>> ^blankfist:

They're probably beaten. Just sayin'.


Only if they don't ride their bikes. And who doesn't love cycling?

>> ^VidRoth:

Um... isn't President Obama on record as having called Kanye West a jackass?
I'm not saying he was wrong about that, I'm just saying it seems to open the floor a bit for candidly expressed, off-color statements involving himself.


Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't a jackass just a donkey or an idiot?

Some more first world problems here...

http://videosift.com/video/MC-Frontalot-First-World-Problem

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^Ti_Moth:
I've always wondered, in a libertarian society what is to stop the super rich from creating their own states? Surely it wouldn't be hard, without a government to rein in their powers they could just hire a bunch of mercenaries and live like kings (whilst fighting other kings for land/resources). Libertarianism just seems like a massive step back to me.

There wouldn't be anything to stop the super rich from creating their own states. That is, except for the 350 million of us with guns who would object if they tried to force it onto us. That's the power of individualism. It's also somewhat the same reason why no one has marched into Switzerland and taken over.
But isn't your scenario a very specific, extreme and unlikely one? The arguments against libertarianism tend to always involve some evil Bill Gates with a one-dimensional motivation to do incredibly bad things.
It's interesting you compared them to kings, which is exactly what the US colonies were ruled by (British Empire) prior to the US Revolution. After the revolution, the new republic was a baby step toward individualism and less government, and it's a huge step in the right direction. Not perfect by any stretch, but better.
Imagine what can be accomplished if we continue toward less government and more individual freedom.


It may seem unlikely that some super rich individual would want to form his own state but there are alot of crazies out there, I wouldn't think it too far fetched to think that some super rich evangelical christian would want to impose his philosophy on people via the barrel of a gun (or many guns as the case may be).
So if someone did decide to take over with his mercenary army I would have to fight? I don't know about you but i'm a lover not a fighter I would rather pay a small portion of my wages to fund an opposition, a tax if you will. Also Switzerland was invaded and held by Napoleon for a period of 17 years (1798-1815) and it was after that, that the neutrality of Switzerland became internationally recognized not because many of its inhabitants are armed.
I do believe that libertarianism would be a massive step back after all wasn't the world originally libertarian by some definition, no countries, people working for themselves trading with other individuals and groups of individuals. Wouldn't it be better to have a form of government actually run by the people, a direct democracy with no representatives to become corrupt with true accountability, rather than to tear it down and descend into a Somalian style anarchy.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^Ti_Moth:
Any chance you could respond to my thoughts blankfist?

Sure. I'm on vicodin at the moment, so maybe I should clear my head first?


Take your time. : )

Any chance you could respond to my thoughts blankfist?

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

What is to stop governments from destroying our natural resources right no Ti? It is already happening.
@Netrunner--people can vote politicians out. But the odds are that the masses drown out the silly little one or two little votes of reason.
Second, the bad ones move from one area to another--kind of like teacher tenure light.


Hopefully the people. I believe that their should be government but government without elected representatives I long for a direct democracy with resolutions and legislation voted for/against by everyone, where no-one is allowed to starve to death because they can't work, where the long term goals of the human race can be debated and considered and where money and its corrupting influences can be learned about in history classes not fought over.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Don't hurt yourself..and no, science hasn't disproven God. That causes more scientists to weep than laugh. Formally, if God exists all natural law is predicated on the will of the most High, which makes the source of all causation supernatural..which is why philosophers think of God as the "prime mover"
>> ^Ti_Moth:
>> ^shinyblurry:
science has not ruled out a supernatural causation for any natural phenomena.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! deep breath Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!



Did you read the quote that provided me with such mirth? You claim that nothing has been proven to not have a supernatural basis! Do you think scientists are still scratching their heads over what lightning is or that they think rain is God taking a shower!?
As for scientists weeping over what they don't know I seriously doubt that, isn't it their job to try and figure out what they don't know?

>> ^shinyblurry:

science has not ruled out a supernatural causation for any natural phenomena.


Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! *deep breath* Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

>> ^jmzero:

If space and time were created in the big bang...

You didn't understand my post, and I can't be bothered to explain something that's not simple to someone who doesn't have any desire to learn. Sorry.
lets just have 13+ dimensions! cant figure out where matter and energy came from? no problem, lets just imagine these gigantic superstructures called branes that crash into eachother!

You don't understand anything of what you're saying - to be fair, very few people do. That doesn't mean it's wrong. There is plenty of science that's very complicated and unintuitive - and yet true and usable. The argument from incredulity is even less compelling when you don't even understand the thing you're arguing against.
even someone like dawkins admits the Universe appears to be designed.

Read Dawkins, instead of reading people quote-mining (or "summarizing") him. If you have read Dawkins, you haven't understood anything (at all). No way around that, sorry.
.abiogenesis is not a credible theory, it is a metaphysical belief.

It will almost certainly happen in our lifetimes (assuming you're under 50) that people create life starting with inorganic chemicals. Will that change your mind at all? Of course not. How could it, when your belief system wasn't founded on reason to begin with? And, as before, there are already interesting ideas for how the first life could have formed. You may not find them credible (and certainly none has compelling evidence yet), but they're not metaphysical. But even if there was credible ideas it wouldn't matter to you, really, would it? Of course not, just move them goalposts.
A billion monkeys on a billion typewriters are never going to write shakesphere.

I guess add probability and infinity to the list of things you have no idea about. In short, yes those monkeys would - and we could make detailed predictions about how long it would likely take to get a sonnet, a play, or the entire collection. It would take a very, very long time for that last one obviously, but it would happen. Want to dispute that? Don't tell me about it. Again, I can't be bothered to teach you things you aren't interested in learning. Idiot.
If you want a more detailed treatment of all this related stuff, Dawkins has written books that are easy to understand (very "pop science" level) that go over all this very clearly. At least by reading a couple you'd understand the other side (which you clearly, clearly do not at this point).
But if you don't want to know, just keep getting your stupid information and talking points from wherever the hell you're getting them now and go back under your rock.


I wish I could vote for this comment more than once : )

Another question for when you've answered my first what is to stop people from overstretching Earth's natural resources I.e. Over fishing, Illegal logging etc. I know that those things are happening anyway but at least states are trying to do something about it.

I think its self explanatory really.

I would say that to suggest this magic man who looks just like us and has ultimate power over every facet of everything that exists or ever has existed just because some Jews wrote a collection of books several centuries ago is equally laughable.

>> ^shinyblurry:

"God is just in those things we don't understand" You mean like everything? lol..the hubris of this man. Atheism just seems to fill someone with arrogance..when I was agnostic, I at least recognized that humanity in general didn't know enough about existence to say either way..an atheist just seems to replace God with himself..this putrid religion of humanism is the ultimate ego trip. Well, pride is always greatest before the fall..


Are you suggesting that the human race doesn't understand anything!? I suppose God created that keyboard you are typing on to send this digital information over the mysterious God-given internet. I personally get more humility from Stephen Fry than from you.

*blocked