Government can't help, it can only hurt

[nebraska]

Government can't help, it can only hurt

http://www.daily-times.com/story/opinion.../85522672/

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-28-2018, 05:07 AM)nebraska Wrote: Government can't help, it can only hurt.

I think it was Ben Franklin who organized the early attempts to cobble the streets and have a full time post office in Philadelphia.  I still use similar services.  They help.  Similarly I am happy to see criminals and other nations deterred.

The more people live close together, the more they see the benefits of working together for the common good.  Thus there is a divide between urban and rural views on what government should do.   There is also a significant division of wealth, with the resultant difference of opinion on what should be done and who best pays for it.

There are libertarians who lie, who claim no services should be provided.  I try to respect that, but have trouble with those who would rather lie than compromise.  I can believe that government corrupt, that it can be out to serve specific interests.  I can believe people do not need services but are forced to pay for them.  There will always be the possibility to improve.

But government is not going away soon, and can help.  Stating otherwise is simply a lie which discredits.

[pbrower2a]

(01-28-2018, 02:44 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-28-2018, 05:07 AM)nebraska Wrote: Government can't help, it can only hurt.

I think it was Ben Franklin who organized the early attempts to cobble the streets and have a full time post office in Philadelphia.  I still use similar services.  They help.  Similarly I am happy to see criminals and other nations deterred.

Precisely. There are things that only the government can do, can do effectively, and can do equitably; the only constraint on allowing the government to do such is that doing such is either economically pointless or morally objectionable -- and that is why we have legislatures. It's up to the legislatures to apportion or deny funds. Building a freeway connecting Phoenix and Las Vegas  makes sense; building a bridge across Lake Michigan to connect Milwaukee to some place on the opposite shore of Lake Michigan (to Holland or Muskegon) would be senseless due to high cost and slight benefit. It is grossly wrong to establish concentration camps, torture chambers, or slave markets -- which has nothing to do with cost and benefit. 

 It cannot reasonably demand that a merchant cobble the street adjoining his property. We are discussing public goods here, and  government can at times disperse costs and benefits so widely that it's hard to say who benefits and thus who in particular should pay. K-12 education is a prime example, as are national defense, a police force, courts of law, and ordinary highways.  Yes, prisons -- so that people with a desire to steal my car for a joyride know that they have a jail cell awaiting them if they go through with grand theft auto.

Quote:The more people live close together, the more they see the benefits of working together for the common good.  Thus there is a divide between urban and rural views on what government should do.   There is also a significant division of wealth, with the resultant difference of opinion on what should be done and who best pays for it.

... as shown by the 2008 election which had opposing views on the rightful scope of government as a partisan divide. Except for a combination of roughly 65 counties, cities independent of county government, and the District of Columbia, Barack Obama would have lost the election. Those 65 communities as a whole included such behemoths of population as the fiver boroughs of New York, such counties as Suffolk  and Westchester (NY); Passaic and Bergen (NJ); Wayne (MI): Cuyahoga, Franklin, and Hamilton (OH); Mecklenburg (NC); Miami-Dade, Pinellas, Hillsborough, and Orange (FL); Allegheny (PA); Marion and Lake (IN); Cook (IL); Milwaukee (WI); Hennepin and Ramsey (MN); Denver (CO); King (WA); Multnomah (OR); and such cities as Philadelphia, Baltimore, Arlington, Alexandria, Richmond, and San Francisco. The counties and cities include cities and counties whose states did not go for Obama, such as St. Louis; and counties containing Kansass City, Atlanta, Birmingham, Memphis, Louisville, New Orleans, Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and Austin.

The determining factor was population density. The 65 cities of course included some gigantic cities and their highly-populated suburbs. They also included such 'independent cities' as Harrisonburg, Fredericksburg, and Colonial Heights; Virginia has lots of 'independent cities'. A high population density requires more and bigger expenditures just to keep things from falling apart. A four-lane expressway that is far more than necessary in either Dakota (ultimate destinations perhaps being Minneapolis, Winnipeg, Omaha, or even Seattle or Chicago would be woefully inadequate in northeastern New Jersey. Costs of improvement to infrastructure are much higher in densely-populated places due to costs of acquiring property and re-aligning utilities. Because of a higher cost of living, high-density communities must pay higher salaries to cops (so that they have good cause to not sell out to mobsters) and teachers (because they have skill sets useful in alternative employment) than do rural  communities too small for rackets and in which the most viable career option for a schoolteacher is 'checker-cashier' in a convenience store.

Quote:There are libertarians who lie, who claim no services should be provided.  I try to respect that, but have trouble with those who would rather lie than compromise.  I can believe that government (can be) corrupt, that it can be out to serve specific interests.  I can believe people do not need services but are forced to pay for them.  There will always be the possibility to improve.

