FDA to Crack Down on Alcoholic Energy Drinks

Name me a successful country run according to Libertarian ideals... no Somalia doesn't count.
Click to expand...
There is no country in the modern world that even resembles libertarianism. A couple examples I can give, would be pre-1900s USA, and Hong Kong while it was under British possession. Hong Kong didn't have much for personal freedoms, but as far as economics are concerned, it was closest thing we have seen in recent times to true capitalism.

Are you willing to state you have never,ever benefited from government spending?
Click to expand...
No I am not, and nor would I ever claim this. I went to public school and drive on public roads everyday. What I am stating is that certain people have more to gain from government programs than others.

All I claim is that private businesses are more efficient, they try to make money rather than profit being meaningless, as it is to the government, thus unlimited potential for wasted spending.
 
[quote name='Liberty1']Enough people have an opinion otherwise, to make it an opinion. What you are doing here is simply regarding what you say as fact, and everything else as false. At least I'm willing to acknowledge that my view is in fact an opinion.[/QUOTE]

No, sorry, not everything is an opinion.

There comes a point in a debate where something can just be wrong. Like let's say we are talking and I go "the jews are a bloodthirsty fascist like group of people". That is just wrong. There is no jumping point for discussion from that...but if I said that "Israel often overreacts to small situations and uses way too much force in retaliation", that can be a jumping off point for conversation about Israel's actions. Or even take that drunk driving thing from earlier in the thread. "Drunk driving should be legal" = no, wrong. There is nowhere to go from there. But if you said, alcohol affects people in different manners and the current number is too low for most, that's a jumping off point. We can talking about what number it should be, alternative methods (like Doug Stanhope, libertarian, said of taking a driving test while drunk and if you pass at a certain number, you get to drive up to that number), etc.

Taxes are a punishment = wrong

[quote name='Liberty1']Welfare isn't for everybody, it's targeted at a certain income group. Funding goes to projects directed towards minorities, which obviously not everyone benefits from. Different people benefit from government programs differently.[/QUOTE]

No, it's a net anybody can fall into. If Mr. Rich Man's stocks tank, his firm lays him off and he is so far into debt, from trying to live a exorbitant lifestyle, he loses everything. Guess what? That guy could get unemployment. That guy could go on welfare. If that guy is old enough, he could still retire with social security. If that guy is old enough and sick, he can get Medicare to help him out. If that guy has a kid, he can send him to public school.

And that's ignoring all the other stuff the government does that you don't even notice.

[quote name='Liberty1']Speeding tickets are way for the government to raise money, and thus a tax, they are a punishment as well, yes.[/QUOTE]

See what I mean from earlier?

Wrong.

[quote name='Liberty1']And my analogy isn't flawed because taxes are indeed taken with force, at the threat of a gun.[/QUOTE]

Nope, it's still flawed. Again with the whole "it goes towards things for everybody" thing from earlier. Also, I can't remember when the IRS roll up with tanks and made me pay my taxes. They can place liens against what you own and send you to jail for not paying but that's about it.

You know if you don't like taxes so much, you can easily save up and move to a place like Somalia. ;) You may run into pirates or bandits but I'm sure you'll just bootstrap your way overtop of them.
 
As far as me benefiting from government programs, I have never accepted anything that I don't have to have to live: I use public roads. It obviously wasn't my choice to go to public school. I have never taken Welfare, food stamps or free health care. I have never went to police for help, any involvement I've had with them was not my choice, they approached me.

And about Hong Kong, as evidence of what a good thing it was/is, the Chinese have pretty much adopted a hands-off policy. They let capitalism flourish in Hong Kong because it fills their coffers.
 
Nope, it's still flawed. Again with the whole "it goes towards things for everybody" thing. Also, I can't remember when the IRS roll up with tanks and made me pay my taxes. They can place liens against what you own and send you to jail but that's about it.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the IRS can roll up to your house in cars, pull their guns and take you to jail for not paying taxes. Many people wouldn't pay taxes if it wasn't for this threat of force, thus their tax dollars are taken unwillingly.

No, it's a net anybody can fall into. If Mr. Rich Man's stocks tank, his firm lays him off and he is so far into debt, from trying to live a exorbitant lifestyle, he loses everything. Guess what? That guy could get unemployment. That guy could go on welfare. If that guy is old enough, he could still retire with social security. If that guy is old enough and sick, he can get Medicare to help him out. If that guy has a kid, he can send him to public school.

And that's ignoring all the other stuff the government does that you don't even notice.
Click to expand...
I am a believer that even accepting government aid, as in other people's money is morally wrong. Yes, anyone can potentially receive it, but it dosen't change the fact that some people never will receive it and many do not want to receive it, so why should they pay?

But that is really what many of the government programs are, a safety net for those that cannot manage their own money. The best and brightest that are smart enough to save money for retirement, to save money in case of unemployment, ect.

And you are probably getting the impression by now that I am some sort of rich punk. I drive a '99 car and have a very modest life. I'm just a penny pincher, I'm good with money, and don't want a safety net.
 
[quote name='Liberty1']Many people wouldn't pay taxes if it wasn't for this threat of force, thus their tax dollars are taken unwillingly.[/QUOTE]

SAY WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTTTTTTT

Are you saying that if there were no consequences for not doing something, more people wouldn't do that thing? Color me shocked.

That sign is telling me I have to yield? fuck that noise. I'm just going to do what I want. What the cops can give me a ticket for not yielding? Maybe I'll yield...BUT IT WILL BE UNWILLINGLY!!!

Your thought process is so broken.

- edit [quote name='Liberty1']The best and brightest that are smart enough to save money for retirement, to save money in case of unemployment, ect.[/QUOTE]

I can't wait for something to happen to you that is completely out of your control. Like cancer. Become sick enough where you can't work anymore and the weight of your medical bills will crush you (most likely even if you have insurance and a large nest egg). No amount of planning can help you when something like that happens.

- edit 2 [quote name='Liberty1']It obviously wasn't my choice to go to public school.[/QUOTE]

So, why didn't you drop out? You could have when you were 16.

Also, you don't need public roads. Sell your car and walk everywhere (and not on sidewalks or the paved part of the road either)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yielding at a sign is the same as giving up a third to half your income? And my analogies were bad? Most people will yield at a sign because it is in their own best interest, they know traffic going the other way dosen't stop.

Yes, some fools drive recklessly and would be more reckless if there were no cops, but I'm all for punishing them if they hurt someone. Even if that means pulling them out of the car and hanging them from a tree because they killed someone through their own reckless driving. People should be held more responsible for hurting others.

I basically live completely independent from the law and the government as it is, with the exception of the public roads and the cops that pull me over when a light goes out on a car. And then if they decide to search my car. So, really what I'm arguing for dosen't affect me, I have little to nothing to benefit. I could qualify for welfare and food stamps now, but I don't take them, because it would be stealing.
 
[quote name='Liberty1']I basically live completely independent from the law and the government as it is, with the exception of the public roads[/QUOTE]

hypocrite
 
I didn't say we don't need roads, I need roads. I just don't agree with how they are provided.

And as for cancer, I have a bullet to cure that. Seems to me a lot of people would be better off in the long run to have not spent all their money on treatments and should have just ended it and left their money for their kids. Instead they spend everything they have, lose their house... and they buy an extra year, and often times quality of life is non-existant.
 
[quote name='Liberty1']I didn't say we don't need roads, I need roads. I just don't agree with how they are provided.[/QUOTE]

Yeah we heard you.

You like roads, you just don't like paying for roads.
 
hypocrite
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but I didn't say that we don't need roads. Roads are a requirement of life in today's world.

I'm a follower of a very uncompassionate belief system, but I do believe in helping others, I just think you should ask before you take people's money. I'm the first one to put money in a collection box, to loan money to a friend, or whatever.
 
You like roads, you just don't like paying for roads.
Click to expand...
No, I'm all for paying for roads, I'm for paying for everything you receive. It comes as a package deal with a thousand other things that I don't want and don't receive. Let me just pay for the roads and I'll be happy.

You just assume that I'm ignorant enough to think that roads come the air? Yes, that must be it. I'll start praying for some more roads to just come into existence.

Money is what makes the world go around, nothing is built and no work is done without money.

Where the hell did you get that anyway?
 
[quote name='Liberty1']I'm a follower of a very uncompassionate belief system, but I do believe in helping others, I just think you should ask before you take people's money. I'm the first one to put money in a collection box, to loan money to a friend, or whatever.[/QUOTE]

So is every Libertarian ever.

Just like every conservative was the one conservative against public spending and debt when W was in charge.

And every teabagger has one black friend.
 
So is every Libertarian ever.
Click to expand...
I don't have to convince you that I try to help people out. You aren't God (I'm an atheist) and I really don't care what you think. I find this downright spiteful truthfully. Whatever, dude.
 
