Messages

I had no idea the Free Market was considered an authority, or even a single entity.




Your trolling is weak.  Please to increase the Polemic value by 8.92%.

Hmmm. I must have stated something wrong. Because i wasn't referring to the Free Market as an authority....
Your needling on the minimization of govt, it seems to me. That's all i'm supporting.
Back on topic, do you think our current castle is crumbling, and are you doing anything to prepare for it?
I totally agree with you that my trolling is weak though.  I've never attempted it.

LMNO puppies.
OSAR
CMPN?

Actually, I just put my faith in the Free Market Economy, and the Libertarian ethos.  That should take care of everything.

After all, if small government is good, shouldn't no government be even better?

There's no such thing as 'no government', just the strife of a collapsing power vacuum.
you can put your faith wherever you want (its certainly unbecoming to carry it around with you all the time, after all), but i wouldn't recommend putting it in anyone having your best interests in mind, especially those in authority.

[bad, bad thing]

Ooh! Ooh!
We're freaking DOOOOMED!
....ahem....
sorry. about that. I do tend to get worked up about societal collapse a bit.
So do any of you guys actively 'prep' for collapse (on any scale)
Guns, Grub, Gold? or Beans, Bullets, Bullion? or whatever those crazy paranoid people that actually subscribe to that nonsense about how an engineered destruction of our economy is right around the corner as a pretext for creating a regional currency that will create a NAU that will be more explicitly subservient to global governance that will be a bad, bad thing....

I think they're saying that until you act, just reading books makes you a spectator in life and causes Guy Debord's corpse to rot a little faster.

Oh, I assumed it was the collected volumes of the 18th century British periodical 'The Spectator'

Be careful of reactionaryism in the guise of jaded malcontent.  It is where many of the weak and defenseless are trampled, and where we take it for granted we are on the "up" side of that wheel and may yet at some point in time be on the lowest end.

I certainly don't thin we are on the 'up' side.  We've got a long way down yet.  Hell we're probably only half way down, which is why it seems things are getting worse at the rate that they are!
Also, i'm full of hogwash because i see that i am personally in a very comfortable position, with relatively little to complain about. 
I mostly like disagreeing, and with libertarian views, it seems i get to disagree with most everybody. 

No, they sound like typical libertarians.

Meh.....
I'll readily admit that what I advocate wouldn't 'work' in the way that anybody wants.
I guess i'm actually just a malcontent, i guess.  I want to be an island.
a luxury island. 
Honestly, i don't think any 'system' will work well at this point so advocating anything is more of a stylistic choice rather than a pragmatic one.  We live in interesting asymptotic times.

Wait, what?  The bankers didn't cut taxes of the to 1%, raise deficit spending, and start a war.  Not even the Jewish ones.

The banker clamored for deregulation of the housing system, then developed the Sub Prime mortgage.

The congress delegating monetary policy to the FED is what allows them to have deficit spending and all the crap that ensues.....
...I don't understand the Jewish reference...
Deregulation of the housing was just fine.  Stupid lenders, stupid borrowers, .gov sponsored creditors; let the sleep in it.  But no, .gov has to come meddle in it again...

Nope.


Well, yes, they're doing that, too.   But regulation (what the libertarian ideologists complain about) didn't tank the economy.

The economy is barely beginning to tank.
and I'm in the 'shirking monetary policy responsibility off onto private banking screwed us' camp.

In case you were wondering, this country isn't in the tank from too much government interference in corporate affairs.


Yes, the gvt has had much to do with sticking the US in a pile of shit.  But it wasn't because they were restricting the free market.

I assume by 'restricting' you mean an even handed strangle of the market?  Of course not.  it is meddling in various points and places at the behest of lobbyists and interest groups... 

You may be new enough here that you haven't met the barstool yet.


In other words, it would be extremely nice if congress could get together in bipartisan unity and write a law that would be broad enough to limit all corruption, yet not infinge on an individual's personality, flexible enough to cover all future possibilities, and integrate seamlessly with Big Industry's commitment to responsible growth, equitable pay for all its workers, and fair play within the market.

Do you believe in the tooth fairy, too?

