Conquer Club

Funny how so many people cite Ronald Reagan who have obviously never met the guy or really talked to him. Ironically, about like Lincoln... all sides seem equally able to call on him and are equally convinced that he supported their current positions.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Funny how so many people cite Ronald Reagan who have obviously never met the guy or really talked to him. Ironically, about like Lincoln... all sides seem equally able to call on him and are equally convinced that he supported their current positions.

Republicans call on Lincoln. What are the other sides that equally call on Lincoln? The Democrats, Progressives, or Liberals, Socialists or Communists? How do they call on Lincoln?

"Tax the rich" doesn't seem to fit in so well with "keeping the fruits of our own labor". Quite the opposite in fact....

Individual Freedom

Possibly we rely on our own arguments and thinking, rather than going to a leader figure and checking whether some dude's speech aligns correctly with our thoughts.

Yeah, but he has nice hair and a good voice, which wins votes. And a nice tie. That helps too. And a great speech writer and ghost writers for his thought-provoking books.

And something catchy like "free markets," "individual liberty," maybe "equal opportunity," etc. Details aren't necessary; just throw out words that people readily consume or reject without much critical thinking.

When's the next election? THIS GUNNA BE GOOD!

BigBallinStalin wrote:Yeah, but he has nice hair and a good voice, which wins votes. And a nice tie. That helps too. And a great speech writer and ghost writers for his thought-provoking books.

And something catchy like "free markets," "individual liberty," maybe "equal opportunity," etc. Details aren't necessary; just throw out words that people readily consume or reject without much critical thinking.

When's the next election? THIS GUNNA BE GOOD!

I'm about 99% sure Reagan won't be in it, I suspect some weird incarnation of his ghost might be called upon, though.

Can we remember Reagan for what we want to remember about him? It's makes the world so much simpler!

BigBallinStalin wrote:Can we remember Reagan for what we want to remember about him? It's makes the world so much simpler!

It does.

I like to remember him this way, but only because it's what I want...

Phatscotty wrote:I like to remember him this way, but only because it's what I want...

Wait, Scott, what is the color of your state on that map?

Reagan on individual freedoms????

Isn't he the one that instituted drug testing for government employees?

Is that your sense of individual freedoms and liberties Scotty?

saxitoxin wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:I like to remember him this way, but only because it's what I want...

Wait, Scott, what is the color of your state on that map?

Yeah yeah....Minnesota is a very "special" place.


Mondale wuz heer

notyou2 wrote:Reagan on individual freedoms????

Isn't he the one that instituted drug testing for some government employees?

Is that your sense of individual freedoms and liberties Scotty?

Someone want to let Notyou2 in on the "secret" about why we don't want drug users driving our government vehicles etc....

I never knew how old he was when he was president. Daymn

Phatscotty wrote:

notyou2 wrote:Reagan on individual freedoms????

Isn't he the one that instituted drug testing for some government employees?

Is that your sense of individual freedoms and liberties Scotty?

Someone want to let Notyou2 in on the "secret" about why we don't want drug users driving our government vehicles etc....

And this ladies and gentlemen is the definition of a hypocrite.

Thanks for the demonstration Scotty, it was spot on.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

notyou2 wrote:Reagan on individual freedoms????

Isn't he the one that instituted drug testing for some government employees?

Is that your sense of individual freedoms and liberties Scotty?

Someone want to let Notyou2 in on the "secret" about why we don't want drug users driving our government vehicles etc....

And this ladies and gentlemen is the definition of a hypocrite.

Thanks for the demonstration Scotty, it was spot on.

He was being immature. You have joined him. Congratulations. As if you clowns actually believe a piss test is the epitome of the individual freedom argument.

Go right ahead geniuses, pick your sides on the philosophy of individual freedom based on a piss test for government drivers.... x a billion You two should put your heads together and come up with a better poke, like "we have the right to drive without a drivers license!"

There's freedom of association, meaning that you are free to associate yourself with any group, as long as it's not a conspiracy to create harm. If you join voluntarily, then there's a contract which details each party's responsibility and yada yada. If that contract states, "drug tests are mandatory," then you can choose to turn it down, or you can choose to accept--depending on whatever your perceived costs and benefits are.

This isn't in violation of libertarianism, which does adhere to individual freedom, but with certain constraints like negative rights, property rights, and the non-aggression axiom, which basically states that you can't initiate violence against others. I don't see how Phatscotty's support for drug tests on government employees makes him a hypocrite in this regard.

