The Philosophy of Liberty

[saxitoxin]

i feel no need to use long words to get my point across.

or even the correct words, apparently

[saxitoxin]

You are reliant on the state, regardless as to whether the notion of you being a welfare recipient fits with the Weltanschauung that has been drilled into your head or not.

i never said i wasn't reliant on the state. in fact, in that post that you so selectively quoted i actually said very specifically that i rely on the state to protect my safety and civil liberties.

i have been talking specifically about people who really on state benefits

such as yourself

you really must stop quoting me so selectively. just words after that part of my post, i said that people should be made to work for their benefits. i work for mine, by having a job and paying tax. they do no such thing, and so do nothing to earn their benefits.

If someone worked 1 hour per year and received £20,000 in benefits that would be acceptable to you, whereas if they worked 0 hours per year and received £20,000 it would not?

For the sixth time, you receive value in excess of what you put in. So do welfare recipients. You are a welfare recipient due to your, previously itemized, reliance on the state.

The state pulled you out of your mother's vagina, when you get old the state will have a finger up your rectum, feeling your prostate. There are few more reliant on the state than you. The state has made you into a sponge, reliant on it, which is why you so eagerly rush to defense of the state. You do not want to face the possibility the state won't finger your pooper in a few years. You are the breed of 21st century man-children. You do not have the ability to care for yourself. The fact that you don't want to admit it doesn't change that it's a fact.

There's really no point in continuing this discussion. You can stammer out the last word, if you like. Begin here:

[hairy potter]

i feel no need to use long words to get my point across.

or even the correct words, apparently

F for use of evidence
F for addressing all previous arguments
A for dodging any point you are unable to refute

If someone worked 1 hour per year and received £20,000 in benefits that would be acceptable to you, whereas if they worked 0 hours per year and received £20,000 it would not?

no. i would expect them to put in a proportionate amount of work. at no point did i say that any amount of work was an acceptable amount.


and again, you continue to act as if i am pretending that i am completely independent of the state and as if you have no reliance on the state whatsoever.
i have specifically stated that i rely on the state for some things. 'feeling my prostate', however, will happily not be one of them, as i will leave that in the hands of my private doctor.
without the state, you would be left without numerous benefits that you currently take for granted. i won't restate them, but i have outlined a few of them in previous posts. moving to ethiopia might also open your eyes as to just how much your government does for you.

[saxitoxin]

I think a vote for Ron Paul is a vote against the system and better than not voting.

Ron Paul is about further to the right from ol' Saxi than possible to get.

But The Insect doesn't care about the left or right, it doesn't care about ideology. So, the self-assured leftist will support any revolutionary movement regardless of orientation ... IOW, I like Ron Paul, too.

(But I would never vote for him - or vote at all - even if I were allowed to vote. As Metsfanmax noted, a true non-systemic change in any government can only be achieved through armed revolution under the Red Banner of a worker's vanguard operating at the head of the Communist Party.*)

* Which is not to say I am advocating for any specific act in any specific country by any specific group.

[hairy potter]

so as a leftie, who i'm therefore assuming is interested in moving society towards greater economic equality, you are in favour of removing the only power structure capable of doing just that?

[nietzsche]

What about the liberty of think by yourself?

What percentage of Americans think by themselves? Is it correct to tell you "you are free" but at the same time invade you mind with propaganda, fear and 24/7 infomercials?

[hairy potter]

What about the liberty of think by yourself?

What percentage of Americans think by themselves? Is it correct to tell you "you are free" but at the same time invade you mind with propaganda, fear and 24/7 infomercials?

it's hilarious/scary how many people allow their opinions to be determined by media shit-stirring.

at the same time, however, failing to be dictated to by 'they're out to get you' news coverage doesn't necessarily make you a free thinker. from the very beginning, the way you think and the way you intepret the world around you is a learnt process. everyone has at least partially (although in reality almost wholly) been taught how to think.

i believe it was you who used the word 'determinism' earlier in this thread

[Phatscotty]

always look to ones motives, and you can filter just about anything, so long as your perception is correct

[Army of GOD]

I generally agree with everything, minus some of the things where it said "you get to choose what you want to do with your life" and it showed a picture of a cigarette, and then later it showed a picture of a potleaf and a martini glass.

I mean, ya, if none of those effected other people in the world then they'd be fine, but it's evident that they do, in one way or another. Like I, personally, can't stand the smell of smoke. And people have died from drunk-driving accidents or drunken rages.

Ok I agree with the drunk driving comment, and to a degree the cigarette, but how does pot negatively affect other people?

I know this will make me sound like a bizzatch, but I can't stand the smell of smoke...either cigarette smoke or pot smoke. I just don't like it, and I hate when it's around public places. It's kinda like a personal comfort thing...haha

[Phatscotty]

I likewise hate when people cut me off on the freeway. very agitating and very dangerous too

[Baron Von PWN]

I generally agree with everything, minus some of the things where it said "you get to choose what you want to do with your life" and it showed a picture of a cigarette, and then later it showed a picture of a potleaf and a martini glass.

