AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Libertarianism
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Libertarianism - Page 7

post #241 of 735
1/9/12 at 8:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I have no interest in a polyamorous relationship personally, but I'm not about to stop someone else. I thought we were the land of the free?

There is nothing stopping people from forming polygamous relationships. There are simply laws that prevent legal marriages to more than one person at a time. We as a society have a right to form laws regarding the basic pillars of that society. One of those is marriage.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #242 of 735
1/9/12 at 8:36am
Thread Starter 
Does a group of people really have a legitimate right to impose its will on peaceful people through violence?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #243 of 735
1/9/12 at 8:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Does a group of people really have a legitimate right to impose its will on peaceful people through violence?

No one is talking about violence of any kind. We're simply talking about legally recognizing marriages, not punishing those that ignore that law.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #244 of 735
1/9/12 at 8:41am
Thread Starter 
The State IS violence.

"The distinctive feature of libertarians is that they coolly and uncompromisingly apply the general moral law to people acting in their roles as members of the State apparatus. Libertarians make no exceptions. For centuries, the State (or more strictly, individuals acting in their roles as "members of the government") has cloaked its criminal activity in high-sounding rhetoric. For centuries the State has committed mass murder and called it "war"; then ennobled the mass slaughter that "war" involves. For centuries the State has enslaved people into its armed battalions and called it "conscription" in the "national service." For centuries the State has robbed people at bayonet point and called it "taxation." In fact, if you wish to know how libertarians regard the State and any of its acts, simply think of the State as a criminal band, and all of the libertarian attitudes will logically fall into place." -- Murray N. Rothbard

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #245 of 735
1/15/12 at 6:56am
Thread Starter 
Edgar the Exploiter

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #246 of 735
1/15/12 at 7:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

The State IS violence.

"The distinctive feature of libertarians is that they coolly and uncompromisingly apply the general moral law to people acting in their roles as members of the State apparatus. Libertarians make no exceptions. For centuries, the State (or more strictly, individuals acting in their roles as "members of the government") has cloaked its criminal activity in high-sounding rhetoric. For centuries the State has committed mass murder and called it "war"; then ennobled the mass slaughter that "war" involves. For centuries the State has enslaved people into its armed battalions and called it "conscription" in the "national service." For centuries the State has robbed people at bayonet point and called it "taxation." In fact, if you wish to know how libertarians regard the State and any of its acts, simply think of the State as a criminal band, and all of the libertarian attitudes will logically fall into place." -- Murray N. Rothbard

I very much agree with that statement. For years around here I had discussions with others about women and false allegations. The awareness is better now but not much really. The point was that there were those who didn't see an equivalence between say, a man punching a woman, and a woman falsely claiming a man had abused or raped her. The latter brought on just as much violence, but in their minds it didn't count since it wasn't directly rendered from her hand. It was however directly rendered from her mouth due to lies.

The state is indeed violence.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #247 of 735
1/16/12 at 6:44pm
Thread Starter 

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #248 of 735
1/27/12 at 10:13pm
Thread Starter 

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #249 of 735
1/28/12 at 4:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

There is nothing stopping people from forming polygamous relationships. There are simply laws that prevent legal marriages to more than one person at a time. We as a society have a right to form laws regarding the basic pillars of that society. One of those is marriage.

Do you believe in one relationship of a man to a woman or the other ones which to me is way out in left field.
Reply
Reply
post #250 of 735
1/30/12 at 2:20am
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


I do not consent to breathing in the waste products of coal power plants. The power companies are violating my right to breathe fresh air. I am not other people's property and they must cease and decease immediately.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #251 of 735
1/30/12 at 5:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I do not consent to breathing in the waste products of coal power plants. The power companies are violating my right to breathe fresh air. I am not other people's property and they must cease and decease immediately.

Republicans want dirty air and water!
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #252 of 735
1/30/12 at 8:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Republicans want dirty air and water!

No, but some businesspeople tolerate dirty air and water if it means more profit, and Republicans and Libertarians want them to have the freedom to choose the profit.
Reply
Reply
post #253 of 735
1/30/12 at 8:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

No, but some businesspeople tolerate dirty air and water if it means more profit, and Republicans and Libertarians want them to have the freedom to choose the profit.

Yes and by tolerate you mean make trade-offs associated with human activity. The utopians like yourself cannot understand trade-offs. They are the ones stopping farming in Central California due to a fish and stopping massive solar power installations due to a tortoise. There can be no compromise with utopia.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #254 of 735
1/30/12 at 8:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

No, but some businesspeople tolerate dirty air and water if it means more profit, and Republicans and Libertarians want them to have the freedom to choose the profit.

Actually, libertarians (and, I suspect, some Republicans as well) would, correctly, consider the pollution you speak of as a property rights violation. Libertarians tend to be pretty consistent on this point. They are not, as you seem to imagine, pro-business, they are pro freedom and pro property rights. There is often a difference. You polluting my land or body is, properly understood, a property rights violation.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #255 of 735
1/30/12 at 8:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Yes and by tolerate you mean make trade-offs associated with human activity. The utopians like yourself cannot understand trade-offs. They are the ones stopping farming in Central California due to a fish and stopping massive solar power installations due to a tortoise. There can be no compromise with utopia.

There is no utopia, but there is right and wrong.
Reply
Reply
post #256 of 735
1/30/12 at 8:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Actually, libertarians (and, I suspect, some Republicans as well) would, correctly, consider the pollution you speak of as a property rights violation. Libertarians tend to be pretty consistent on this point. They are not, as you seem to imagine, pro-business, they are pro freedom and pro property rights. There is often a difference. You polluting my land or body is, properly understood, a property rights violation.

And self-regulation is the answer that keeps the air and water clean, right?
Reply
Reply
post #257 of 735
1/30/12 at 8:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And self-regulation is the answer that keeps the air and water clean, right?

I didn't say that actually. I simply pointed out that you are wrong to say that "Republicans and Libertarians want them to have the freedom to choose the profit" and to be able to violate other people's property rights on the path to doing that. That's simply wrong from a libertarian philosophy perspective.

All that said, in a environment where property rights are truly respected, there would be strong recourse for the violation of them whether they be government courts or private mediation/arbitration mechanisms. At that point we're merely discussing tactical solutions though. The first principle to agree on is whether property rights are worth of protection or not. Leftists, progressives and neo-liberals tend to be quite inconsistent on this point.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #258 of 735
1/30/12 at 8:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I didn't say that actually. I simply pointed out that you are wrong to say that "Republicans and Libertarians want them to have the freedom to choose the profit" and to be able to violate other people's property rights on the path to doing that. That's simply wrong from a libertarian philosophy perspective.

So who regulates the water and air pollution, then?
Reply
Reply
post #259 of 735
1/30/12 at 8:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

There is no utopia, but there is right and wrong.

Wait, I learned from the left that we can't legislate morality. Is that true or not?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #260 of 735
1/30/12 at 9:13am
When it clearly harms other people you can, and you should.
Reply
Reply
post #261 of 735
1/30/12 at 9:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

When it clearly harms other people you can, and you should.

Oh, so we can legislate morality? OK. Good to know.

Maybe just the morals you think we must?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #262 of 735
1/30/12 at 9:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

There is no utopia, but there is right and wrong.

When everything short of utopia is wrong, then there is still a problem.

You've shown your hand with the mandatory HPV vaccinations. Fewer than 4,000 deaths per year, largely due to a lifetime of neglect of their own bodies means you are willing to force everyone to lose their own autonomy in some quest for zero. The vaccination doesn't guarantee zero but there is the desire and thus all else be damned.

That is utopian. That isn't right vs. wrong. What you deem to be clean air involves "pollution" that is naturally occuring and is what we all exhale.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #263 of 735
1/30/12 at 9:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

So who regulates the water and air pollution, then?

I am not libertarian but I believe the courts regulate it. If your next door neighbour starts polluting the air and water he gets a knock on the door from your lawyer, with a piece of paper that he is being sued for lowering the value and enjoyment of your land.

The benefit of this approach is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, which is the preferred approach legally. Normal decent people who have no intention of polluting do not have to pay regulation compliance costs. Rather, they only pay if they do something wrong.

You might say, the problem is you have to wait until they start polluting before you can sue them. I would say yes, but only in the short term. In the long run, once people got used to that system, the threat of being sued would have the same deterrent effect that regulations have today.
Reply
Reply
post #264 of 735
1/30/12 at 9:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

I am not libertarian but I believe the courts regulate it. If your next door neighbour starts polluting the air and water he gets a knock on the door from your lawyer, with a piece of paper that he is being sued for lowering the value and enjoyment of your land.

