Call the cops, get evicted

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Hey guise! Now that I've displayed a slim glimmer of humanity, can I lose my epiteth of being naught but a randroid troll from totse, or is this simply asking too much?

Remains to be seen, but I'm willing to give you a shot.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Shit I derailed so hard...so um, how 'bout them nuisance laws? Any ideas on how to get those removed?

Well, first you have to get rid of all the humans that wanted nuisance laws. 

That means pretty much everyone except that old deaf mute guy down the street, and I wouldn't be too sure about him.

I mean, seriously, VZ, who makes laws in America?  The legislators.  And WHY do they make endless laws?  Because The People are too stupid to reelect do-nothing congressmen.

And if you tore it all up, people would just start building it again.  Because humans are DUMB.

This is so depressingly true...so depressingly true that it makes the whole thing seem pointless. After reading this post, I now have this itch in the center-rear of my skull -- feels like where the cerebrum and the cerebellum connect -- anyway, this itch...it tickles in a funny way that just makes me laugh...seriously, I can't fucking stop chuckling at this. I mean, it's like when you have an itch that you just can scratch and the futility of the endeavour makes you do inanely goofy things in order to reach that one spot on your back -- but you still end up failing.

This post has given me the urge to insert a coat hanger into my ear in order to scratch this itch that's wedged between two surfaces of my brain. I absolutely can't stop laughing at this!

Rule #1:  Monkeys.

There is no rule #2.

Gotta say, though, that I've noticed that you completely ignore Nigel's responses.  Curious, here.

Nigel's responses provided the same effect as your last one...

They hit deeper though -- harder to respond to...

I don't engage in politics directly -- scoffing at it and ridiculing it and debating it is easy, because in the end, politics are not something I actually do. Nigel, though, she presents economics...truth about economics to such a degree that it's hard to deal with directly. Unlike politics, all humans deal with economics directly at some scale.

I have been one of those poor free market idiots for so long...I see alot of truth in nigel's posts, so I do not debate them...I read them, I absorb their information, but I do not dare debate them because there is much truth in them.

There is a further reason, as well, for me not replying to nigel.

In the TN cuts benefits thread, I said some terribly rude things to/about nigel -- In truth, I respect her greatly (hell, I've been lurking here for years...the regulars here shaped my ideas about the world all through highschool) and that I've disrespected her so openly in a public forum has kinda got me sitting here cowering in shame: I dare not speak directly to her for I feel I said such rude things about her that any further words from me towards her would be insulting to her.

You may find that an apology is a lot easier than it may seem.

With things that evoke real emotion from me, I get long winded and word things in the most incomprehensibly obscure way possible: guess its just a way to cope with shame.

Regardless, Nigel, I apologise for anything I've said against you...

All is forgiven! Thank you.

I want to make sure you know that when I was stereotyping you in whatever other thread that was, it was to drive a point and not because I believed it.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Hey guise! Now that I've displayed a slim glimmer of humanity, can I lose my epiteth of being naught but a randroid troll from totse, or is this simply asking too much?

I will do this. My body is ready.

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

Hey guise! Now that I've displayed a slim glimmer of humanity, can I lose my epiteth of being naught but a randroid troll from totse, or is this simply asking too much?

I will do this. My body is ready.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Hey guise! Now that I've displayed a slim glimmer of humanity, can I lose my epiteth of being naught but a randroid troll from totse, or is this simply asking too much?

I will do this. My body is ready.

[Cain]

I know, right?  The abridged version of it that I sometimes use, "would it be permissible to sell yourself into slavery under a libertarian legal system?" tends to get me banned for trolling on libertarian blogs and communities.  But not before creating a massively entertaining row.

This position, like the "lol somalia" rebuttle, is something right-libertarians hear too much of -- it's one of the stereotypical "obvious troll" arguments.

When you find the perfect rebuttal, stick to it.  Know what I mean?

I make no claims to originality, only effectiveness.

Besides, I've found arguing in good faith to be mostly an exercise in boredom, bad logic, rhetorical obsfucation and endless tautalogies.  Might as well have some fun.

[LMNO]

Others, like LMNO had me figured out from day one.

Lies.  I knew he was a horrible, no-good bastard from day one.  I could smell it on him.  But I did grasp the concept of "keeping your enemies close", so I clung tenaciously to his back hair, and tried to ignore the... things... nesting there.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Others, like LMNO had me figured out from day one.

Lies.  I knew he was a horrible, no-good bastard from day one.  I could smell it on him.  But I did grasp the concept of "keeping your enemies close", so I clung tenaciously to his back hair, and tried to ignore the... things... nesting there.

I am not responsible for any decon fees.

[LMNO]

THEY HAD TOO MANY LEGS.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

THEY HAD TOO MANY LEGS.

Go tell Kai about it.  I am not responsible.  It's right in the small print.

[Pergamos]

I know, right?  The abridged version of it that I sometimes use, "would it be permissible to sell yourself into slavery under a libertarian legal system?" tends to get me banned for trolling on libertarian blogs and communities.  But not before creating a massively entertaining row.

This position, like the "lol somalia" rebuttle, is something right-libertarians hear too much of -- it's one of the stereotypical "obvious troll" arguments.

IOW, they're jujitsued into massive butthurt.

Well, bluntly spoken, it's one of the things that exposes the flaws in their ideologies so directly that one either must put up the screen of "lol obvious troll" and ignore it, or face the harshest cognitive dissonnance possible. So yes, jujitsu'd into the most anally seeping butthurt imaginable!

Problem is, it's accurate.  Somalia really IS the libertarian paradise, as libertarians explain their philosophy.

The libertarian response is that Somalia is doing better than it was with a strong central government, and this is true as far as most measurable metrics are concerned.  The arguement is revealed as trolling when the person who brought it up refuses to pursue it any further.

"Lol Somalia"  Doesn't seem like an accurate rebuttal because of that,  the bit about selling yourself into slavery on the other hand, does.  A system that allows the selling of anyone into slavery should not have the word liberty in it.

[Cain]

Those measurements are skewed though, because the only place in Somalia which has measurable metrics is Somaliland...which has a strong central government.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The libertarian response is that Somalia is doing better than it was with a strong central government, and this is true as far as most measurable metrics are concerned.

My response to that is that if this is the case, then Somalia should by now be well on the way to perfection.

[Pergamos]

The libertarian response is that Somalia is doing better than it was with a strong central government, and this is true as far as most measurable metrics are concerned.

My response to that is that if this is the case, then Somalia should by now be well on the way to perfection.

Kind of hard when your starting point is rock bottom.  Somalia was an absolute hellhole under a central government, now it's a near absolute hellhole without a central government.  Giving the lack of a central government credit for improvement may be a mistake, but blaming it for the fact the place is a hellhole is just as much of a mistake.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The libertarian response is that Somalia is doing better than it was with a strong central government, and this is true as far as most measurable metrics are concerned.

My response to that is that if this is the case, then Somalia should by now be well on the way to perfection.

Kind of hard when your starting point is rock bottom.  Somalia was an absolute hellhole under a central government, now it's a near absolute hellhole without a central government.  Giving the lack of a central government credit for improvement may be a mistake, but blaming it for the fact the place is a hellhole is just as much of a mistake.

Well, here's where we get to the whole supply side economics-esque argument.  How long does it take to succeed?  Somalia has been a no-government paradise for more than 20 years.  When does the fun start?