Attackdonkey - All Comments

re: test blog.

1800 — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:26:53 GMT

IruAYX fjosahfjk hajkfhs jkahfshafuksahfuas f8syaifa765978thsgjknd sjkgdjksbgjkds

re: Donating to The Mises Institute just Became Easier, and Less Expensive!

BlackSheep — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 01:04:05 GMT

Microsoft was pretty clever to try to get market share from Google this way.

Google has already built its "do no evil" image among web-masters through a lot of giveaways (especially in IT, where they have a lot of student programs and grants throughout the world: Google Summer of Code, Google Code Jam, Google Anita Borg Scholarship, Google Pizza Ambassador, and they sponsor all kinds of projects and events).

Microsoft, on the other hand, it seems, has decided a more direct approach, and betting on the actual users. Has they gain market-share in the search field, I'm sure they'll try to beat Google Ad-sense... Google has made some billion dollars every year, so clearly there is place for competition which will be benefit everyone involved, from the users to IT professionals. :)

re: The Emaculate state

Sharingan_Nightmare — Tue, 06 May 2008 21:03:31 GMT

I see no problem with the system stated as such except for outgoing circumstances such as the poorer man who works the nights. Lets say.. one poorer man cant work the nights.. because he in turn works the day in the fields tilling and taking care of the food. ok.. some would say his portion is helping the farmer who makes the food.

HOWEVER this falls under the pretences of TRUE COMMUNISM in which is actually everyone working freely together for the soul benefit of the society.

however this cannot be accomplished due to the fact of ETHICS itself. although people have the same ethics in the fact they want to be happy and protected and all that other good stuff it still boils down to one problem. Greed.

Greed is the folley of man kind. money is our undoing. as are posessions. people see something they want and cant have it...they take it in the only way the can (sometimes...not always.) these are our theives alredy falling into the equation. what equation? the HUMAN equation.

Huiman beings by nature by themselves are very intelligent have a quick learning curve and respond highly adaptively to their surroundings, though once luxuries (unnecessary thing) are thrown in is where everything falls apart in the human equation. since every person is different and responds in a different manner to different situations through different life experiences, this causes an imbalance in human train of thought and messes with the mathematical plugging and evaluation of the human equation.

so once this force run by man seems to work at the beginning it often tends to fall apart a short time thereafter with the citizens we place our trust in (who dont make as much money or what not)begin to fall to their inner desires. this is not a certainty in all areas but sooner or later it WILL happen somewhere due to the random nature of peoples actions (random not as in undecided or thought out but random in the nature they were brought up by natural events.)

anyway.. good article man.. i enjoyed it. keep up the good work.

re: test blog.

testyourself — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:15:25 GMT

<a href="http://test.com">testyourself</a>">http://test.com">testyourself</a> [url=http://test.com]testyourself[/url] <a href=http://test.com>testyourself</a> [url= http://test.com ] testyourself [/url]

re: Taxes. Previously titled "Slavery"

Attackdonkey — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 20:59:59 GMT

one could still hold property in one country while living in anouther though. and have a friend or employee manage that property? even still, I don't know how the topic came off of taxes..

basically the ensuing question should be for the minarchist, where should the government get the money to barely escape being no government at all, and how?

re: FDA approves cloned beef, pork, and poultry, will not require labeling of cloned foods.

bratueneapene — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 07:51:25 GMT

Hello. Let's get acquainted!

My name is Jessika.

re: A tenate of Liberty

Deist — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:03:04 GMT

Check the book "From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State" if you have not read it already. It is very interesting to see what people did before modern welfare.

re: Taxes. Previously titled "Slavery"

Fred Furash — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:50:24 GMT

To Mathias, sorry to say but you are wrong.

When we talk about freedom of employment, I can seek a job with another employer while continuing to live in my house, with my family, and near my friends. I am not forced to relocate to another geographical area and abandon my private property in order to change employer.

However, when we talk of relocating to another country, I am forced to sever my ties with all my friends and family, or take those who want to go with me. This is certainly not fair. Especially when you consider that I have to sell my private property, simply because it is within the borders of an illegitimate country. You seem to think that relocating to foreign countries is as easy as changing jobs.

Besides, we have seen how Germany is now spying on Swiss and Lichtenstein tax havens, and I bet you other countries do the same all the time. We already know the US government is no longer restricted by the constitution and can arrest anyone they want without habeas corpus. There is no freedom in this, so your analysis is deeply flawed.

re: Taxes. Previously titled "Slavery"

Attackdonkey — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 04:37:50 GMT

I didn't explicitly state it, but I do not think there should be any direct taxation/ I think I heard a speech from charles adams on taxation and slavery, it can be found on this site too.

very good distinction, and you have got me in the academic world, but should when it comes to influencing the actions and thoughts of others, will they strive to provide for their families, or be poor? (or both because of taxation?)