Many libertarians are deluded about their own capacities for taking care of themselves. The secret to having a sort-of-OK life in America (aside from owning assets that provide an adequate income) is to specialize in some trade or profession (which requires some schooling) or owning and operating a business. If you own a fast-food place or a convenience store you certainly want good roads to get customers and an effective police force to bust anyone who pulls a gun on you or your employees. But this said -- if you are a CPA you cannot be your own policeman.

As for schooling -- one hopes that teachers are able to inculcate some good habits in students, including a solid work ethic, respect for private and public property, and a willingness to avoid doing personal violence. Parents can be grossly inadequate at such. Law enforcement? Like most people I hate drugs and drunk driving, let alone street crime. Maybe I can concede that marijuana isn't anywhere near as bad as heroin, meth, or cocaine...

Quote:But government is not going away soon, and can help.  Stating otherwise is simply a lie which discredits.

Precisely! There has never been a Libertarian state, and there never will be. Libertarian responses to social problem smight work on occasion, but as a general program it leaves all too many people free to do their worst.

[nebraska]

If 51% of voters said that smokers should be tortured, does that mean that torturing smokers is right?

Now that the USA is no longer a democracy, Americans are under no obligations to obey the law or pay taxes. The government is not legitimate and has lost the consent of the people.

Why can the government lie to you, but lying to the government is a felony?

Why can the government have guns, but you can't?

Why can the government wiretap, but you can't?

Why can the government steal, but you can't?

Why can the government torture, but you can't?

Why can the government kill, but you can't?

Why can the government run child porn sites, but you can't?

Why can the government speed, but you can't?

Why can the government break the law, but can't?

The only difference between the government and the mafia today is that government offices have a flag in front.

The government is not even necessary and causes more problems that it solves.

The government now takes away your rights and leases them back to you in the form of licenses.

The government forbids you from starting a business or feeding the homeless and makes you dependent on food stamps.

The reason the economy is bad and has inflation is because of government regulations and deficit spending.

The reason there are terrorism and refugees is because of government wars.

The reason there is drug crime is because drugs are illegal. There are no chair wars because chairs are legal.

Government laws lead to more crime. If only murder and theft were illegal, obeying the law would be easy, but no one respects the law when everything is illegal.

Most of the problems of today would be solved by embracing what worked in the past.

People were born in the past without birth certificates.

People could travel without passports.

People can learn how to drive without driver licenses.

Business that don't have business licenses will go bankrupt if they provide bad service.

People won't starve if they don't have food stamps.

People can find cheap doctors in the world without Obamacare.

People won't have a vested interest in driving dangerously if there are no liability insurance laws.

Would crime rise if everything was legal?

You don't need to have a man wearing a costume, a gun, and a badge to solve every problem.

Can't you talk to people who bother you? Could you sue someone? Could you just move away?

Think.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-28-2018, 02:44 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-28-2018, 05:07 AM)nebraska Wrote: Government can't help, it can only hurt.

I think it was Ben Franklin who organized the early attempts to cobble the streets and have a full time post office in Philadelphia.  I still use similar services.  They help.  Similarly I am happy to see criminals and other nations deterred.

The more people live close together, the more they see the benefits of working together for the common good.  Thus there is a divide between urban and rural views on what government should do.   There is also a significant division of wealth, with the resultant difference of opinion on what should be done and who best pays for it.

There are libertarians who lie, who claim no services should be provided.  I try to respect that, but have trouble with those who would rather lie than compromise.  I can believe that government corrupt, that it can be out to serve specific interests.  I can believe people do not need services but are forced to pay for them.  There will always be the possibility to improve.

But government is not going away soon, and can help.  Stating otherwise is simply a lie which discredits.

I still get some mail. Do we need the US Postal Service to deliver our mail as much as we needed it 30 years ago? Would the liberal argument to keep funding the USPS be as strong as it was 30 years ago? I don't need it nearly as much as I did 30 years ago. Lets see, I can text or email back and forth with my brother in Tennessee any time I want without any delay in response for much less than the cost of a stamp. I can pay the bulk of my bills directly/ automatically via transfers.

There are libertarians/ anarchists who are out of touch with reality just like there are liberals who are out of touch with reality. Hint! Don't use an argument that you could effectively use with one of them with someone like me? As smart as the liberals claim to be, the liberals use the wrong arguments with the wrong people a lot which makes them look clueless. Nebraska is an idiot who is looking for idiots who agree with his anarchist views. Nebraska and Eric are similar but connected to different crowds. Nebraska spends more time driving on ATV trails than he spends driving on the roads that most of us are accustomed to driving on. 

