Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

The Anonymous Hack

Posted Jan 28, '13 at 3:57am

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,057 posts

Knight

I was unaware that it was still perceived that way by any country.

It still has a lot of goodwill leftover. And even if they view it negatively as a bully, they view the political system, i.e democracy, yada yada, as something desirable.

 

Posted Jan 28, '13 at 5:13am

Masterforger

Masterforger

1,633 posts

Carnage, do you support a family? Better yet, do you support a family in the middle or even lower class? Judging from your uneducated and thoroughly ignorant posts, I wouldn't put you a day above 18.
You want a small government? Yes, good luck with 300 million people.
You want no taxes? Cool story, mate. Aint' gonna happen.
You want more freedom?
Then stop trying to restrict the rights of people
Take a look at countries like Sweden, which is a 'working socialistic state' where the tax rate is very high but the healthcare is excellent and the schools are good and serve free hot lunch to the kids.

 

Posted Jan 28, '13 at 8:08am

Nerdsoft

Nerdsoft

1,010 posts

I say no to a small government. Distribute the power as widely as possible. If I had my way, there would be no Prime Minister and Parliament would be far bigger.

 

Posted Jan 28, '13 at 10:45am

nichodemus

nichodemus

12,057 posts

Knight

If I had my way, there would be no Prime Minister and Parliament would be far bigger.

You will always need a leader.

 

Posted Jan 28, '13 at 5:30pm

Carnage1995

Carnage1995

95 posts

I do want taxes, I don't want Income taxes. There quite a few countries I believe that don't pay taxes.

And I haven't talked about taking away anyways rights except for the severely mentally ill.

All I want is a small government. Would it be so hard, to just let the government provide national defense, and leave everything else up to courts, police, and private organizations? On the point of war, IMO, there is no debate. I honestly don't see any reason to be in any of the wars now, or for that matter, any war from after WW2 till now. Helping is great and all I guess if you want. But what we're doing now is protecting oil. Heck, we overthrew Iran's government in 1953 and installed the Sha. Our government is pretty bad right now IMO, and they need to be done away with, if not a small government, a huge reform or reduction at the least. Over the past few years, our freedoms have been being taken away and our rights infringed upon, all in the name to protect us from "terrorists".

 

Posted Jan 28, '13 at 5:55pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,572 posts

And I haven't talked about taking away anyways rights except for the severely mentally ill.

Why should they not have rights?

Would it be so hard, to just let the government provide national defense, and leave everything else up to courts, police, and private organizations?

Short answer, yes.
Long answer, people are not just going to get along like that. What you want are essentially a bunch of independent towns, with self elected everything. Unless you don't like the concept of countries, that's a bad idea. If everything were to diversify, we would quickly become an insane amount of independent city-states that would conflict with each other over many different things. A controlling body stops this.

Our government is pretty bad right now IMO, and they need to be done away with, if not a small government, a huge reform or reduction at the least.

What, specifically, is bad with our government right now?

Over the past few years, our freedoms have been being taken away and our rights infringed upon, all in the name to protect us from "terrorists".

You're overreacting. What freedoms have been taken away and our rights infringed upon? You say the government can detain someone if they suspect they are linked with terrorism...I don't see a problem with that. The problem only arises in the USE of power, not its existence. The government isn't abducting random people off the street for no particular reason, even with that in place.

 

Posted Jan 28, '13 at 6:08pm

Carnage1995

Carnage1995

95 posts

I do think they should have rights. But I think things should change, if we're to allow them in school, shouldn't they do something other than color all day, it's a waste of time for everyone, including the kids.

Yes, the government is not currently plucking people off the streets. But they are obviously doing things they shouldn't. What gives with giving guns to the drug cartels in mexico, and giving missiles to the extremists in the middle east?

Why should the government be able to spy on us, if they so choose.

"Those who sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither". I agree with that statement 100%

And there wouldn't be independent towns. The goal with classical liberalism, or Libertarianisim, as it's called in the US, is to have healthcare, education, and nearly everything else, besides national defense, to NOT be run by the government, it used to be like that. It wouldn't be so bad if they changed their ways. For example, trying starting a business here, there are an insane amount of regulations, of course, some are good, but a lot aren't, or are pointless.

They talk about fixing the deficit, by raising taxes. Wouldn't it help cutting down the INSANELY high defense/military budget? Wouldn't it help to not spend billions on chasing non-violent drug users and putting them in jail and tying up courts? Wouldn't it help if we didn't have a army base in every country? Wouldn't it help if we didn't join wars unless someone attacked us or is posing a threat to us?

