Politics, Society etc.

[Nailec]

if we're talking about developed countries or the US i'd say the first step would be to stop with most if not all welfare.  if people don't always have an impersonal safety net to turn to, i can guarantee they would exercise a little more judgement, and if they don't, it shouldn't be taxpayers' responsibility to take care of other peoples' choices, and if they really need help, they should need to seek it out from a family, friend, or nonprofit organization, most importantly because they're more personal, it's not just a form that you have to fill out to get free money.  then clearly the next step would be education on birth control and how much life sucks when you have infinite kids and don't live on a fuckin farm or something.  but it's pretty tyrannical to force people to have a certain maximum number of kids, and abort or whatever the ones after that number is reached.

i think your statementsounds like you want to step back into barbarism or some other ancient form of society, where you have to fight to keep yourself alive.
i am hoping that one day no one has ever go to work again and all the machines are doing the necessary shit for us.

education should really be the only way to prevent the earth from overpopulation.
+condoms should be free
+religious people that forbid condoms must stfu

[Necrocetaceanbeastiality]

The reason that I brought this up is because of how it relates to the NWO. If individual countries say "one kid per household" and that law is enforced, guess what, that's not gonna solve overpopulation in the slightest.

On the other hand, if there was a one world governrment, that law would apply everywhere and WOULD make a difference.

And here's another thing I am curious about; is everyone opposed to the idea of a one world government or just the NWO it APPEARS we are moving towards?

[wither-I]

im down for a visit to the ministry of looooove

[alvarezbassist17]

if we're talking about developed countries or the US i'd say the first step would be to stop with most if not all welfare.  if people don't always have an impersonal safety net to turn to, i can guarantee they would exercise a little more judgement, and if they don't, it shouldn't be taxpayers' responsibility to take care of other peoples' choices, and if they really need help, they should need to seek it out from a family, friend, or nonprofit organization, most importantly because they're more personal, it's not just a form that you have to fill out to get free money.  then clearly the next step would be education on birth control and how much life sucks when you have infinite kids and don't live on a fuckin farm or something.  but it's pretty tyrannical to force people to have a certain maximum number of kids, and abort or whatever the ones after that number is reached.

i think your statementsounds like you want to step back into barbarism or some other ancient form of society, where you have to fight to keep yourself alive.
i am hoping that one day no one has ever go to work again and all the machines are doing the necessary shit for us.

education should really be the only way to prevent the earth from overpopulation.
+condoms should be free
+religious people that forbid condoms must stfu

no.  it's totally fucked up that somebody can just keep having kids to stay on the government dole.  I'm saying not-for-profit organizations are ALWAYS more efficient and effective than government programs based on the same principle, number 1 because their resources aren't earned through coercion and number 2 because if they don't perform their purported duties, they lose donors.  I can guarantee they would gain a shit ton of donors if number 1 people couldn't just excuse not donating because "oh, they're taken care of by welfare" and number 2 people had more money in their paychecks that wasn't taken to impersonally "help" someone.

I'm fucking steamed that you somehow got that I want the world to descend into barbarism out of that because I'm not an extreme, extreme, extreme, extreme (i could go on) progressive statist like yourself.  I'm really not looking at this from an "I want to fuck everyone over because I'm a tightwad" perspective, it's that the federal government needs to stay the fuck out of all of these issues because they are too distant from the actual problems to know exactly how to fix everything, they bring bureaucracy and inefficiency to every sector of society they meddle in, and always manage to screw over the poor and/or disadvantaged even harder.  Welfare. Does. Not. Benefit. Society.  It gives out help inefficiently to those who need it, and is abused by a large number of its users who don't.  Think about the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on the War on Poverty that's been going on for decades.  Where's the improvement in the poverty rate?

[Nailec]

ah i get it now. u suggest feudalism. after all this comes historically after barbarism. (besides the years of barbarism in nazi-germany).
ok enough populism now. i really dont see why the upperclass should give their money voluntarily to non-profit organizations as soon as there arenty anymore taxes. everyone who is not lucky enough to have a job then would rely totally on the benevolence of other people. am i just underestimating the peoples good will?

and what has all this to do with the fight against world wide poverty? you can just make any comparison that you want, but you should proove if it really fits.
here we have the more or less well elaborated welfare state, there we have unique donations that dissappear somewhere because they go into a screwed system or a corrupt government.

i agree the welfare state lacks efficiency. but at least you can rely on it and its overall easier to control than thousands of non-profit organizations.

how can you be so hostile against your social system? did you never need it on your own?

