The following is discussion about the post titled:
San Fran Gubment Bans Happy Meals!
Feel free to add your own comments!

http://www.cnbc.com/id/39886462/Chinese_Computer_Trumps_US_One_as_World_s_Fastest

I guess its no surprise that another Sputnik has happened, shaming the US.

The US, which is "supposed" to be a technological powerhouse, gets shown up by China.  China has been rapidly developing in the technological world, with 1 GLARING reason comming to mind: China does not have intellectual property laws.

To my surprise, we watched a TED lecture in my English class today(college).  This lecture was on the origin of great ideas, and supports the notion that intelectual property stifles innovation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0af00UcTO-c

I've seen this so many places, and what actually brought this to my mind is an article Gard posted on the front page (http://www.cnbc.com/id/39957072).

Its unbelieveable that people can try to say that debasement of currency is good so blatantly.  I will quote the article:

Gross added: "One of the ways to get even, so to speak, or to get the balance, is to debase your currency faster than anybody else can. It's a shock because the dollar is the reserve currency. But to the extent that that is a necessary condition for rebalancing the global economy over time, then that is where we are headed."

http://networkedblogs.com/9SC7F

Wow...

A friend of mine posted this and I really enjoyed, so I wanted to share. Another one of my libertarian role models...

Penn Jillete is awesome.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYBoi8NVyBk&feature=player_embedded

I agree, it's hatefulm cynical and theft.

http://www.slate.com/id/2271265/?gt1=38001

I saw this article on the MSN homepage (sadly, I use IE still, and havn't cared to change it).  Peter Thiel gets so smeared in this article its ridiculous. And the author is the editor-in-chief for Slate on MSN!  The guy takes quotes way out of context, then beats him up over it.  He is just completely ignorant when he refers to Thiel backing seasteading; he doesn't get it at all, and obviously has no desire to figure it out.

Whats just as sad is all the comments worshiping college education.  But one comment a guy said made me laugh.

A students teach the B students how to be employees for the C students.

I thought of this question after reading over the small abortion topic brought up recently.

Say that you get put into a situation, such as a gas station thats being robbed.  You have a weapon on you, and you can safely stop this guy (safely being the key).  If you do absolutely nothing to stop him, are you immoral for your inactivity?

This is my question regarding abortion and libertarians.  If you really believe abortion is murder, is failing to act the same as supporting it?  I know acting on abortion can be very broad, but it could be as simple as verbal disapproval.

I also recorded it if anyone would like to listen.

http://www.fisherists.com/freetalklive7.mp3

I was listening to an archive of The Tiny Political Show while hacking through some zombies playing Dead Rising 2 last night (who else but me listens to podcasts while playing video games? lol) and I heard Citizen X and Barry Hess say they were pro life libertarians. But, when you consider that libertarians are against prohibition of any kind, no matter what their personal views on abortion may be, wouldn't we be pro choice by defintion?

For the record, I'm very much pro choice. I have seen the effect of an unplanned pregnancy, and the aftermath of raising a child when you weren't ready and I wouldn't call that "life".

Can anyone recommend any articles, papers and/or books on how to de-statize society?  In "For a New Liberty", Murray Rothbard had a great example whereby the States of NY and MA, before giving up power, deeded all land to the Rockefeller and Kennedy family's, respectively.  His point was that utilitarians could have no objection to such acts because they had/have no theory on justice in property rights.

"The government shouldn't be involved in blank, but since it is....." is a common problem encountered by libertarians.  The marriage issue comes to mind.  Sometimes, the defense of those who propose extending government into protecting the "marriage" of gays and lesbians is couched in the language of equality.  I think further involving the government in marriage is a mistake.  Another area where the above argument comes into play is with public property, i.e. parks, jails, squares, streets and the like.  In this case, I don't object to rules being imposed on the users of these areas.  There shouldn't be public property.  But as long as there is, there has to be some sort of rules. 

Thoughts.

...and yes there is a picture. This is so funny I've not stopped laughing for the last few minutes. So rediculous.

http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/juice/2010/10/pembroke_pines_cop_moons...

I propose a compromise.  What if each town or each county in the U.S. had a monopoly on the use of force.  That is, abolish the federal and state governments.  Wouldn't this extreme decentralization be a pretty good approximation of anarchy?  As an anarchist, I don't think I would have any complaints about living in a society where I had literally hundreds, if not thousands, of "governments" to choose from.  With today's technology, people could be easily informed about which areas to avoid.

I’m obviously I’m now on the path towards womanhood.

Its also obvious that these days I’m on a different path politically then folk on these forums.

I’ve decided to no longer post on these forums this has more to do with my gender transition then my politics.

I’ll keep contact with Gard & Furb as I consider them both friends but if anybody else want to keep in touch with what I’m up to then you can follow my journal http://www.sophiabotha.net/.

Goodbye

There seems to be a contradiction in the thinking of some, if not all, atheistic anarchists.  On the one hand, you say that each person is the sole determinant of what's right and wrong for them.  That no group or collective can impose their version of morality on anyone.  On the other hand, most, if not all, of you subscribe to the Non-Aggression Principle or Axiom.  The NAP is a moral statement (which I also support).  Isn't the NAP just another version of the "higher law", that other religious traditions would like to apply to humans.?  isn't the NAP an imposition of a type of morality on some who may not subscribe to it?  If there is no Creator, what is the source of man's rights?  It's 4AM, so I apologize if I'm not being completely clear.

Its not so much government but the attitude of people around me towards government which is currently pissing me off.

I'm finally dealing with the fact I've gender dysphoria & yet those around me are dubious about me doing so because I've not sought guidance from some government sanctioned shrink.

Its almost as if people think you need to seek government permission & then have government sanctioned guidance if you want to adapt your body etc.

By me altering my body i'm not hindering anybody from getting on with their day to day business & yet people seem to think I should be under some government sanctioned care.

...at least not until this guy is off the board.

http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/note.php?note_id=477425082183&id=630752504

What I love the most, without question, about Libertarian views, is the idea of live and let live. It's like Barry Hess said on the Tiny Political show; there are those of us who want to be left alone, and those that will not leave us alone. This flies in the face of everything I believe and I can't back this in good faith. I don't have to financially support the party in order to vote for a Libertarian candidate, and it looks like I won't be.

Even though I've joined the Labour Party Mothy doesn't reckon i'm a socialist

Thought there might be libertarians who'd beg to differ

Two people I have enormous respect for, albeit for different reasons, both turned 90 this year.  Szasz, the great libertarian, is the author of many classics including "The Myth of Mental Illness", "Ceremonial Chemistry", and "The Manufacture of Madness" to name a few.  If you haven't read him or are not familiar with his work, you're in for a real treat.

Anybody who has read Bradbury doesn't need an explanation. 

Normal 0 false false false EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE