact that humans are naturally greedy to aid in survival; but that's a different argument.

And I keep bringing up utopia because that is what anarchy tries to reach; that's whay it was created. "We don't need the gov.! We can be fine ourselves. Let's sing Kumbaya!" That's why. It's at the core of anarchy, just as utopia is at the core of communism.

UtF: You never answered the question of "What would the money be based of off?" (Unless I'm that oblivious, but I don't see it). What would it's value be based upon? What if I say paper clips are worth more than gold, and so i want to use it? WHo says it's wrong? WHat if you think that a gold coin is worth 20 paper clips but I think a peper clip is worth 20 gold coins? WHo's system wins? What gives money value, to sum it up nicely? And I only brought up the small vs. big gov issue because he used it as part of the basis of his argument. I just wanted to point it out; it can be disregarded.

http://wagingnonviolence.org/2009/12/can-peace-be-obtained-through-anarchy/ I think this beautifully illustrates why anarchy can't be done, without bringing the money problem into it. I simply don't think a peaceful society is possible without a state; we're not even fully there with one, although we are certaintly working on it. And also, UtF, he says that America was built on the ideas of small gov. This is not true. Think: Washington was a federalist, an advocate for large gov. The founders realized that the Articles of Con. didn't work, and so they made the constitution, which increased the size of gov. http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h445.html If they had really been for small gov., then the Constitution wouldn't have been made (as the anti-federalists wanted)

I actually don't have, nor want to have, a facebook or any other account on a social networking site (unless this counts as one... but i don't think so... =)) I just find it to be a petty annoyance that removes real contact. And plus i'm already slightly addicted to this and my emails, so facebook wouldn't do too well for me =)

Dawh: Brilliantly put =)

Molly: What if they did those things you see on some political quizzes online and do a scale? It would go under each question: How important is this to you? With the choices being very, somewhat, nuetral, not really, andnot at all. There are still probably some holes in it but actually, I like the idea.

Dawh: Well then. There we go =) Molly: I should do that now. That would be epic. =)

I know, just joking =) but I'm wondering, would they actually have to leave him as our president? And I could see it now. Speaker of the house Goofy =)

Molly Mae: Suppose Mickey wins....... =)

It's complete BS. That picture is one of the biggest coincidences I've ever seen. kinda like seeing pictures in the clouds.

My idea to fine people was just an example. i don't necessarily support it. Just defending the idea. Mostly because I'm defending this side of the argument in a week in school, so i'm testing it out =) Thankfully I don't think my opponenent is a clever as you are. In actuality, i do think it should be mandatory, but what would happen if you didn't? Tough call. Maybe instead we could make it mandatory to vote (if you're registered, which again you don't have to do) if you want your tax returns or a tax cut or something? I dunno. I just feel that it being mandatory would make the voting process better. Am i being optimistic? Possibly, which is unusual of my, as I'm usually a little more realistic. but, i dunno, something about it..... http://www.aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com/dictionary/anarchy Here's another definition. Just adding a different one