I'm not running for office here, why do you automatically attach bad intent to me saying I try and help when I can? You are attacking me as a person with that statement.

Edit: I've calmed down, but you really struck a nerve there, because I took it as an insult to me.

I never voted for Bush, I don't live in a fenced off neighborhood and my name isn't Scrooge. Get me?

I really don't understand why everyone seems to think that any "right-wing" movement and all of it's followers are automatically racist and selfish. I have black friends, because of business reasons, not because I actively went out to make a black friend, that is racist in it's own way. More people need to learn to look past skin color, and I mean everyone, including liberals. It's not right for me to get something because I'm white, so it's not right for someone else to get something because they are black.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='SpazX']1) That's a problem with every law of that type, there are always exceptions, they have to work on averages. It's based on a percentage to take into account differences in body weight, etc. and it's not like they just pulled a random number out of their ass. Also, when you're drunk you're an idiot and don't know at the time how well you can drive.[/quote]

Let's run the rest of the country based on averages. For example, let's take the average income for an individual in the US, and tax 33% of it. Now, instead of paying taxes on the amount of money you, as an individual make, you have to pay $26,862 per household. Sure, for some people it'll be more than they currently pay and for some it'll be less... but it's average and not just a random number pulled out of someone's rear.

2) Most of what you're talking about are momentary actions and are also things that some drunk drivers might do while drunk. Fiddling with your radio doesn't impair your reaction times the entire time you're driving, etc. It's also not something you do beforehand and then decide to drive somewhere.
Click to expand...

And this is where we do differ. Let's say I'm out drinking and, suddenly, I get a phone call and need to be somewhere. I can't just stop "being" drunk. I have no choice in the matter. However, if you're talking on your phone and suddenly need to drive somewhere, you can hang up the phone. There's virtually no excuse that you *must* be on the phone while driving or playing with the radio while driving... but there are, in theory, situations where you could find it imperative to drive drunk. So, IMHO, someone who causes a fatality because their dumb ass was playing with the radio, talking on the phone, texting, dropped their cigarette, etc., etc... You're a worse person because you made that choice right at that moment.
 
@UncleBob: I can see what you are saying here, if someone has to go somewhere and are drunk, however many times people drive drunk because they want a cheeseburger or something, so that is the same thing as the person that was talking on their phone.
 
[quote name='Liberty1']@UncleBob: I can see what you are saying here, if someone has to go somewhere and are drunk, however many times people drive drunk because they want a cheeseburger or something, so that is the same thing as the person that was talking on their phone.[/QUOTE]

I'm not saying I excuse this, but...

If someone is drunk and they want a cheeseburger, they can't just be "undrunk" to go get a cheeseburger.

If someone is talking on the phone and they want a cheeseburger, they can just hang up the damn phone.

Both of these situations are poor judgment. One of these situations is poor judgment piled on top of bad decision making.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Let's run the rest of the country based on averages. For example, let's take the average income for an individual in the US, and tax 33% of it. Now, instead of paying taxes on the amount of money you, as an individual make, you have to pay $26,862 per household. Sure, for some people it'll be more than they currently pay and for some it'll be less... but it's average and not just a random number pulled out of someone's rear.[/QUOTE]

But you do agree that there must be some type of number as the limit, right? I mean people are different, I'm 6' 200+ pounds and could take 2 shots of vodka better than a 5' 100 pound woman, but it would be impossible to have different limits for every person.

Even if you take a Stanhope stand (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/audio/play/80424715/ sorry for ebaums I hate them but they were the only ones with this clip), I hope you can comprehend how impossible it would be.

[quote name='UncleBob']Let's say I'm out drinking and, suddenly, I get a phone call and need to be somewhere. I can't just stop "being" drunk. I have no choice in the matter. ... but there are, in theory, situations where you could find it imperative to drive drunk. [/QUOTE]

[quote name='UncleBob']I'm not saying I excuse this, but...

If someone is drunk and they want a cheeseburger, they can't just be "undrunk" to go get a cheeseburger.[/QUOTE]

Really? They don't have cabs out in IL? Couldn't call a friend or walk to the destination?
 
I see your logic in some situations, such as having to go to work or take someone to the hospital or whatever, but I really don't think that a drunk person going to get a cheeseburger that they don't need anyway is somehow more right than talking on a cell phone that they don't need to talk on.