I mean, ya, if none of those effected other people in the world then they'd be fine, but it's evident that they do, in one way or another. Like I, personally, can't stand the smell of smoke. And people have died from drunk-driving accidents or drunken rages.

Ok I agree with the drunk driving comment, and to a degree the cigarette, but how does pot negatively affect other people?

Same way as cigarettes. Second hand smoke.

[hairy potter]

Ok I agree with the drunk driving comment, and to a degree the cigarette, but how does pot negatively affect other people?

Same way as cigarettes. Second hand smoke.[/quote]

and the burden that they all put on the health service. americans don't really pay for this via their taxes, but they pay via higher insurance premiums.

[PLAYER57832]

I mean, ya, if none of those effected other people in the world then they'd be fine, but it's evident that they do, in one way or another. Like I, personally, can't stand the smell of smoke. And people have died from drunk-driving accidents or drunken rages.

This is the key. But the problem is too many people wish to deny the things THEY want to do truly impact others. Like not paying fire taxes means houses and public lands will burn. Not having health insurance means the rest of us wind up picking up YOUR bills (in higher healthcare direct costs due to absorption of non-payers, higher taxes as more people th4e insurance companies decline to cover wind up on tax rolls, AND higher insurance bills [plus lower coverage overall to help pay for overall health care cost increases. Not paying attention to infrastructure like roads leads to accidents and increased repair costs later. Not paying attention to "environmental" impacts and externatilies of ALL kinds means that you are essentially stealing profits from someone, else in time or location. Pollute the Mississippi and Gulf fisherment pay, as do all consumers of Gulf resources. Dump acid into our atmosphere and the forests, rivers and lakes in the East die. ETC.

Other than that though, it's all good. Too bad people are too easily corruptible.

Not so much "corruptable" and "intentionally ignorant," mixed in with greed. It can seem the same, but corruptable deals only with greed. "Intentionally ignorant" deals far more with education.. or lack of it.

The REAL difference between a liberal and a conservative is not whether you like or dislike taxes, like or dislike profits. We all actually agree on those things. The difference is on whether we believe we need to look beyond the immediate for impacts. Liberals say that if you are taking down a forest that takes 100 years to recreate (true for some Pacific Forests), then you need to look at a 100 year cycle and decide if taking that forest will truly provide 100 years of benefit before taking it (and I say, yes, if done properly, by-the-way). If you are putting pollutants into a river that take 500 years to go away, then you need to look 500 years into the futre... etc.

Conservatives say "we need profit NOW".. and leave any other concerns "for the future", with exceptions for things that have already been brought to their attention as problems. (and that is a lONG list.. DDT, some acid raing concerns, some worker safety issues, etc, etc, etc... we are not right now again in the Time of Dickens.) However, long though the list of recognized impacts is, it is just not long enough. THAT is why our deficit keeps growing and lifetyles of many people keep diminishing in many, many subtle and not-so-subtle ways.

[BigBallinStalin]

1. That song was annoying
2. At 3:20, they show the double-ended dildo from GTA: San Andreas

AND NOW SERIOUS TIME:

I generally agree with everything, minus some of the things where it said "you get to choose what you want to do with your life" and it showed a picture of a cigarette, and then later it showed a picture of a potleaf and a martini glass.

I mean, ya, if none of those effected other people in the world then they'd be fine, but it's evident that they do, in one way or another. Like I, personally, can't stand the smell of smoke. And people have died from drunk-driving accidents or drunken rages.

You're right. So why don't you support the prohibition of alcohol? Alcohol severely effects many people and there's a long record of its negative effects.

[PLAYER57832]

1. That song was annoying
2. At 3:20, they show the double-ended dildo from GTA: San Andreas

AND NOW SERIOUS TIME:

I generally agree with everything, minus some of the things where it said "you get to choose what you want to do with your life" and it showed a picture of a cigarette, and then later it showed a picture of a potleaf and a martini glass.

I mean, ya, if none of those effected other people in the world then they'd be fine, but it's evident that they do, in one way or another. Like I, personally, can't stand the smell of smoke. And people have died from drunk-driving accidents or drunken rages.

You're right. So why don't you support the prohibition of alcohol? Alcohol severely effects many people and there's a long record of its negative effects.

Because outright prohibition doesn't work. Instead... penalties for consequences does. In this case,the penalties for driving drunk (and not getting into an accident) are likely too low, but that is another debate entirely.

[Army of GOD]

1. That song was annoying
2. At 3:20, they show the double-ended dildo from GTA: San Andreas

AND NOW SERIOUS TIME:

I generally agree with everything, minus some of the things where it said "you get to choose what you want to do with your life" and it showed a picture of a cigarette, and then later it showed a picture of a potleaf and a martini glass.

I mean, ya, if none of those effected other people in the world then they'd be fine, but it's evident that they do, in one way or another. Like I, personally, can't stand the smell of smoke. And people have died from drunk-driving accidents or drunken rages.

You're right. So why don't you support the prohibition of alcohol? Alcohol severely effects many people and there's a long record of its negative effects.