 

Posted Jan 28, '13 at 6:16pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,572 posts

But I think things should change, if we're to allow them in school, shouldn't they do something other than color all day, it's a waste of time for everyone, including the kids.

They don't color all day. They get taught at paces they can follow, help teachers with chores, attend regular classes if they can, and learn how to live with their illness. You're completely uninformed of exactly what it is they go through. Just because you only see them coloring (which may be therapeutic or working on developing other skills/linking concepts) doesn't mean that coloring is all they are doing.

What gives with giving guns to the drug cartels in mexico, and giving missiles to the extremists in the middle east?

Give specific examples.

Why should the government be able to spy on us, if they so choose.

Why does it matter, if they won't tell anyone else and you have done nothing wrong? Also, you're pretty narcissistic if you think the government gives a flip about what you talk about on your phone calls or send in your emails. Unless they have reason to suspect that you are involved in illegal or dangerous activities, in which case they have the ability to monitor to make sure.

The goal with classical liberalism, or Libertarianisim, as it's called in the US, is to have healthcare, education, and nearly everything else, besides national defense, to NOT be run by the government, it used to be like that.

And that's when you end up with a boat-load of various ridiculous laws, not equal rights for citizens, creationism in science classes, lack of proper care for those unable to care for themselves and more.

For example, trying starting a business here, there are an insane amount of regulations, of course, some are good, but a lot aren't, or are pointless.

So pick at the useless or not good ones. Don't condemn the entire system because parts of it could be better. Work at improving that, don't just opt for a freeforall in which there is as much good as bad. Changing the problems doesn't change that there are problems that need to be fixed.

They talk about fixing the deficit, by raising taxes. Wouldn't it help cutting down the INSANELY high defense/military budget?

Yes, it would, and they should. We don't need such a large army and our job isn't to be the world police. That doesn't mean that we still shouldn't help others if we have the power to do so and they can't themselves, or if they request our help.

Wouldn't it help to not spend billions on chasing non-violent drug users and putting them in jail and tying up courts?

It would, but depending on what drugs you're talking about I would disagree.

Wouldn't it help if we didn't have a army base in every country?

It would.

Wouldn't it help if we didn't join wars unless someone attacked us or is posing a threat to us?

Sometimes you fight not for self defense.

 

Posted Jan 28, '13 at 6:33pm

Carnage1995

Carnage1995

95 posts

Libertarianism is an idea in ethics and politics. The word comes from the word "liberty". Simply put, Libertarians believe that people should be able to do whatever they desire as long as their actions do not harm others. As a result, Libertarians want to limit the government's power so people can have as much freedom as possible.
Libertarianism grew out of liberalism as a movement in the 1800s. Many of the beliefs of libertarianism are similar to the beliefs in classical liberalism. It also has roots in anarchism and the Austrian School of economics.
Libertarians oppose slavery, ****, theft, murder, and all other examples of initiated violence.

Libertarians believe that no person can justly own or control the body of another person, what they call "self-ownership" or "individual sovereignty." In simple words, every person has a right to control her or his own body.
In the 1800s, libertarians like William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglass, and Lysander Spooner were all abolitionists. Abolitionists were people who wanted to end slavery right away.
Garrison based his opposition to slavery on the idea of self-ownership. Since you have a natural right to control your own body, no one else has any right to steal that control from you. Garrison and Douglass both called slave masters "man stealers."

If you have a right to control your own body, then no one has a right to start violence (or force) against you.
Some libertarians believe that all violence is unjust. These libertarians are often called "anarcho-pacifists". Robert LeFevre was a libertarian who rejected all violence. However, most libertarians believe that there are some ways violence can be justified.
One thing that justifies violence is self defense. If someone is violent towards you, you have a right to defend yourself with equal force.
The libertarian Murray N. Rothbard said that it would be wrong to kill someone for stealing a pack of gum. If you steal gum, this is an act of violence against the property owner. The owner has a right to use defensive violence to get the gum back, but killing the thief goes too far. That is too much force because it is not equal to the force used by the thief. Punishment must be equal to the crime. A student and colleague of his, Walter Block, said that a punishment shouldn't be equal to the crime, but rather enough to make up for the damage the crime caused plus how much it cost to catch the criminal.
Some libertarians believe that it is your moral duty to defend yourself and your property if you can. This belief is usually held by Objectivists. These people believe that pacifism is immoral. Most libertarians reject this view.
All libertarians believe that it is wrong to start violence against any person or against what he or she owns. They call this the "non-aggression principle."