Edit: As in when someone gets hurt.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Let's run the rest of the country based on averages. For example, let's take the average income for an individual in the US, and tax 33% of it. Now, instead of paying taxes on the amount of money you, as an individual make, you have to pay $26,862 per household. Sure, for some people it'll be more than they currently pay and for some it'll be less... but it's average and not just a random number pulled out of someone's rear.[/quote]

Other random thing + something I said = fantastic rebuttal.

[quote name='UncleBob']And this is where we do differ. Let's say I'm out drinking and, suddenly, I get a phone call and need to be somewhere. I can't just stop "being" drunk. I have no choice in the matter. However, if you're talking on your phone and suddenly need to drive somewhere, you can hang up the phone. There's virtually no excuse that you *must* be on the phone while driving or playing with the radio while driving... but there are, in theory, situations where you could find it imperative to drive drunk. So, IMHO, someone who causes a fatality because their dumb ass was playing with the radio, talking on the phone, texting, dropped their cigarette, etc., etc... You're a worse person because you made that choice right at that moment.[/QUOTE]

Of course there are laws in some places against talking on cell phones while driving for exactly the same reasons - they impair your driving, and for long stretches of time. Though of course they always go with hands-free as solving the problem and it doesn't, but the purpose of the laws are the same.

And if, in theory, you're a good driver after you've been drinking enough to get over the BAC limit, then you won't get pulled over for no reason and nobody will know you were over the limit in the first place. So if you absolutely have to do it then I guess you absolutely have to do it, but making excuses for doing it when you don't have to is bullshit.

But be sure not to take these types of external considerations too far or you might end up supporting welfare and affirmative action and such.
 
And if, in theory, you're a good driver after you've been drinking enough to get over the BAC limit, then you won't get pulled over for no reason
Click to expand...
"In theory" are the two most important words in that sentence. Today you have checkpoints, getting pulled over for lights out, things hanging from your mirror, ect., plus on top of that, I've had a cop pull me over only to hand me a coupon and be told "have a nice day." Tell me he wasn't looking for drunk drivers and/or drugs.
 
[quote name='Liberty1']There is no country in the modern world that even resembles libertarianism. A couple examples I can give, would be pre-1900s USA, and Hong Kong while it was under British possession. Hong Kong didn't have much for personal freedoms, but as far as economics are concerned, it was closest thing we have seen in recent times to true capitalism.

No I am not, and nor would I ever claim this. I went to public school and drive on public roads everyday. What I am stating is that certain people have more to gain from government programs than others.

All I claim is that private businesses are more efficient, they try to make money rather than profit being meaningless, as it is to the government, thus unlimited potential for wasted spending.[/QUOTE]

Isn't Monaco the closet to your vision?
 
[quote name='SpazX']You'd have to be really fucking stupid to not want to make more money because the government will take a slightly higher proportion of it. Stupid and already rich.[/QUOTE]

Not necessarily (the rich part)

Look at UncleBob. He's stupid, working class, and he votes against his interests. UB is a corrupt Republican politician's dream come true.
 
[quote name='Liberty1']"In theory" are the two most important words in that sentence. Today you have checkpoints, getting pulled over for lights out, things hanging from your mirror, ect., plus on top of that, I've had a cop pull me over only to hand me a coupon and be told "have a nice day." Tell me he wasn't looking for drunk drivers and/or drugs.[/QUOTE]

I'm thinking there's more to the story here...
 
[quote name='Liberty1']"In theory" are the two most important words in that sentence.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I was mocking him.
 
Isn't Monaco the closet to your vision?
Click to expand...

In a way in the fact that they don't have an income tax for foreigners, but on the other hand they tax the shit out of the locals that work there. Also, many of its businesses are state-owned. So, from the prospective that someone can go there to not pay taxes, yes, it is similar, but on the other hand, it is no way resembling true libertarianism when you look at how the economy itself is ran.
 
I'm thinking there's more to the story here...
Click to expand...
Yes, the fact that I usually have illegal substances in personal use quantities in the vehicle. I've been to jail, more than once, and have even given them reason to search the vehicle, once I was pulled over, but they had no reason to pull me over in the first place. I've never been pulled over for a valid reason, EVER, not that they have ever told me about anyway.
 
[quote name='Liberty1']I'm not running for office here, why do you automatically attach bad intent to me saying I try and help when I can?[/QUOTE]

Because I don't buy any of the crap you say?

Go on tell me more about how you would rather off yourself than accept gubberment healthcare if you were deathly ill.