Hint! Don't use race with a libertarian because race doesn't matter to libertarians. Liberals still use race a lot which isn't good in my opinion considering white support for liberals is dropping. Now, as I've told blues before, I don't care if a bunch of white liberals end up getting strung up by racists of all colors. Liberals deserve it based on there choice and their use of rhetoric. Hint! We aren't going to use our guns and waste our bullets to save them.

So, how much government do the liberals need and where do the liberals draw the line with peoples lives? Despite what you think about the liberals, I don't see very many sharp liberals. I see a lot of clueless liberals who aren't used to being challenged by sharper people.

[pbrower2a]

(01-28-2018, 11:17 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-28-2018, 02:44 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-28-2018, 05:07 AM)nebraska Wrote: Government can't help, it can only hurt.

I think it was Ben Franklin who organized the early attempts to cobble the streets and have a full time post office in Philadelphia.  I still use similar services.  They help.  Similarly I am happy to see criminals and other nations deterred.

The more people live close together, the more they see the benefits of working together for the common good.  Thus there is a divide between urban and rural views on what government should do.   There is also a significant division of wealth, with the resultant difference of opinion on what should be done and who best pays for it.

There are libertarians who lie, who claim no services should be provided.  I try to respect that, but have trouble with those who would rather lie than compromise.  I can believe that government corrupt, that it can be out to serve specific interests.  I can believe people do not need services but are forced to pay for them.  There will always be the possibility to improve.

But government is not going away soon, and can help.  Stating otherwise is simply a lie which discredits.

I still get some mail. Do we need the US Postal Service to deliver our mail as much as we needed it 30 years ago? Would the liberal argument to keep funding the USPS be as strong as it was 30 years ago? I don't need it nearly as much as I did 30 years ago. Lets see, I can text or email back and forth with my brother in Tennessee any time I want without any delay in response for much less than the cost of a stamp. I can pay the bulk of my bills directly/ automatically via transfers.

I cannot handle all the e-mail that I get. Sorry, people sending me links to cat videos. And F--- the spammers trying to get me to buy counterfeit Viagra and Cialis.

Quote:There are libertarians/ anarchists who are out of touch with reality just like there are liberals who are out of touch with reality. Hint! Don't use an argument that you could effectively use with one of them with someone like me? As smart as the liberals claim to be, the liberals use the wrong arguments with the wrong people a lot which makes them look clueless. Nebraska is an idiot who is looking for idiots who agree with his anarchist views. Nebraska and Eric are similar but connected to different crowds. Nebraska spends more time driving on ATV trails than he spends driving on the roads that most of us are accustomed to driving on. 

Hint: don;t try to convince us liberals that we are fools for disagreeing with you. We have different interpretations of history and politics than you do. Different assumptions change everything.

Quote:Hint! Don't use race with a libertarian because race doesn't matter to libertarians. Liberals still use race a lot which isn't good in my opinion considering white support for liberals is dropping. Now, as I've told blues before, I don't care if a bunch of white liberals end up getting strung up by racists of all colors. Liberals deserve it based on there choice and their use of rhetoric. Hint! We aren't going to use our guns and waste our bullets to save them.

Strung up? Do you realize what that refers to? Some people have deserved to be strung up. Like Saddam Hussein.

Quote:So, how much government do the liberals need and where do the liberals draw the line with peoples lives? Despite what you think about the liberals, I don't see very many sharp liberals. I see a lot of clueless liberals who aren't used to being challenged by sharper people.

Your judgment of intellect of people with whom you joust rhetorically is a bit lacking, to put it mildly.

[pbrower2a]

(01-28-2018, 11:17 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-28-2018, 02:44 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-28-2018, 05:07 AM)nebraska Wrote: Government can't help, it can only hurt.

I think it was Ben Franklin who organized the early attempts to cobble the streets and have a full time post office in Philadelphia.  I still use similar services.  They help.  Similarly I am happy to see criminals and other nations deterred.

The more people live close together, the more they see the benefits of working together for the common good.  Thus there is a divide between urban and rural views on what government should do.   There is also a significant division of wealth, with the resultant difference of opinion on what should be done and who best pays for it.

There are libertarians who lie, who claim no services should be provided.  I try to respect that, but have trouble with those who would rather lie than compromise.  I can believe that government corrupt, that it can be out to serve specific interests.  I can believe people do not need services but are forced to pay for them.  There will always be the possibility to improve.

But government is not going away soon, and can help.  Stating otherwise is simply a lie which discredits.

I still get some mail. Do we need the US Postal Service to deliver our mail as much as we needed it 30 years ago? Would the liberal argument to keep funding the USPS be as strong as it was 30 years ago? I don't need it nearly as much as I did 30 years ago. Lets see, I can text or email back and forth with my brother in Tennessee any time I want without any delay in response for much less than the cost of a stamp. I can pay the bulk of my bills directly/ automatically via transfers.