The benefit of this approach is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, which is the preferred approach legally. Normal decent people who have no intention of polluting do not have to pay regulation compliance costs. Rather, they only pay if they do something wrong.

You might say, the problem is you have to wait until they start polluting before you can sue them. I would say yes, but only in the short term. In the long run, once people got used to that system, the threat of being sued would have the same deterrent effect that regulations have today.

Bingo! Ascii gets it.

Granted, some forms of pollution fall into the category that economists refer to as negative externalities...and that can be an appropriate place for the state to act. But it may not always be necessary. This will depend on the degree of negative externality and the cost of corrective action.

As trumptman aptly points out so-called progressives envision a Utopian world in which all negative externalities have been eliminated no matter the cost. They have sort of a one-track mind here.

To the extent that it is reasonable to do so, these matters would be better resolved using private property rights and voluntary agreements as the foundational framework. Shoot, even cap-and-trade wants to do this. They want to allocate a certain amount of CO2 emission for everything and then allow the right to this emission to be traded. The problem here, of course, is in the "cap" part of cap-and-trade. This is the state doing one of the things it does really well...creating scarcity and limits where none existed before.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #265 of 735
1/30/12 at 11:50am
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-01-...ontinents.html

European farmers do not consent to North American polluters destroying 1.2 million tons of wheat each year.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #266 of 735
1/30/12 at 12:02pm
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
Oh, also, when I sue each individual corporation that is spewing pollution into the atmosphere that I'm breathing, who pays the court costs and attorney fees for me? I don't have a lot of excess cash or time to do that. If I somehow win my case, do I just get a monetary reward for my potentially reduced lifespan or do I have to be already physically ill in order to have a case? Do they have to stop polluting?


If only me and other citizens could band together to do some of the stuff as a group that would be too difficult and costly for any individual to go alone. We could elect representatives who share our interests in not being harmed by these corporations that are so big and costly to fight on our own. Maybe, instead of waiting to be harmed after the fact, when we know an act is going to cause harm and property rights violations, we could just not let the corporations do it in the first place--or severely limit them to minimize the harm while still not crushing the economy. What would you call such a group of individuals working together like that for the common good?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #267 of 735
1/30/12 at 12:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

No, but some businesspeople tolerate dirty air and water if it means more profit, and Republicans and Libertarians want them to have the freedom to choose the profit.

That's ridiculous. Republicans don't oppose all environmental regulation. They oppose unreasonable regulation. They understand trade offs as trump noted. They oppose the current mechanism for regulation we have now. As for libertarians, I'm not one on this issue, so I can't speak for them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-01-...ontinents.html

European farmers does not consent to North American polluters destroying 1.2 million tons of wheat each year.

Do they consent to North America being the world's breadbasket?
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #268 of 735
1/30/12 at 12:30pm
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Do they consent to North America being the world's breadbasket?

Now that makes no sense. How is that a property rights violation like pollution destroying a crop?


ATTACK...

of the

RIDICULOUS

NON SEQUITUR!!!!!!!!!!

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #269 of 735
1/30/12 at 1:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Oh, also, when I sue each individual corporation that is spewing pollution into the atmosphere that I'm breathing, who pays the court costs and attorney fees for me? I don't have a lot of excess cash or time to do that. If I somehow win my case, do I just get a monetary reward for my potentially reduced lifespan or do I have to be already physically ill in order to have a case? Do they have to stop polluting?

You wouldn't have to wait to be ill, you can sue simply for loss of enjoyment of your own property. That is an existing legal concept. As to costs, the culture today is not very tolerant of pollution. This means juries are likely to give large rewards. Which means you would have lawyers chasing you down and offering to work for a cut if you had a genuine case to make.

Quote:
If only me and other citizens could band together to do some of the stuff as a group that would be too difficult and costly for any individual to go alone. We could elect representatives who share our interests in not being harmed by these corporations that are so big and costly to fight on our own. Maybe, instead of waiting to be harmed after the fact, when we know an act is going to cause harm and property rights violations, we could just not let the corporations do it in the first place--or severely limit them to minimize the harm while still not crushing the economy. What would you call such a group of individuals working together like that for the common good?