Individual freedom itself, however that's defined for others, seems to entail a "I can do whatever I want" idea, and if PS adheres to this, then sure, he's being a hypocrite by supporting the government's decision to drug test government employees, but hardly anyone accepts this vulgar form of individual freedom, so perhaps the criticism against PS has been misplaced.

Phatscotty wrote:
He was being immature. You have joined him. Congratulations. As if you clowns actually believe a piss test is the epitome of the individual freedom argument.

Go right ahead geniuses, pick your sides on the philosophy of individual freedom based on a piss test for government drivers.... x a billion You two should put your heads together and come up with a better poke, like "we have the right to drive without a drivers license!"

So just to make clear, individual freedom is only important in the areas you deem important.

Small government is only important in the areas you want it to be small, in the others big government is still cool. Yeah?

I can't tell if you genuinely think like that (government should do exactly what I WANT it to do), or if you're willing to sacrifice your ideals so that you can still hero worship some actor/politician.

BigBallinStalin wrote:There's freedom of association, meaning that you are free to associate yourself with any group, as long as it's not a conspiracy to create harm. If you join voluntarily, then there's a contract which details each party's responsibility and yada yada. If that contract states, "drug tests are mandatory," then you can choose to turn it down, or you can choose to accept--depending on whatever your perceived costs and benefits are.

Doesn't the existence of a central government and federal laws and shit kinda screw up that free market perspective?
If we're talking about walmart deciding it wants to drug test it's employees, then yeah, government policy, not so sure.

BigBallinStalin wrote:This isn't in violation of libertarianism, which does adhere to individual freedom, but with certain constraints like negative rights, property rights, and the non-aggression axiom, which basically states that you can't initiate violence against others. I don't see how Phatscotty's support for drug tests on government employees makes him a hypocrite in this regard.

How do drugs violate any of those constraints. ?

No. Your assumptions are wrong. Your bias is too thick on this one

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:
He was being immature. You have joined him. Congratulations. As if you clowns actually believe a piss test is the epitome of the individual freedom argument.

Go right ahead geniuses, pick your sides on the philosophy of individual freedom based on a piss test for government drivers.... x a billion You two should put your heads together and come up with a better poke, like "we have the right to drive without a drivers license!"

So just to make clear, individual freedom is only important in the areas you deem important.

Small government is only important in the areas you want it to be small, in the others big government is still cool. Yeah?

I can't tell if you genuinely think like that (government should do exactly what I WANT it to do), or if you're willing to sacrifice your ideals so that you can still hero worship some actor/politician.

BigBallinStalin wrote:There's freedom of association, meaning that you are free to associate yourself with any group, as long as it's not a conspiracy to create harm. If you join voluntarily, then there's a contract which details each party's responsibility and yada yada. If that contract states, "drug tests are mandatory," then you can choose to turn it down, or you can choose to accept--depending on whatever your perceived costs and benefits are.

Doesn't the existence of a central government and federal laws and shit kinda screw up that free market perspective?
If we're talking about walmart deciding it wants to drug test it's employees, then yeah, government policy, not so sure.

Yeah, you bet'cha it does. Some people resent casting away some goods which an organization provides via involuntary exchanges (e.g. taxation), so some (or most?) libertarians are called "min-archists," i.e. minimal anarchists. So, there's that problem within Libertarianism, but the concept of "pure" free markets is definitely anarcho-capitalism. Laws and regulation emerge through the market process (which includes social exchanges) but not through political means like legislation.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:This isn't in violation of libertarianism, which does adhere to individual freedom, but with certain constraints like negative rights, property rights, and the non-aggression axiom, which basically states that you can't initiate violence against others. I don't see how Phatscotty's support for drug tests on government employees makes him a hypocrite in this regard.

How do drugs violate any of those constraints. ?

There's contract law. You agree to certain rules if you want to work with company A or enter property B.

Drugs themselves don't violate those constraints. In an anarcho-capitalist society all drugs would be legal; however, they would be illegal in certain zones depending on the contract which delineates the rules for entry to those grounds. For example, you shouldn't take bong rips at a certain old folks home, if the old folks home said, "don't do that here."

In a Libertarian society, with "limited" government, who knows. I want to say that all drugs would be legal as well (with the above exception depending on property rights), but there's that concept of "limited government," i.e. how strongly they adhere to classical liberal principles, so it's difficult for me to say. I think people tend to conflate libertarianism with classical liberalism, and this is where their internal conflict begins.