I cannot handle all the e-mail that I get. Sorry, people sending me links to cat videos. And F--- the spammers trying to get me to buy counterfeit Viagra and Cialis.

Quote:There are libertarians/ anarchists who are out of touch with reality just like there are liberals who are out of touch with reality. Hint! Don't use an argument that you could effectively use with one of them with someone like me? As smart as the liberals claim to be, the liberals use the wrong arguments with the wrong people a lot which makes them look clueless. Nebraska is an idiot who is looking for idiots who agree with his anarchist views. Nebraska and Eric are similar but connected to different crowds. Nebraska spends more time driving on ATV trails than he spends driving on the roads that most of us are accustomed to driving on. 

Hint: don;t try to convince us liberals that we are fools for disagreeing with you. We have different interpretations of history and politics than you do. Different assumptions change everything.

Quote:Hint! Don't use race with a libertarian because race doesn't matter to libertarians. Liberals still use race a lot which isn't good in my opinion considering white support for liberals is dropping. Now, as I've told blues before, I don't care if a bunch of white liberals end up getting strung up by racists of all colors. Liberals deserve it based on there choice and their use of rhetoric. Hint! We aren't going to use our guns and waste our bullets to save them.

Strung up? Do you realize what that refers to? Some people have deserved to be strung up. Like Saddam Hussein.

Quote:So, how much government do the liberals need and where do the liberals draw the line with peoples lives? Despite what you think about the liberals, I don't see very many sharp liberals. I see a lot of clueless liberals who aren't used to being challenged by sharper people.

Your judgment of intellect of people with whom you joust rhetorically is a bit lacking, to put it mildly.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-28-2018, 10:44 PM)nebraska Wrote: If 51% of voters said that smokers should be tortured, does that mean that torturing smokers is right?

Now that the USA is no longer a democracy, Americans are under no obligations to obey the law or pay taxes. The government is not legitimate and has lost the consent of the people.

Why can the government lie to you, but lying to the government is a felony?

Why can the government have guns, but you can't?

Why can the government wiretap, but you can't?

Why can the government steal, but you can't?

Why can the government torture, but you can't?

Why can the government kill, but you can't?

Why can the government run child porn sites, but you can't?

Why can the government speed, but you can't?

Why can the government break the law, but can't?

The only difference between the government and the mafia today is that government offices have a flag in front.

The government is not even necessary and causes more problems that it solves.

The government now takes away your rights and leases them back to you in the form of licenses.

The government forbids you from starting a business or feeding the homeless and makes you dependent on food stamps.

The reason the economy is bad and has inflation is because of government regulations and deficit spending.

The reason there are terrorism and refugees is because of government wars.

The reason there is drug crime is because drugs are illegal. There are no chair wars because chairs are legal.

Government laws lead to more crime. If only murder and theft were illegal, obeying the law would be easy, but no one respects the law when everything is illegal.

Most of the problems of today would be solved by embracing what worked in the past.

People were born in the past without birth certificates.

People could travel without passports.

People can learn how to drive without driver licenses.

Business that don't have business licenses will go bankrupt if they provide bad service.

People won't starve if they don't have food stamps.

People can find cheap doctors in the world without Obamacare.

People won't have a vested interest in driving dangerously if there are no liability insurance laws.

Would crime rise if everything was legal?

You don't need to have a man wearing a costume, a gun, and a badge to solve every problem.

Can't you talk to people who bother you? Could you sue someone? Could you just move away?

Think.

How could you sue someone without a legal system in place? You're an anarchist. Would you survive a direct confrontation with me? No rules and no law enforcement means no rules or law enforcement. No rules or law enforcement means if you're smoking pot around me or my kid and I don't like it, I can blow your head off because there would be no law against it. I'm not sure it would be in your interest for that to happen to you. I'm not sure it would be in your interest to deal with me instead of a cop. I don't have tons of rules and legal procedures to follow like a cop. You need to fine tune your posts.

I think crime would rise if stealing was legal. I think killing would rise if killing was legal. I think the world your used to would change and you would find yourself in a fight for survival or isolated in a remote place cut off from other humans. I don't know, the idea of living like a caveman or a mountain man or a native American of old doesn't sound appealing to me.

[nebraska]

Wow.

Libertarians are not anarchists.

Liberatrtarians believe in a small government, balanced budgets, freedom, and peace. The government should be responsible for running the police, court system, and protecting the border. Libertarians oppose victimless crimes.

The private market can provide schools, roads, security, courts, and airports, too.

The USA had freedom for 200 years.

The US fought Nazis and Communists so why are Americans becoming Nazis and Communists now?