I would call them unjust, since they impose costs on people who have done nothing. I would call them unthinking, because they impose those costs blanketly. I would call them uncivilised, since civilised people believe in innocent until proven guilty. I would call them inefficient, since one size does not fit all. And based on history, I would call them corrupted within a few years.

Gee, if only there was some way to get rid of that unthinking, uncivilised blanket punishing of everybody, and somehow have a tailored solution that only targeted the guilty. If only...
Reply
Reply
post #270 of 735
1/30/12 at 1:09pm
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

You wouldn't have to wait to be ill, you can sue simply for loss of enjoyment of your own property. That is an existing legal concept. As to costs, the culture today is not very tolerant of pollution. This means juries are likely to give large rewards. Which means you would have lawyers chasing you down and offering to work for a cut if you had a genuine case to make.

Begging the question.



Quote:
I would call them unjust, since they impose costs on people who have done nothing. I would call them unthinking, because they impose those costs blanketly. I would call them uncivilised, since civilised people believe in innocent until proven guilty. I would call them inefficient, since one size does not fit all. And based on history, I would call them corrupted within a few years.

Gee, if only there was some way to get rid of that unthinking, uncivilised blanket punishing of everybody, and somehow have a tailored solution that only targeted the guilty. If only...

Nirvana fallacy followed by a thought-terminating cliché.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #271 of 735
1/30/12 at 1:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Begging the question.

It's not begging the question, it is existing practice for lawyers to take cases on contingency. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_fee . And if you think the culture is not against pollution, and would not give big payouts, look around you. The "green" message is everywhere.

There is this thing you might have heard of called "reason," where if you want to know if a claim is true or not you compare it to reality. i.e. to reality, not to your Big Book of Fallacies.

Quote:
Nirvana fallacy followed by a thought-terminating cliché.

On the contrary, a Nirvana fallacy would be to assume that everyone was going to be good, and never pollute, and we could all hold hands and dance under the rainbow. The very fact that I propose a role for the courts here, a punishing entity, proves that I am not thinking that way.

And my final sentence was not a thought-terminating cliche, it was a "feigning of ignorance" mimicking your second paragraph.
Reply
Reply
post #272 of 735
1/30/12 at 1:38pm
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

It's not begging the question, it is existing practice for lawyers to take cases on contingency. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_fee . And if you think the culture is not against pollution, and would not give big payouts, look around you. The "green" message is everywhere.

There is this thing you might have heard of called "reason," where if you want to know if a claim is true or not you compare it to reality. i.e. to reality, not to your Big Book of Fallacies.

You begged the question that I could easily win a lawsuit for breathing in air pollution. You continue to do so. You support it with "look around, the green message is everywhere." That's a hasty generalization.


Quote:
On the contrary, a Nirvana fallacy would be to assume that everyone was going to be good, and never pollute, and we could all hold hands and dance under the rainbow.

Nay. The Nirvana fallacy simply requires you to reject a solution because it isn't perfect, like your alternative--the courts that will magically rule in my favor for breathing in the pollution of coal power plants.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #273 of 735
1/30/12 at 1:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

The Nirvana fallacy simply requires you to reject a solution because it isn't perfect

Fuck. The irony.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #274 of 735
1/30/12 at 1:46pm
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Fuck. The irony.

Ad Hominem.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #275 of 735
1/30/12 at 1:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Ad Hominem.

Not at all. I was simply pointing out the irony of you claiming someone else using a nirvana fallacy.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #276 of 735
1/30/12 at 1:50pm
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Not at all. I was simply pointing out the irony of you claiming someone else using a nirvana fallacy.

So a little ad hom seasoning a red herring. Thanks for clarifying.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #277 of 735
1/30/12 at 1:56pm
Ohhhh...I forgot. I get it now.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #278 of 735
1/30/12 at 1:56pm
Thread Starter 
"The idea of a strictly limited constitutional State was a noble experiment that failed, even under the most favorable and propitious circumstances. If it failed then, why should a similar experiment fare any better now? No, it is the conservative laissez-fairist, the man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, 'Limit yourself'; it is he who is truly the impractical utopian."

--Murray N. Rothbard

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #279 of 735
1/30/12 at 3:03pm
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Ohhhh...I forgot. I get it now.

Ad hom.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #280 of 735
1/30/12 at 3:14pm
Hi BR! How are you? Life treating you well? So good to see you.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Libertarianism