Please wank yourself harder with your self aggrandizing nonsense.

If you couldn't post empty headed platitudes you wouldn't post at all.

You try to sound all Galtian but you (just like every other Libertarian) define socialism as government spending you don't like.

You have now been reduced to claiming more or less that having people pay taxes is socialism.
 
[quote name='Liberty1']How is it that a society based on equality UNDER THE LAW is BS? One person being taxed at a higher rate than another is income equality, but it is not equality by law, it is treating someone different because they make more money.

For the most part, the ones in society that make the most money are the ones that best answer societies needs, and the rest of them use government intervention on their own behalf, which isn't capitalism, believe it or not.

Let's take a scientist that just discovered something that has huge potential to benefit man kind. Should he not receive a great monetary reward for this? Has he not helped the world more than the street urchin? But yet, he should be punished by paying a higher tax rate, and thus, still owes us something? People should be rewarded for innovation, not punished.



You are absolutely right here. The founders had slaves and the Constitution is broken, beyond all repair. I am a believer though, that they had the right idea, in the context of the times. They didn't know that every little word would be interpreted as loosely as possible, and slavery wasn't a hot issue of the times.[/QUOTE]
I say that because the ideals the country were founded on didn't apply to most people at the time of the founding of the country. You couldn't even vote unless you were a rich, white land owner. I do actually agree with the scientists deserving more money, but in the U.S. we idolize guys like Kobe and Shaq, not scientists. At the same time though, those who can give more should. It isn't any more fair to ask a poor person to pay the same percentage of their income as someone making more money then they will in their lifetime.
 
Because I don't buy any of the crap you say?
Click to expand...

So are you this critical with everyone, or just libertarians and conservatives? I really cannot fathom someone as skeptical as you trusting any politician or group.

Go on tell me more about how you would rather off yourself than accept gubberment healthcare if you were deathly ill.
Click to expand...

Actually, it has more to do with the fact that I don't want to die from cancer, believe it or not.
 
[quote name='Clak']I say that because the ideals the country were founded on didn't apply to most people at the time of the founding of the country. You couldn't even vote unless you were a rich, white land owner. I do actually agree with the scientists deserving more money, but in the U.S. we idolize guys like Kobe and Shaq, not scientists. At the same time though, those who can give more should. It isn't any more fair to ask a poor person to pay the same percentage of their income as someone making more money then they will in their lifetime.[/QUOTE]

This guy brings up the 1890's as the best era of United States history.

Which begs the question has the dude ever read a history book?
 
You couldn't even vote unless you were a... land owner.
Click to expand...
I actually think this was a good idea, because as far as I'm concerned, if you don't own property, you have nothing to lose, thus shouldn't have a vote. And I do not own any land, FYI.

in the U.S. we idolize guys like Kobe and Shaq, not scientists
Click to expand...
But at the same time, that scientist cannot do what Kobe or Shaq can. They are simply answering the great demand for their services. No, they don't work miracles, but I think they are valuable to society in their own way. Maybe it's not right for them to make more than a great scientist, but I'm willing to live with it.

those who can give more should
Click to expand...
Should, but shouldn't have to. My opinion anyway.
 
This guy brings up the 1890's as the best era of United States history.

Which begs the question has the dude ever read a history book?
Click to expand...

You are putting words in my mouth here, buddy. I gave the pre-1900s, not 1890s, just pre-1900 USA as an example of a world with less government intervention and more liberty. I did not claim that it was the most prosperous period in our history.

And history is biased, by the way.
 
Wall Street is a propaganda piece and businesses/businessmen should be punished when they commit fraud. And you know, businesses don't last very long when they piss of their consumers.
 
[quote name='Liberty1']You are putting words in my mouth here, buddy. I gave the pre-1900s, not 1890s, just pre-1900 USA as an example of a world with less government intervention and more liberty.[/QUOTE]

For whom?
 
@Spaz:

For white men, I suppose. Forget the liberty part and we will just say an era of smaller government. That is what I mean.
 
Why is it suddenly the civil rights movement all over again? I believe that every person on the planet has the exact same rights.
 
So smaller government and liberty aren't that highly correlated? Are you willing to give up liberty for smaller government or smaller government for liberty?
 
And that dosen't mean the right to other people's money. For all intents and purposes, when I talk about freedom, I'm referring to economic freedom, which I see as the most important. I'm not talking about returning the world to a place of horses and wagons and slaves here, I'm just talking about the size of the government of the time. You could walk into the White House and talk to the president at one time. Gee can't do that now? And no, I couldn't vote at a time because I don't own land.
 