The USA is now a bankrupt warmongering police state and Americans think the answer to the US collapse is more war, more tyranny, and more debt.

Insanity.

The elites have bought off politicians with campaign donations and cushy job promises. The 1% control the media, Hollywood, Wall Street, and the government. Our overlords have brainwashed Americans to love war, the police state, and debt and to be dependent on food stamps while using regulations and taxes to prohibit Americans from earning a living.

Crime would not rise if everything is legal. If sleeping was illegal, everyone would be a criminal because everyone sleeps. Stealing is now a crime, but if theft was legal then no thieves would be arrested. Crimes rates would fall if there were no crimes and nothing was illegal.

If everything was legal then people would use personal responsibility to solve problems.

If everything was legal and someone smoked pot in your face you could shoot him, BUT that probably wouldn't happen because someone could shoot you back. Having no laws doesn't mean that there are no consequences.

Do you prefer dangerous freedom or peaceful slavery?

Do people escape from North Korea or immigrate to North Korea?

Think.

http://f2bbs.com/bbs

[Classic-Xer]

(01-28-2018, 11:36 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(01-28-2018, 11:17 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-28-2018, 02:44 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-28-2018, 05:07 AM)nebraska Wrote: Government can't help, it can only hurt.

I think it was Ben Franklin who organized the early attempts to cobble the streets and have a full time post office in Philadelphia.  I still use similar services.  They help.  Similarly I am happy to see criminals and other nations deterred.

The more people live close together, the more they see the benefits of working together for the common good.  Thus there is a divide between urban and rural views on what government should do.   There is also a significant division of wealth, with the resultant difference of opinion on what should be done and who best pays for it.

There are libertarians who lie, who claim no services should be provided.  I try to respect that, but have trouble with those who would rather lie than compromise.  I can believe that government corrupt, that it can be out to serve specific interests.  I can believe people do not need services but are forced to pay for them.  There will always be the possibility to improve.

But government is not going away soon, and can help.  Stating otherwise is simply a lie which discredits.

I still get some mail. Do we need the US Postal Service to deliver our mail as much as we needed it 30 years ago? Would the liberal argument to keep funding the USPS be as strong as it was 30 years ago? I don't need it nearly as much as I did 30 years ago. Lets see, I can text or email back and forth with my brother in Tennessee any time I want without any delay in response for much less than the cost of a stamp. I can pay the bulk of my bills directly/ automatically via transfers.

I cannot handle all the e-mail that I get. Sorry, people sending me links to cat videos. And F--- the spammers trying to get me to buy counterfeit Viagra and Cialis.

Quote:There are libertarians/ anarchists who are out of touch with reality just like there are liberals who are out of touch with reality. Hint! Don't use an argument that you could effectively use with one of them with someone like me? As smart as the liberals claim to be, the liberals use the wrong arguments with the wrong people a lot which makes them look clueless. Nebraska is an idiot who is looking for idiots who agree with his anarchist views. Nebraska and Eric are similar but connected to different crowds. Nebraska spends more time driving on ATV trails than he spends driving on the roads that most of us are accustomed to driving on. 

Hint: don;t try to convince us liberals that we are fools for disagreeing with you. We have different interpretations of history and politics than you do. Different assumptions change everything.

Quote:Hint! Don't use race with a libertarian because race doesn't matter to libertarians. Liberals still use race a lot which isn't good in my opinion considering white support for liberals is dropping. Now, as I've told blues before, I don't care if a bunch of white liberals end up getting strung up by racists of all colors. Liberals deserve it based on there choice and their use of rhetoric. Hint! We aren't going to use our guns and waste our bullets to save them.

Strung up? Do you realize what that refers to? Some people have deserved to be strung up. Like Saddam Hussein.

Quote:So, how much government do the liberals need and where do the liberals draw the line with peoples lives? Despite what you think about the liberals, I don't see very many sharp liberals. I see a lot of clueless liberals who aren't used to being challenged by sharper people.

Your judgment of intellect of people with whom you joust rhetorically is a bit lacking, to put it mildly.

I'd run circles around you. I'd pick that feeble liberal brain of yours apart and turn you into a whimpering fool or an angry fool who can be hit under the right circumstances. My writing skills are lacking. Your writing skills and the liberal sway that still exists here are about the only advantages that you have over me in life at this point. How many arguments are available for me to use with you? How many angles are available to me to use? Do I appear to be limited or handicapped with either?

I use the term socialist with those who appear to favor socialism and support socialist ideals. I use the term communist with those who appear to favor communism and support communist ideals. I told Kiff to her face in a way via PM, if she wanted me to stop calling her a Bolshevik, associating her with the Bolsheviks, she should stop talking like one and acting like one in my presence. The solution was pretty simple as far as I was concerned. However, the solution wasn't liked because it wasn't going to be easy for her to accomplish. Kiff was fully aware of how much value that I placed on a communist like her. You'd be wise to start seeing things my way and viewing things my way because the American way is going to prevail one way or another.