And asfar as the thought that theft is equal to enslavement, you are right, but I think on a very small scale for justice, common defense, and general welfare. and general welfare is up to plenty of debate.

but as far as I can calculate Justice and defense are very important, fortunatly they are both relativly cheap... yes advocating reduction in military spending and evn our justice systm is over grown.

re: Taxes. Previously titled "Slavery"

Thorgold2 — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 03:04:20 GMT

Taxes are immoral for the reason you have mentioned, but also they are even more immoral when different amounts are sought (I am not even mentioning different percentages!) from different citizens.

It is highly immoral to take $100 from one but $101 from another. One of the means of keeping government down is to tax one and the same amount, so that there is always a shortage of funds.

Secondly, I think your distinction is flawed. Because you can choose not to be productive, and therefore not taxed. In slavery, you cannot do so. You can either kill yourself or keep working.

Thirdly, your analysis seem to show that partial slavery is acceptable if necessary, and if kept to a minimum.

re: Taxes. Previously titled "Slavery"

Mathias — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 14:55:55 GMT

Funny, really. Just as you can

change your employer, you can change

your country. Just move to

dominica or wherever and take their citizenship. No one will

stop you. You're free.

re: Minarchism.

Brainpolice — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 04:01:16 GMT

"oh well. I think its pretty much true. I think as far as pure ethics, and only ethics are concerned... government is bad in and of itself. but to do away with government would do so much detriment, in the form of the problems I have cited above, that it would be unethical to throw off the system that we have inherited for a purely ethical, and so heavily flawed alternative."

Well, if you concede that the state is inherently unethical, you could very well be called a "philosophical anarchist". Philosophical anarchists tend to view the state is inherently unjust, but think that it is either a necessary evil or inevitable. I think people like Thomas Jefferson would qualify. Also, to clarify, I do not advocate any kind of violent revolution. My own strategies for ending the state are a matter of market competition and mass civil disobedience. So I do not support unethical means in opposition to the state. We would not want to become just like our own enemies.

"WAIT! what about the objectivist you mentioned? it seems your main issue with government is theft (taxing). but what about that? Look at the huge churches. I know of a church in Plaino, Texas with a yearly budget of 12 million dollars. and it isn't the only one. these churches have magnificent buildings, with detailed craftsmanship, amazing sound systems, they send missionaries all over the world, etc. etc. the point is that all of this is on voluntary donations. could our government run on donations? if it were the proper size. if it only established Justice, ensured domestic tranquility, and provided for the... common defense? (I have a few thoughts on the army.. but we can get to that latter)"

Taxation is not the only problem I have with the state. I have a problem with it because there is no genuine option to opt out, I.E. it violates freedom of association. The objectivists get around the problem of taxation but they still advocate coercive monopoly, since they do not allow competition in the field of law, security and arbitration. I've chatted with a few advocates of "subscribed government" or "donations to government", but the conversations usually devolve into semantics. You are welcome to call such an institution a "government" if you like, but if you actually allow free competition between these institutions you are in fact advocating market anarchism.

re: Minarchism.

Attackdonkey — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 01:49:38 GMT

WAIT! what about the objectivist you mentioned? it seems your main issue with government is theft (taxing). but what about that? Look at the huge churches. I know of a church in Plaino, Texas with a yearly budget of 12 million dollars. and it isn't the only one. these churches have magnificent buildings, with detailed craftsmanship, amazing sound systems, they send missionaries all over the world, etc. etc. the point is that all of this is on voluntary donations. could our government run on donations? if it were the proper size. if it only established Justice, ensured domestic tranquility, and provided for the... common defense? (I have a few thoughts on the army.. but we can get to that latter)

re: Minarchism.

Attackdonkey — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 01:40:51 GMT

I was trying to delete that last one before you saw it.

oh well. I think its pretty much true. I think as far as pure ethics, and only ethics are concerned... government is bad in and of itself. but to do away with government would do so much detriment, in the form of the problems I have cited above, that it would be unethical to throw off the system that we have inherited for a purely ethical, and so heavily flawed alternative.

re: Minarchism.

Brainpolice — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 21:53:48 GMT

"As of now, I have no ethical defense of the state, but can only say that it is a necissary evil.

and we must keep it as small and limited as possible."

Okay. Well that pretty much brings the debate to a standstill then. My entire purpose is to argue for the inherently unethical nature of the state.