[quote name='Liberty1']Why is it suddenly the civil rights movement all over again? I believe that every person on the planet has the exact same rights.[/QUOTE]

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread."
 
"So smaller government and liberty aren't that highly correlated? Are you willing to give up liberty for smaller government or smaller government for liberty?"

That isn't what I'm saying. I merely thought it was more appropriate to say small government since not everyone enjoyed the same liberties at the time, as everyone was dying to point out. I would say that they normally correlate, but a small government could still be tyrannical, it's just more difficult when it has less money. And I don't know.
 
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread."

As I see it, they have a right to earn that meal. Do an odd job for a meal. I've worked for food. Why can't they? I've also seen many people that if they put half the effort they did in trying to get a hand out into working or finding a job, they'd be in a different situation.
 
Anyway, I'll take my bourgeois ideas and go elsewhere. Both sides here are so clearly different and determined in their ideas that this is going nowhere for anyone.

All I have to say is that you guys believe exactly what the government wants you to believe, one day I'll tell you "I told you so."
 
[quote name='Sporadic']Really? They don't have cabs out in IL? Couldn't call a friend or walk to the destination?[/QUOTE]

If you're going to be talking on your cell phone or playing with your MP3 player, couldn't you call a friend or walk to the destination?

In both situations (being drunk, playing with electronics), you're distracted from your primary goal of driving. Both situations, you're setting up some very dangerous and deadly possibilities. In one situation, all you have to do is hang up the phone/turn off the radio/etc. If you choose not to take that action, then you've made a second bad decision on top of your decision to drive distracted in the first place.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']If you're going to be talking on your cell phone or playing with your MP3 player, couldn't you call a friend or walk to the destination?[/QUOTE]

It's kind of different because most people don't start driving talking on the phone or playing with the MP3 player. They are driving and the phone rings or a shitty song pops up and they react.

It impairs them but hopefully they are smart enough to not try it while driving around town in stop-and-go traffic.

[quote name='UncleBob']In both situations (being drunk, playing with electronics), you're distracted from your primary goal of driving. Both situations, you're setting up some very dangerous and deadly possibilities. In one situation, all you have to do is hang up the phone/turn off the radio/etc. If you choose not to take that action, then you've made a second bad decision on top of your decision to drive distracted in the first place.[/QUOTE]

And the other situation all you have to do is not get bombed in some dive bar or wait for a cab/friend to show up. What emergency could pop up where really have where you have to leave right that moment?
 
Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to advocate for drunken drivers.
My point is simply, once you're drunk - you're drunk. You can either drive or not drive.
But if you're playing around with some electronic toy, you have the choice to not drive, leave the toy alone and drive, or play with the toy and drive.

You have two perfectly valid options (and, mind you, your thinking abilities aren't impaired like they are if you've been drinking), yet you still make the choice to pick the third option - the worst option.

But as for your comment about when it's "smart" to play with the MP3 player or what not - it can be just as deadly to do this while on the interstate (have a friend who's mother fell victim to some idiot on his cell phone). Just like drunk driving, it's the fools who think they know better, that it won't ever happen to them, that they're better than all the rest... that they're "smart". Those are the ones who cause the accidents that take the lives.
 
[quote name='Liberty1']You are putting words in my mouth here, buddy. I gave the pre-1900s, not 1890s, just pre-1900 USA as an example of a world with less government intervention and more liberty. I did not claim that it was the most prosperous period in our history.

And history is biased, by the way.[/QUOTE]

Would you be comfortable working for a company that could fire you for any reason? Let's say shoddy maintenance on a blast furnace leaves you without an arm. Now, you could get compensated for your loss. Pre-1900, you were told to take a hike.

Would you feel comfortable if your black neighbor was hung from a tree while his house burned just because a white man accused him of a crime? How about if your neighbor beat his wife so badly she went blind and miscarried? It wasn't legal two centuries ago but it definitely wasn't prosecuted like it is today. Maybe you'd be OK if companies continued to dump toxic sludge into our drinking water. We can always find other sources right?

Sooner or later, you will realize that your "God given" right to do whatever the fuck you want does NOT trump everyone else's right to co-exist on this green Earth.

You cling to the Constitution but you forget the most basic lesson from the Revolutionary War. "United we stand. Divided we fall." Look up Patrick Henry and get back to me whether pure Libertarianism = Founding Father's Principles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top