[nebraska]

Everyone has tunnel vision:

Liberals think everyone is a liberal.

Conservatives think everyone is a conservative.

Libertarians think everyone is a libertarian.

Homosexuals think everyone is a homosexual.

Junkies think everyone is a junkie.

Racists think everyone is a racist.

Joggers think everyone is a jogger.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-29-2018, 12:57 AM)nebraska Wrote: Wow.

Libertarians are not anarchists.

Liberatrtarians believe in a small government, balanced budgets, freedom, and peace. The government should be responsible for running the police, court system, and protecting the border. Libertarians oppose victimless crimes.

The private market can provide schools, roads, security, courts, and airports, too.

The USA had freedom for 200 years.

The US fought Nazis and Communists so why are Americans becoming Nazis and Communists now?

The USA is now a bankrupt warmongering police state and Americans think the answer to the US collapse is more war, more tyranny, and more debt.

Insanity.

The elites have bought off politicians with campaign donations and cushy job promises. The 1% control the media, Hollywood, Wall Street, and the government. Our overlords have brainwashed Americans to love war, the police state, and debt and to be dependent on food stamps while using regulations and taxes to prohibit Americans from earning a living.

Crime would not rise if everything is legal. If sleeping was illegal, everyone would be a criminal because everyone sleeps. Stealing is now a crime, but if theft was legal then no thieves would be arrested. Crimes rates would fall if there were no crimes and nothing was illegal.

If everything was legal then people would use personal responsibility to solve problems.

If everything was legal and someone smoked pot in your face you could shoot him, BUT that probably wouldn't happen because someone could shoot you back. Having no laws doesn't mean that there are no consequences.

Do you prefer dangerous freedom or peaceful slavery?

Do people escape from North Korea or immigrate to North Korea?

Think.

http://f2bbs.com/bbs

Do you think you'd get away with stealing from me, if stealing from people was legal and shooting people for stealing was legal too? Would someone shoot you for smoking pot? Who determines that? One thing's for certain, it's not going to be the pot smoker or the law. Would I care if a clueless pot smoker unaware of the change that would occur without laws was eliminated or disappeared? Do I seem to care about the shit that goes on in Somalia or the shit that goes on in Hillbilly country or the shit that goes on in the hood? Does the idea of living in a damp cave and scrounging for a living sound and trying to avoid people because anyone can hurt you or kill you and take things away from you for whatever reason sound appealing to you?

The last so-called Libertarian/anarchist who began dictating Libertarian beliefs to me like you're doing with me found himself at odds with a real life American who represented libertarian beliefs who didn't like the way he was always trying to impose his beliefs while claiming to be a libertarian believer. I had to remind him that imposing ones beliefs on others is a big no no that libertarians of all types frown on and don't take very kindly. BTW, that mistake was the beginning of the end for him as far as his reign.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-28-2018, 11:17 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I still get some mail. Do we need the US Postal Service to deliver our mail as much as we needed it 30 years ago? Would the liberal argument to keep funding the USPS be as strong as it was 30 years ago? I don't need it nearly as much as I did 30 years ago. Lets see, I can text or email back and forth with my brother in Tennessee any time I want without any delay in response for much less than the cost of a stamp. I can pay the bulk of my bills directly/ automatically via transfers.

I too use e-mail much more than 'snail mail' for personal use.  I too think that if companies like UPS and FedEx duplicate federal functions the federal functions can be dropped.  Alas, the private companies are stealing the most potentially profitable functions, and Congress keeps requiring the post office to handle the less profitable ones.  These services man be less profitable, but are judged necessary.

Now is not then.  Things change, such as the best ways to perform services.  Nothing should be set in stone and considered holy.

But I still use the mail.

(01-28-2018, 11:17 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: There are libertarians/ anarchists who are out of touch with reality just like there are liberals who are out of touch with reality. Hint! Don't use an argument that you could effectively use with one of them with someone like me? As smart as the liberals claim to be, the liberals use the wrong arguments with the wrong people a lot which makes them look clueless. Nebraska is an idiot who is looking for idiots who agree with his anarchist views. Nebraska and Eric are similar but connected to different crowds. Nebraska spends more time driving on ATV trails than he spends driving on the roads that most of us are accustomed to driving on. 

Some confuse 'out of touch with reality', 'is an idiot' and 'has a different world view'.  I assume the first two are rare to non existent.  Nebraska is committed to an absurd way of looking at things, but is not necessarily an idiot.  He is just an extreme partisan locked into a particular way of looking at things.  He doesn't seem to perceive real world examples of how the world view he clings to is just is not compatible with reality.  In this, he is like many people with similar but generally more benign gaps in what they can perceive.

