The Real Problem

No I don't. The fact that we try to corral 320 million people into being apart of the same community under the same set of laws is absurd, especially when it exceeds Dunbar's number by a factor of 6.

Honestly, why have police if they can't enforce laws.
 
No I don't. The fact that we try to corral 320 million people into being apart of the same community under the same set of laws is absurd, especially when it exceeds Dunbar's number by a factor of 6.

Ok, Joe, I'm sure you have a better idea. Let me guess, you just saw your first Zeitgeist movie.
 
Ok, Joe, I'm sure you have a better idea. Let me guess, you just saw your first Zeitgeist movie.

That guy was an idiot (the one who made the Zeitgeist film I mean). The better idea is not having a compulsory funded police force. You choose what you want your LE to enforce, and fire them if they start enforcing victimless crimes for more revenue.
 
Clearly not. Thats why slaves didnt have any liberty.

The point he's making is that you'd would say holding slaves while the gov't sponsored it was an amoral activity, right?
 
The point he's making is that you'd would say holding slaves while the gov't sponsored it was an amoral activity, right?

Yes. And rights are not the same thing as morality. Many people think abortion is murder, but in the USA its also a right. Not so in some other places. rights are not absolute, they are not ordained in the fabric of the universe.
 
Yes. And rights are not the same thing as morality. Many people think abortion is murder, but in the USA its also a right. Not so in some other places. rights are not absolute, they are not ordained in the fabric of the universe.

They're commensurate with morality, yes. Just because there's disagreement on what they are has no bearing on what they objectively are as a means of describing universally preferable behavior.
 
That guy was an idiot (the one who made the Zeitgeist film I mean). The better idea is not having a compulsory funded police force. You choose what you want your LE to enforce, and fire them if they start enforcing victimless crimes for more revenue.
<Huh2><Huh2><Huh2>
 
Not an argument.

You think Peter Joseph is a moron, and yet you're speaking like some dip shit hippie. "Hey man, wouldn't it be great if our money only went to shit we wanted, maaaan?"

Thomas Jefferson summed your argument quite well, and long before you made it.
 
You think Peter Joseph is a moron, and yet you're speaking like some dip shit hippie. "Hey man, wouldn't it be great if our money only went to shit we wanted, maaaan?"

Thomas Jefferson summed your argument quite well, and long before you made it.

That's still not an argument.
 
Your argument is absurd and naive, it deserves nothing but ridicule. You hate the Zeitgeist, and yet you're speaking about the same type of stupid shit.

No, I'm actually not. In the second installment, after he gets the Fed situation right, he goes on to make some stupid Marxist arguments about exploitation of the working class. That's when I shut it off.

Anyway, it has nothing to with whether or not resources are better allocated by decentralized markets versus centralized ones. If you haven't missed the last couple centuries of economics, its pretty clear which is the winner.
 
No, I'm actually not. In the second installment, after he gets the Fed situation right, he goes on to make some stupid Marxist arguments about exploitation of the working class. That's when I shut it off.

Anyway, it has nothing to with whether or not resources are better allocated by decentralized markets versus centralized ones. If you haven't missed the last couple centuries of economics, its pretty clear which is the winner.

"The better idea is not having a compulsory funded police force. You choose what you want your LE to enforce"

As I said, <Huh2>
 
Don’t people choose what they want LE to enforce at the ballot box? That’s why laws change like the legalization of marijuana and sanctuary cities, etc.

If government doesn’t make and enforce laws who will? Just might makes right without any representation?

I’m strongly for increasing direct democracy and not against limiting federal powers in favor of local governments, but I don’t see privatization as a magic fix. You’ll still wind up with monopolies but no government check against their power.
 
Last edited:
Don’t people choose what they want LE to enforce at the ballot box? That’s why laws change like the legalization of marijuana and sanctuary cities, etc.

If government doesn’t make and enforce laws who will? Just might makes right without any representation?

Yeah they change in their optimal application only by way of what the majority wants once in a term of years. That's a pretty shitty way of controlling an entire sector of production. I mean, just think about it, would you want a majority deciding every four or whatever years what you should eat for food? What car you should drive? What computer you should have?
 
Yeah they change in their optimal application only by way of what the majority wants once in a term of years. That's a pretty shitty way of controlling an entire sector of production. I mean, just think about it, would you want a majority deciding every four or whatever years what you should eat for food? What car you should drive? What computer you should have?

Ok now show me the better system. The majority decides the market too. I can’t buy certain cars or foods locally because the demand isn’t there.
 
Back
Top