I don't see the point, since there is absolutely no chance of it actually happening. I am in the huge minority.

[hairy potter]

rather than prohibit alcohol, i would argue for a Portugal-esque de-criminalisation of all drugs. using Portugal as a case study, this approach works very well.

whilst it isn't fair for people to behave selfishly and indulge in behaviour detrimental to the country, i don't actually give a f*ck if they do or don't. if things get bad enough we can just say 'screw you' and retreat into our own, cosy little castles, safe in the knowledge that we aren't crawling in the mud with all the other shit-eaters. let them kill each other as far as i care. it doesn't affect me.

[PLAYER57832]

I think the Holland model works a tad better.

[Phatscotty]

1. That song was annoying
2. At 3:20, they show the double-ended dildo from GTA: San Andreas

AND NOW SERIOUS TIME:

I generally agree with everything, minus some of the things where it said "you get to choose what you want to do with your life" and it showed a picture of a cigarette, and then later it showed a picture of a potleaf and a martini glass.

I mean, ya, if none of those effected other people in the world then they'd be fine, but it's evident that they do, in one way or another. Like I, personally, can't stand the smell of smoke. And people have died from drunk-driving accidents or drunken rages.

You're right. So why don't you support the prohibition of alcohol? Alcohol severely effects many people and there's a long record of its negative effects.

Because outright prohibition doesn't work. Instead... penalties for consequences does. In this case,the penalties for driving drunk (and not getting into an accident) are likely too low, but that is another debate entirely.

the debate is circular (as usual!). To cite the costs of second hand smoke by pointing to higher insurance premiums etc..., then you end with even higher costs of prison/jail expenses/courts/police/lawyers/judges/agencies......................

[Army of GOD]

When you destroy a currency, you destroy that currency's middle class*

[PLAYER57832]

the debate is circular (as usual!). To cite the costs of second hand smoke by pointing to higher insurance premiums etc..., then you end with even higher costs of prison/jail expenses/courts/police/lawyers/judges/agencies......................

No. Fines should be calculated to offset all of that, as well as perhaps a use tax. (etc.) That's One reason I said that our penalties were too low. Its not simple, but getting into all of it would throw this thread off and really require more time than I want to spend on this right now.

[saxitoxin]

Also, people over the age of 30 contribute to higher insurance premiums as they require more medical care. I should know, I practically live at Cedars-Sinai (though mostly as a result of sports injuries when I'm playing street hockey with the neighborhood kids, not due as much to my incredibly advanced age as some of my peers).

Anyway, it would be ideal if we could eliminate that expense. Perhaps by creating a network of domed cities where people lived and were offered a ritual at the age of 30 to move them along? Of course, some of them wouldn't go so we'd have to employ a special police. We could call them "Sandmen." But what if one of them - we'll just call him Logan - tried to run?! We'd need to stop him. Perhaps Farrah Fawcett could help? I dunno, I'm just throwing out ideas.

[HapSmo19]

Anyway, it would be ideal if we could eliminate that expense. Perhaps by creating a network of domed cities where people lived and were offered a ritual at the age of 30 to move them along? Of course, some of them wouldn't go so we'd have to employ a special police. We could call them "Sandmen." But what if one of them - we'll just call him Logan - tried to run?! We'd need to stop him. Perhaps Farrah Fawcett could help? I dunno, I'm just throwing out ideas.

Farrah has already moved along.

I think the Holland model works a tad better.

I think you should move to Holland.

[Phatscotty]

Also, people over the age of 30 contribute to higher insurance premiums as they require more medical care. I should know, I practically live at Cedars-Sinai (though mostly as a result of sports injuries when I'm playing street hockey with the neighborhood kids, not due as much to my incredibly advanced age as some of my peers).

Anyway, it would be ideal if we could eliminate that expense. Perhaps by creating a network of domed cities where people lived and were offered a ritual at the age of 30 to move them along? Of course, some of them wouldn't go so we'd have to employ a special police. We could call them "Sandmen." But what if one of them - we'll just call him Logan - tried to run?! We'd need to stop him. Perhaps Farrah Fawcett could help? I dunno, I'm just throwing out ideas.

WAKE UP THE BABY!

just watched the yesterday, free, on youtube

[hairy potter]

i think we should exterminate all the waste elements of society - the unemployed, the fat, the retired, etc. - until eventually we are just left with an elite of leaders and their factory monkeys to do their bidding for them. we could hide all the factories away somewhere shit, like the north pole, and then the elite could enjoy a pleasant life devoid of all the crap that currently has be endured.

said crap includes: the aforementioned unemployed, fat, retired, etc.; 'gang bangers' and anyone who steals your stuff; dreadful stand up comics on tv; high taxes to fund the aforementioned waste elements; loud, obnoxious, fat women in tracksuits who barge in front of you; unsightly people; people with dreadful accents; people who air their ill-informed world views anywhere public, forcing you to listen (places such as in the pub, on the train, walking down the pavement in front of you; sat on the sofa of jeremy kyle); and the eye-sores that are big cities, fast food outlets, sleazy shops and clubs and blocks of flats.

thank you.