Ownership is the right to control something. Property is the thing that you control.
Libertarians believe that property rights come from self-ownership. This means that because you have a right to control your own body, you also have a right to control what you make with it.
The English philosopher John Locke said that a person comes to own something by using it. So, if you turn an area that no-one else owns into a farm and use it, that area becomes your property. This is called the "homestead principle."
Libertarians also say that you can become a legitimate owner by receiving something as a gift or by trading it with someone for something they own. You do not become a legitimate owner by stealing. You also do not become a legitimate owner by simply saying you own something. If you have not "homesteaded" the thing or received it through trade or gift, you do not own it.

Libertarians are opposed to states (or governments) creating any "laws" that tell people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. The only legitimate laws are laws that say a person may not start violence against other people or their legitimate property. All "laws" stopping people from doing nonviolent things should be repealed, according to libertarians. (These "laws" are usually called "victimless crimes" because there is no victim if there is no theft.)
In most countries, the state (or government) takes tax money from the people. All libertarians support cutting taxes back, and some libertarians believe the state should not take tax money at all. Libertarians think people can take care of the poor without the government. They believe that people should pay for the things that they want to use, but not have to pay for other things that they do not want. Tax evasion (refusal to pay taxes to the state) is a victimless crime. Libertarians would prefer to see taxation replaced with lotteries, user fees, and endowments.
Libertarians think everyone should be allowed to decide what is good or bad for her/his own body. Libertarians think if people want to drive cars without wearing seat belts, it is their own choice. They should not be forcibly stopped from doing that, not even by the state. If a person wants to donate all of her/his money to a charity, or waste it all gambling, that is also something she/he should decide for herself/himself. No one should be forcibly stopped from doing that, not even by the state. Libertarians even say that if adults want to use harmful drugs, they should be allowed to do that, even if it spoils their lives. It is the drug user's own choice because it is the drug user's own body. As long as the drug user does not start using violence against other people or their legitimate property, no one should use violence against the drug user or the drug user's legitimate property, not even the government.
Many libertarians also believe that families and friends should look after people so that they will not use drugs, drive without seat belts, or do other things that are dangerous for them. But no one can force others to do things that they do not want to do, or to stop them from doing nonviolent things that they want to do.

I decided to post that so you can all see what some believe in, if you don't know all of it.

I would agree with most up there actually, but there are some crazy ones called anarcho-libertarians who don't want government at all.

And you talk about there being ridiculous laws without the government, why is that?

There would still be forces keeping things in place, except some laws would be removed, some added, and it wouldn't be by one huge government. I'm pretty sure the constitution says states have higher power than the federal government too. Which is why states have constitutions.

Some people may consider it radical, do whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt others, but for the most part, I think I'd agree. If someone wants to do cocaine? Sure, it's their life. As long as they don't harm anyone.

 

Posted Jan 28, '13 at 6:47pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,572 posts

I decided to post that so you can all see what some believe in, if you don't know all of it.

I'm pretty sure most of us are aware what Libertarians advocate.

And you talk about there being ridiculous laws without the government, why is that?

Because people have different ideas of what is fair, right, wrong, acceptable, moral, or whatever else. Without someone to draw the line, things would inevitably get messy.

There would still be forces keeping things in place, except some laws would be removed, some added, and it wouldn't be by one huge government.

And this would be happening independently in every town in every state of the U.S.A. if every group of people everywhere were deciding for themselves what should be what. You'd end up with horribly racist towns, misogynistic towns, law-heavy towns, and whatever other variation based on the populace living there. There would be laws that would conflict with neighboring towns, disputes over what applied where, and whatever else onward.

I don't know to what extent you're advocating there be no central government, I am speaking from the assumption that the government would only control national defense and borders.

I'm pretty sure the constitution says states have higher power than the federal government too. Which is why states have constitutions.

And yet, we have federal laws.

Some people may consider it radical, do whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt others, but for the most part, I think I'd agree.

This is where the naivety is. People have different ideas of what is harmful or not, what is right and wrong, what should and should not be done, who should be allowed to do what, what is required in order to do this, and whatever else.

I think I'd agree. If someone wants to do cocaine? Sure, it's their life. As long as they don't harm anyone.

Then what do you do when there's conflict over drugs?

Modern government is the result of reaction to conflict. Abolishing what has been built up is just like kicking out the supports on a building, then looting the valuables from the ruins. Even if you're going to leave a skeleton, something will take its place, and that something likely won't be as good or even close to it.

 
Reply to The Anonymous Hack

You must be logged in to post a reply!