Phatscotty wrote:No. Your assumptions are wrong. Your bias is too thick on this one

Good 'ol Phatsco! Never clarifying his stance until strongly urged to do so--assuming that all the Dodge Attempts are unsuccessful.

BigBallinStalin wrote:There's contract law. You agree to certain rules if you want to work with company A or enter property B.

Drugs themselves don't violate those constraints. In an anarcho-capitalist society all drugs would be legal; however, they would be illegal in certain zones depending on the contract which delineates the rules for entry to those grounds. For example, you shouldn't take bong rips at a certain old folks home, if the old folks home said, "don't do that here."

In a Libertarian society, with "limited" government, who knows. I want to say that all drugs would be legal as well (with the above exception depending on property rights), but there's that concept of "limited government," i.e. how strongly they adhere to classical liberal principles, so it's difficult for me to say. I think people tend to conflate libertarianism with classical liberalism, and this is where their internal conflict begins.

Yep, I pretty much agree with everything you've said.

I'm just saying, the limitation on using certain drugs is not only pretty random (alcohol good, pot bad) but can only stem from some sort of "government knows best" mentality.
Which is why I see it as extremely hypocritical that Scotty spends his days posting videos like that ^^^ and then defends such a government measure. Apparently it's terrible that government takes money out of our pockets, but government deciding what we can put in our bodies(and spending god knows how much money to enforce it), why that's cool.

@Scotty: can you tell me at what minute and second that video explains why government should regulate drugs?

BigBallinStalin wrote:Drugs themselves don't violate those constraints. In an anarcho-capitalist society all drugs would be legal; however, they would be illegal in certain zones depending on the contract which delineates the rules for entry to those grounds. For example, you shouldn't take bong rips at a certain old folks home, if the old folks home said, "don't do that here."

I feel this paragraph somewhat reveals the problem with anarcho-capitalism and its ideological bros.

Individual groups or organizations become sovereign. Essentially they have all the power to decide their rules from within. that's supposed to be fine, due to free association. However individual groups are sovereign, what if they decided free association for some, slavery for others. They can hoard their power and then use it to oppress others.

I feel like the theory would just be like hitting a reset button and going back to a medieval level political fragmentation which would see the whole agonizing history of statehood repeated.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:There's contract law. You agree to certain rules if you want to work with company A or enter property B.

Drugs themselves don't violate those constraints. In an anarcho-capitalist society all drugs would be legal; however, they would be illegal in certain zones depending on the contract which delineates the rules for entry to those grounds. For example, you shouldn't take bong rips at a certain old folks home, if the old folks home said, "don't do that here."

In a Libertarian society, with "limited" government, who knows. I want to say that all drugs would be legal as well (with the above exception depending on property rights), but there's that concept of "limited government," i.e. how strongly they adhere to classical liberal principles, so it's difficult for me to say. I think people tend to conflate libertarianism with classical liberalism, and this is where their internal conflict begins.

Yep, I pretty much agree with everything you've said.

I'm just saying, the limitation on using certain drugs is not only pretty random (alcohol good, pot bad) but can only stem from some sort of "government knows best" mentality.
Which is why I see it as extremely hypocritical that Scotty spends his days posting videos like that ^^^ and then defends such a government measure. Apparently it's terrible that government takes money out of our pockets, but government deciding what we can put in our bodies(and spending god knows how much money to enforce it), why that's cool.

@Scotty: can you tell me at what minute and second that video explains why government should regulate drugs?

I don't have to defend every single thing Ronald Reagan did. Especially not the irrelevant left-fielders Notyou2 picks out of his ass. And now you are jumping from government urine tests to telling you what you can and can't put in your bodies (assuming everyone is forced to work for the government??)

That video does not address drugs, and just because another poster brought it up is no reason to jump all over my shit LOL. Maybe you need to start this thread from the beginning.

Baron Von PWN wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Drugs themselves don't violate those constraints. In an anarcho-capitalist society all drugs would be legal; however, they would be illegal in certain zones depending on the contract which delineates the rules for entry to those grounds. For example, you shouldn't take bong rips at a certain old folks home, if the old folks home said, "don't do that here."

what if they decided free association for some, slavery for others. They can hoard their power and then use it to oppress others.

We already have that... The slaves are called "workers" the free associater is the "free loader" and trillion dollar ObamaCare, trillion dollar bailouts, and trillion dollar stimulus bills are where the power is being hoarded, and Obama is the current Oppressor.