[nonesuch]

lets go back to imperialism and just murder the fuck out of unsuspecting peoples that are horribly out matched and undeserving of their plight

[wither-I]

we're alredy there arent we

[alvarezbassist17]

ah i get it now. u suggest feudalism. after all this comes historically after barbarism. (besides the years of barbarism in nazi-germany).
ok enough populism now. i really dont see why the upperclass should give their money voluntarily to non-profit organizations as soon as there arenty anymore taxes. everyone who is not lucky enough to have a job then would rely totally on the benevolence of other people. am i just underestimating the peoples good will?

and what has all this to do with the fight against world wide poverty? you can just make any comparison that you want, but you should proove if it really fits.
here we have the more or less well elaborated welfare state, there we have unique donations that dissappear somewhere because they go into a screwed system or a corrupt government.

i agree the welfare state lacks efficiency. but at least you can rely on it and its overall easier to control than thousands of non-profit organizations.

how can you be so hostile against your social system? did you never need it on your own?

Umm I do believe you've missed the point I was making, but I can't be sure because of your English.  It's incredibly hard for me to discern what you're saying.  But what I'm talking about is actually progress through libertarian philosophy, the most successful and least oppressive form of government.

[Nailec]

But what I'm talking about is actually progress through libertarian philosophy, the most successful and least oppressive form of government.

dont say that as if it was a fact. this will be decided troughout history. every socialist and communist or egalitarian would go insane hearing that and would probablly have good arguments, why that isn`t the case.
for example i havent read any analysis of the worldwide banking and financial crisis, that didnt point out, that too much liberties basically caused the whole collapse. what would be the libertarians answer?


but i guess that libertarianism isnt one single school. i think there are variatians on how strong some positions within a libertarian system should be.

[Nailec]

from what i read in this 5 minutes: the ideal libertarian state sounds pretty similar to the ideal communist one. the difference seems to be the means to this end.

for example i havent read any analysis of the worldwide banking and financial crisis, that didnt point out, that too much liberties basically caused the whole collapse. what would be the libertarians answer?

the reason is probablly that i dont know any libertarian community, newspaper, group or whatsoever here in germany. and our (economic) liberals will probablly gain 10% in the next elections and i count them to my enemies because they want me to pay my studies. those bastard!

free education for everyone!

[alvarezbassist17]

Well I don't really see how you can debate that it's the least oppressive, since it's based on preserving individual liberty.  

You never read about the crisis being caused by the free market because you only read explanations given by those who support the Keynesian philosophy, the greatest economic fallacy ever created.  Read this and tell me that it doesn't make more sense than the explanations you've heard.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods111.html

from what i read in this 5 minutes: the ideal libertarian state sounds pretty similar to the ideal communist one. the difference seems to be the means to this end.

free education for everyone!

I honestly can't tell if you're just fucking with me here or not.  You'd have to be sooooooooooooo dense to genuinely believe either of those things.  But I mean I guess you've gone from diagnosing libertarianism as barbarism, feudalism and communism in your last few posts so I can't really put it past you.

[Nailec]

But I mean I guess you've gone from diagnosing libertarianism as barbarism, feudalism and communism in your last few posts so I can't really put it past you.

lol nice one. but to my defence: you spoke out the word libertarianism after i mentioned barbarism or feudalism. so i couldnt see that everything you said was based on the libertarian concept of the individuum. i just couldnt figure that you were relating to a whole political philosophy.

i would still claim it would totally end in barbarism if you would take the welfare from the people.


communism= free association of free individuals (Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto)

wouldnt you say, this result in this definition sounds good to a Libertarian?

[Nailec]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods111.html

will read tomorrow and hopefully understand

[Jerry_Curls]

"In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation."
-Prince Philip, in his Foreward to If I Were an Animal

FUCK THE QUEEN AND HER NAZI HUSBAND



The Georgia Guidestones



"Maintain humanity under 500,000,00 in perpetual balance with nature"

WTF....

[Variable]

That actually doesnt look so bad

[Necrocetaceanbeastiality]

"Maintain humanity under 500,000,00 in perpetual balance with nature"

WTF....

Aaaaaaaaaaaand why exactly is that a bad thing?

Y'know, other than the conclusion that you have already jumped to.

[nonesuch]

I think Islam is the answer

Have you ever heard of the Buddhas of Bamiyan in Afghanistan?  google them,  they look like they were a sight to behold

but the Taliban decided to blow them up with dynamite because "images" are evil or some backwards bullshit

"When the Afghani head council asked them to provide the money to feed the children instead of fixing the statues, they refused and said, 'No, the money is just for the statues, not for the children'. Herein, they made the decision to destroy the statues".

[Variable]

Not all Afghans or Muslims are that way

[nonesuch]

thanks for pointing that out variable,  i wasn't aware

[Necrocetaceanbeastiality]

I lol'd.