Nsw state election : Who will you be voting? (2 Viewers)

[katie tully]

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck Lentern, stop fucking posting jesus christ.

 

[Trefoil]

Remember it's down the street, not across the road, Lentern.

 

[Lentern]

Remember it's down the street, not across the road, Lentern.

I expect that from Katie not from you.

 

[Tully B.]

Greens - protest vote (not that I'd vote for the quacks if I though they had a chance of winning)

Stop picking on Lentern. He's making some DAMN good points, and how do you respond. Respectfully of course. You politely disagree with him and put forward your own argument.

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck Lentern, stop fucking posting jesus christ.

Oh, wait. Sorry. I forgot this was the fucking internet.

 

[sdent40]

(apart from the school thing, which fails because children aren't rational actors capable of making such decisions)?

What do you mean when you say "rational actors"?

Because if you're talking in an economic sense, Mises (in Human Action) argued that all action is "rational", it's only when people impose some kind of external arbitrary standard on what "rational" means, that they are able to call an action irrational. See What Do Austrians Mean by "Rational"? for a better explanation of this concept.

Subjective, expensive and unnecessary. You have to draw a line in the sand to ensure uniform enforcement and 16-18 seems reasonable.

Setting the line at 16-18 is also subjective and perhaps unnecessary too. I could also make an argument that it is also expensive, because some children are better off working and getting experience, high school isn't for everyone. So when those children aren't working, they are instead learning stuff that they don't really need to know and have little interest in anyway.

It's interesting because if you look back in the past, it wasn't like "child labor" was outlawed because people thought children working was immoral, it was because the unions didn't want competition that younger people (and cheaper labour) represented. There are many examples of capable children in the past, such as Braille who invented the Braille system as a child, if Braille lived today he might be cooped up in some special needs class instead.

I think there is a bit of an agenda against children, it's almost like teenagers are the "whipping boy" of society and people want to control their lives and make them go to school, or make them do service in the army something similar, like whatever the young libs were thinking of talking about. There's drinking laws, strict driving laws, teen wage laws, smoking laws etc. Today's culture is infantilizing teens by isolating them and giving them very few responsibilities. Here's an interesting book: The Case Against Adolescence By Robert Epstein

It's not like the government education system is all that great anyway, most people probably learn their trade by working on the job, even for people who go to uni first! So I say that the myriad of laws restricting teens should be abolished (along with the govt obv).

So in conclusion:
- teens should stop being the whipping boy for society
- voting should be voluntary
- scrap anti gun laws
- let's not have a police state

 

[Iron]

i prayed about it and I think that the lbaor party want me to vote labor, just not in nsw. They are unholy.

 

[moll.]

What do you mean when you say "rational actors"?

Because if you're talking in an economic sense, Mises (in Human Action) argued that all action is "rational", it's only when people impose some kind of external arbitrary standard on what "rational" means, that they are able to call an action irrational. See What Do Austrians Mean by "Rational"? for a better explanation of this concept.

Setting the line at 16-18 is also subjective and perhaps unnecessary too. I could also make an argument that it is also expensive, because some children are better off working and getting experience, high school isn't for everyone. So when those children aren't working, they are instead learning stuff that they don't really need to know and have little interest in anyway.

It's interesting because if you look back in the past, it wasn't like "child labor" was outlawed because people thought children working was immoral, it was because the unions didn't want competition that younger people (and cheaper labour) represented. There are many examples of capable children in the past, such as Braille who invented the Braille system as a child, if Braille lived today he might be cooped up in some special needs class instead.

I think there is a bit of an agenda against children, it's almost like teenagers are the "whipping boy" of society and people want to control their lives and make them go to school, or make them do service in the army something similar, like whatever the young libs were thinking of talking about. There's drinking laws, strict driving laws, teen wage laws, smoking laws etc. Today's culture is infantilizing teens by isolating them and giving them very few responsibilities. Here's an interesting book: The Case Against Adolescence By Robert Epstein

It's not like the government education system is all that great anyway, most people probably learn their trade by working on the job, even for people who go to uni first! So I say that the myriad of laws restricting teens should be abolished (along with the govt obv).