You too are an extreme partisan.  I have to assume I am too.  I have to be ready to doubt cherished beliefs.

(01-28-2018, 11:17 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Hint! Don't use race with a libertarian because race doesn't matter to libertarians. Liberals still use race a lot which isn't good in my opinion considering white support for liberals is dropping. Now, as I've told blues before, I don't care if a bunch of white liberals end up getting strung up by racists of all colors. Liberals deserve it based on there choice and their use of rhetoric. Hint! We aren't going to use our guns and waste our bullets to save them.

In the long term, I see the racists as losing.  Prejudice by race, gender, culture and other things is taking less and less place in our culture.  I see us as in a period of reaction.  People are flying racist beliefs close to the surface.  People are sincerely cutting off their nose to to spite their face.  This will run its course, and we will return to advancing equality.  

I see this as resulting from class conflict.  Too few have too much.  The racists are keeping some less well off down at the cost of keeping themselves down and supporting the elite.  The elite are pushing too hard, and are due for a fall.

Am I correct in my assumptions?  Both major US parties are distrusted by their base.  Eventually something new will evolve.  The problems that are becoming more and more real will result in a shift.  I happen to think this will evolve from ideas being presented by both factions.  If this site is any indication, there are a lot of folks who will have to learn to listen.

I can't say precisely what will come about, but I expect a reality based result.

(01-28-2018, 11:17 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: So, how much government do the liberals need and where do the liberals draw the line with peoples lives? Despite what you think about the liberals, I don't see very many sharp liberals. I see a lot of clueless liberals who aren't used to being challenged by sharper people.

I see selfish people, not smarter.  There is a cycle that runs between individualism and the common good.  We are now at something like a 3T-4T cusp, where those taking advantage to profit the self are usually overcome by a willingness to join together for the common good.  This cusp is showing in a bunch of places, including in the urban / rural divide, in the establishments of both major parties falling apart, and in race relations.

Being the token Whig, I have to anticipate something new overcoming the old, an increase in rights, democracy and equality, a willingness to pull together and solve the problems we are running against.  It is not surprising to see a conservative counter.  History suggests there always be some who want to live in the past.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-29-2018, 02:13 AM)nebraska Wrote: Everyone has tunnel vision:

Liberals think everyone is a liberal.

Conservatives think everyone is a conservative.

Libertarians think everyone is a libertarian.

Homosexuals think everyone is a homosexual.

Junkies think everyone is a junkie.

Racists think everyone is a racist.

Joggers think everyone is a jogger.

Liberal think everyone should be liberal. Conservatives think everyone should remain conservative. Libertarians do their own thing and don't pay much attention to either one them.

[nebraska]

Live and let live.

Libertarians aren't forcing anyone to be a libertarian. Think for yourself.

Freedom worked for 200 years. Fascism and communism failed.

Those fail to learn from history are doomed to reap at it. The USA wasn't a police state in 1999 or 1969
so why does the USA need to be a police state now?

The government is not your mommy. The government is not your daddy.

Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.

Killing is illegal, but there are still murders.

Airlines are regulated, but there are still airplane crashes.

The government is the cause of almost every problem in the USA.

There is obesity because of food stamps.

The economy is bad because of government regulations and taxes.

There is debt, terrorism, tyranny, and refugees because of US wars.

College is expensive because of government loans.

Medical costs are expensive because of government regulations.

Rent is expensive because of government regulations.

Families are broken because of government welfare.

Illegal immigrants are flooding the country because the government won't patrol the border.

Taxes are high because of government waste, subsidies, wars, welfare, and debt.

Inflation is high because of government money printing.

Should everyone live in a prison because one person might kill someone?

Can't you take some personal responsibility and protect yourself?

Americans used to believe in freedom.

Americans should not be Nazis and Communists.

Those who are embracing tyranny now will be just as guilty as the elites and Gestapo will be when Americans get sent to the gulags, gas chambers, and ovens.

[pbrower2a]

(01-29-2018, 02:13 AM)nebraska Wrote: Everyone has tunnel vision:

Liberals think everyone is a liberal.

Conservatives think everyone is a conservative.

Libertarians think everyone is a libertarian.

Homosexuals think everyone is a homosexual.

Junkies think everyone is a junkie.

Racists think everyone is a racist.

Joggers think everyone is a jogger.

Religious and ethnic minorities know that they are minorities.

Cops know that there are more crooks than there are cops.

People diagnosed with Asperger's know that they are not 'neuro-normal'.

Amputees know that there are more people without amputations.

Short people know that they are short people.