So in conclusion:
- teens should stop being the whipping boy for society
- voting should be voluntary
- scrap anti gun laws
- let's not have a police state

What the hell is that? Are you high? Did your Daddy touch you in the private places as a child? What the hell?

 

[withoutaface]

What do you mean when you say "rational actors"?

Because if you're talking in an economic sense, Mises (in Human Action) argued that all action is "rational", it's only when people impose some kind of external arbitrary standard on what "rational" means, that they are able to call an action irrational. See What Do Austrians Mean by "Rational"? for a better explanation of this concept.

Setting the line at 16-18 is also subjective and perhaps unnecessary too. I could also make an argument that it is also expensive, because some children are better off working and getting experience, high school isn't for everyone. So when those children aren't working, they are instead learning stuff that they don't really need to know and have little interest in anyway.

It's interesting because if you look back in the past, it wasn't like "child labor" was outlawed because people thought children working was immoral, it was because the unions didn't want competition that younger people (and cheaper labour) represented. There are many examples of capable children in the past, such as Braille who invented the Braille system as a child, if Braille lived today he might be cooped up in some special needs class instead.

I think there is a bit of an agenda against children, it's almost like teenagers are the "whipping boy" of society and people want to control their lives and make them go to school, or make them do service in the army something similar, like whatever the young libs were thinking of talking about. There's drinking laws, strict driving laws, teen wage laws, smoking laws etc. Today's culture is infantilizing teens by isolating them and giving them very few responsibilities. Here's an interesting book: The Case Against Adolescence By Robert Epstein

It's not like the government education system is all that great anyway, most people probably learn their trade by working on the job, even for people who go to uni first! So I say that the myriad of laws restricting teens should be abolished (along with the govt obv).

So in conclusion:
- teens should stop being the whipping boy for society
- voting should be voluntary
- scrap anti gun laws
- let's not have a police state

You're right. We should give guns to three year olds.

 

[whatashotbyseve]

You're right. Let's turn into America.

 

[Silver Persian]

hahaha iron is drunk:?

what depravity.

 

[sdent40]

You're right. We should give guns to three year olds.

I wasn't suggesting "we" (do you mean we as in, you and i, or are you referring to the government here?) give guns to 3 year olds, I was suggesting that there's no need for government legislation about it, and communities will work things out themselves. I'm talking about moving more towards private law as opposed to government law. Lex mercatoria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is an example of something that approximated what I'm talking about.

If think you'll find that in the past kids were given guns, look at cadets for eg. Those kids would have been like 14 or 15 and they each had a gun to carry home and look after.

 

[withoutaface]

I wasn't suggesting "we" (do you mean we as in, you and i, or are you referring to the government here?) give guns to 3 year olds, I was suggesting that there's no need for government legislation about it, and communities will work things out themselves. I'm talking about moving more towards private law as opposed to government law. Lex mercatoria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is an example of something that approximated what I'm talking about.

If think you'll find that in the past kids were given guns, look at cadets for eg. Those kids would have been like 14 or 15 and they each had a gun to carry home and look after.

You know in the past we've had communities work things out themselves. They established these things called "Laws" to codify their values, and "Courts" to arbitrate such disputes.

 

[sdent40]

You know in the past we've had communities work things out themselves. They established these things called "Laws" to codify their values, and "Courts" to arbitrate such disputes.

Yes, and I'm pointing out the fact that there is a difference between "laws" and "govt laws". You can have laws and courts in a free market system, the system now has courts but they aren't legitimate in the same way that a free market system's courts would be. Because the only thing they derive their authority from is "might makes right" and 51% have the right to kill the other 49%, which you clearly already disagree with.

What we have now, is nothing close to a free market. The core elements of most country's legal systems (don't steal, don't kill) didn't need governments to tell the population these things, they were already the 'standard' within the marketplace.