On yours --

you may be right on only the junkies who have addled their brains.

[Bob Butler 54]

Extreme partisans often have strange beliefs that have nothing to do with reality. Many labels have meaning only if they are not applied to some people.

[nebraska]

Life may be all fun and games now in the USA, but as offshoring increases, illegal immigration rises, hard-working Americans die off or dropout due to higher taxes and more regulations, the national debt climbs, there is more terrorism as the result of illegal American wars, the police become more brutal enforcing draconian decrees, the US Ponzi economy and stock markets collapse, cash is banned, Americans are implanted with microchips, and real crises and false flags are used to force Americans to go to the gulags and finally to the gas chambers and ovens, will Americans wish that they had spoken out earlier against the dangers of wars, debt, and tyranny?

[Classic-Xer]

(01-29-2018, 03:58 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Extreme partisans often have strange beliefs that have nothing to do with reality.  Many labels have meaning only if they are not applied to some people.

Labels only have meaning if they're accurate. As I said, I've never labelled a socialist a socialist or a communist a communist or a fascist a fascist or an anarchist an anarchist without seeing/ gathering enough proof to use it accurately and make it stick. Hint! You should reexamine the way you use extreme partisan and consider who you are applying the label too as well. Do hippie blue values work with terrorists or my values better suited for getting rid of terrorist? Hint! You ain't going to be able to love them to death.

Hint! Don't approach a US taxpayer and use a blue argument that only works in your favor with someone who has views like Nebraska. I don't know who taught the blues manners and respect. I assume that wasn't people like our parents and the bulk of the older adults who were around during your hippie years. I'm pretty sure you spent the bulk of that time avoiding them. Are you familiar with them? If you're familiar with them, then you know how critical and tough they were with their kids. M&L fucked up and made that mistake every time he opened his mouth for years. I'm glad Nebraska showed up and gave me a chance to point out the difference between the two of us. If he decides to stick around and contribute more than blurts and rants.

Ask yourself a question, is he one mine or is Nebraska a loss of one of yours? I see a lot of hippie blue language and positions in his posts. What's a hippie blue kid doing advocating for the removal of the American government? You do realize that every time a group of blues place themselves or their views above the nation as far as importance, they loose another group/crop of Americans. Now, I don't think blue America would be able to survive alone without America as whole. How far away are we from blue America being placed on ignore by America? How far are we away from seeing blue states splitting up? I don't represent rural America. I don't live in rural America. I did not grow up in rural America. I hunt and fish in rural America. I have friends and relatives who live in rural America. Me, I'm suburban. I grew up suburban. I married a suburban and we are raising a suburban. I live in a suburban area within a large metropolitan area located near the Twin Cities.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-29-2018, 03:58 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Extreme partisans often have strange beliefs that have nothing to do with reality.  Many labels have meaning only if they are not applied to some people.

Labels only have meaning if they're accurate. As I said, I've never labelled a socialist a socialist or a communist a communist or a fascist a fascist or an anarchist an anarchist without seeing/ gathering enough proof to use it accurately and make it stick. Hint! You should reexamine the way you use extreme partisan and consider who you are applying the label too as well. Do hippie blue values work with terrorists or my values better suited for getting rid of terrorist? Hint! You ain't going to be able to love them to death.

Hint! Don't approach a US taxpayer and use a blue argument that only works in the blues favor when speaking to someone who has views like Nebraska. A US taxpayer with either walk away and vote against you or decide to get in your grill and educate you. We aren't face to face here. I don't know who taught the blues manners and taught them respect. I can only assume that weren't the people like my parents and the bulk of the older adults who were around during your hippie years. I'm pretty sure you spent the bulk of that time avoiding them as much as possible. Are you familiar with them? If you're familiar with them, then you know how critical and tough they were with raising their kids and instilling their values. I'm glad Nebraska showed up and gave me an opportunity to point out the difference between the two of us for blues to see. If he decides to stick around and contribute more than blurts and rants.

Ask yourself a question, is he one mine or is Nebraska more likely a loss of one of yours? I see a lot of hippie blue language and positions in his posts. What's a hippie blue kid doing advocating for the removal of the American government? You should realize that every time a group of blues place themselves or their views above the nation as far as importance, they loose another group/crop of Americans. Now, I don't think blue America would be able to survive alone without America as whole. How far away are we from blue America being placed on ignore by America? How far are we away from seeing blue states splitting up? I'd say we aren't that very far away at this point. 

I don't represent rural America. I don't live in rural America. I did not grow up in rural America. I hunt and fish in rural America. I have friends and relatives who live in rural America. Me, I'm suburban. I grew up suburban. I married a suburban and we are raising a suburban. I live in a suburban area within a large metropolitan area located near the Twin Cities.