 

[withoutaface]

Anarchism is an interesting intellectual wank.

 

[sdent40]

Anarchism is an interesting intellectual wank.

Statism + private property - as you seem to propose, is a contradiction. Free market anarchism is the only way to truly allow for private property, otherwise it's just "we'll violate your private property rights to tax you, but then protect you using that money" - which is a clear contradiction. It's like when George Bush said he had to "give up his capitalist values to save capitalism".

If you believe in private property rights, then generally speaking the only ways to legitimately acquire property are to: Be the first one to appropriate it, get given it, or trade for it. Since many governments only have land because of conquest (an illegitimate way to take property), those governments are lacking in true authority over that land.

If anything, statism is an intellectual wank, because it's always talking about how the market or people can be controlled and enslaved to make certain things happen. You of all people should know that the gubermint fails at controlling markets, because there are certain immutable laws of economics that no matter what the government does, it cannot solve them. Look at price controls for example.

 

[Lex152]

Yes, and I'm pointing out the fact that there is a difference between "laws" and "govt laws". You can have laws and courts in a free market system, the system now has courts but they aren't legitimate in the same way that a free market system's courts would be. Because the only thing they derive their authority from is "might makes right" and 51% have the right to kill the other 49%, which you clearly already disagree with.

What we have now, is nothing close to a free market. The core elements of most country's legal systems (don't steal, don't kill) didn't need governments to tell the population these things, they were already the 'standard' within the marketplace.

I find it ironic that you think you deserve the right to vote over other people the same age. I find the HSC year one of great maturity, I don't know if those that enter the workforce or go through tafe go throughthe same sort of growth but I would assume they would. 18 I think is the right age for our current social structure, of course if there was some change to the fundamentals then maybe we could look at changing it.

I support Rule of law, anyone who doesn't just wants to further exploit people using the price mechanism (supporting rule of law incldues discussing whether or not rules are right or wrong). No guns for three year olds, don't even try to use examples like that...

and if you come up with a better system than the 51% then message me.

 

[Lex152]

If anything, statism is an intellectual wank, because it's always talking about how the market or people can be controlled and enslaved to make certain things happen. You of all people should know that the gubermint fails at controlling markets, because there are certain immutable laws of economics that no matter what the government does, it cannot solve them. Look at price controls for example.

In anarchy what stops me building a wall on your land and claiming it for my own?

 

[sdent40]

I find it ironic that you think you deserve the right to vote over other people the same age.

I promote using non-political solutions, such as non-voting. (this doesn't mean I support violent revolution either)

18 I think is the right age for our current social structure, of course if there was some change to the fundamentals then maybe we could look at changing it.

what I'm proposing is a change in the fundamentals

I support Rule of law, anyone who doesn't just wants to further exploit people using the price mechanism (supporting rule of law incldues discussing whether or not rules are right or wrong). No guns for three year olds, don't even try to use examples like that...

You're going to need to explain this again, it's not all too clear what you're saying.

In anarchy what stops me building a wall on your land and claiming it for my own?

Well there are a few things:
1. my own self defence of the land (just so I'm clear I don't hold the maximalist position, I don't consider it legitimate to murder somebody just because they are trespassing or anything.) But if its my land I certainly feel within my rights to ask him to stop, or to knock the wall over.
2. Privately hired defence agencies or "arbitration agencies".
3. This guy who is building on my wall, if its such a clear 'wrong' that he's committing, will look really bad in the community and people may not want to do business with him.
4. I could take him to a private court after he's built the wall to determine who is the legitimate owner of the land and then be within my rights knocking the wall down if it's found in my favour

 

[withoutaface]

wank wank wank wank wank

.

EDIT: If you don't vote, you're a fucking retard. You're not 'defying the system', you're purposefully silencing yourself. There is no way to achieve a viable anarchocapitalist state aside from democratic means.

 

[Silver Persian]

waf is defending the state and getting arttacked by a libertarian~~!

the world has turned upside down