Ah.  That is a problem.  You can protect the innocent (from overreaching .gov) at the cost of some bad being gotten away with, or you can  make sure that no bad goes unpunished at the cost of fvcking some innocents along the way.  It's a continuum that you draw a line in with the law.  I think your a little further to the latter end than i am.

Maybe the reason i think the barstool really ISN'T there is because people try to sit on it and they fall to the floor because they have a size 7 poopshoot from an overreaching .gov

Carreer lawmakers know there is no permanent fix.  They also know that the corrupt exist in every population.


So small, plug-the-hole laws work as a better overall solution than large, fluid guidelines to be manipulated by the corrupt.

We are sinking in evidence that they do not work though.  In the end you wind up with a morass of laws that are not able to be followed as nobody knows/understands them all.  the chances of inconsistency rise.  The 'need' for further lawyers/politicians/bureaucrats increases.  Elegance in law should be a higher virtue than expedience.

The reason we have 3783 laws is that clever, greedy assholes always find a loophole, which then takes an additional law to plug it up.

Law is a formal system and thus suseptible to Godel's Incompleteness theorem.  You -can't- plug the holes. you can only move them around.  so you simply accept the inherent incompleteness or inconsitency, are rely on human intellect to deal with their abuse on a case by case basis.  Trying to 'fix' the system will simply cause it to grow unbounded.

Hold on, there!
There's a big difference between knowing what the Machine™ will do, and having faith in it.
To understand that The Free Market only works in a universe without Greed or Duplicity isn't the same as having "faith" in Greed and Duplicity.

The Free Market does work, and although Greed and Duplicity seek to undermine it, that does not mean we should seek an inflexible centralized planning that will also be subject to the same, no?
I didn't say anything about having faith in Greed and Duplicity.

How is what I am saying advocating faith in "the machine"?
Or is this a case of "you don't like my candidate, therefore you must be against freedom" a la...well, pretty much every American candidate?  If you're going to engage in childish ad hominem attacks against me instead of debate my points, then I simply wont bother with doing detailed and researched articles, and instead will just cut straight to the slanging match.
Oh, and for the record, I've also criticized Obama (DLC "centrist" like Clinton), Clinton ("Bush but for abortions"), Edwards (voted for the wrong war, probably did something else wrong), Guiliani (annointed son of the Neocon foreign policy), McCain (unstable shameless whore), Huckabee (religious nutcase), Tancredo (hates Mexicans with a passion), Romney (bad taste in fiction) etc etc ad nauseum.  But never mind that, eh?

Ok, ok i apologize, i was rather dismissive and didn't mean to hurt feelings.  I certainly didn't mean to ad hominize you.  The articles that you linked to were rather inflammatory, though, and i feel made poorly substantiated claims. 
I'll shut up about it and just enjoin you in the bashing of the other puppets now.... 

Ah.  I see clearly now.   
Thank you for sacrificing your breakfast.  I should at least let you know that i read it thoroughly.
I can't believe that i didn't see all this stuff from my vantage point!   
I'll try to have more faith in the machine, since that's how it operates in the real world.

Fair enough.
It seems that the largest sticking point is his rowdy band of supporters.  This is the primary reason i figured he would be popular in the Discordian circles.  They are diverse in their backgrounds and only loosely held together by a common interest in the reduction of the size and scope of centralized federal power.  This, of course, attracts 'strange bedfellows' and i view that as a wonderful trip.  I've never met such a fantastic crowd of the beautiful fringe held together with zealousness born from pent up frustration at the seemingly unstoppable descent into bureaucratic demise.

Of the voting record, i can't seem to find anything that should ring sour here.  The page you linked to misrepresents the aim of his legislation in my view.  I believe this is due to a complete denial of the ability for things of any import to be delegated to the several states rather than decided and handed down from the top.  In that context, all his 'no's seem to be pretty strange, but why shouldn't these things be left to the states? And why would our ilk support their inflexibly being determined at the federal level?  The flag burning thing does seem stupid, though..... Oh, and i disagree with him on the use of the death penalty at the federal level (we just need to administer it wisely)

Regarding his links..... What is 'proto-fascist'? and which militias of that sort is he linked to?  Please define 'far-right'.  It seems currently used as a euphemism for 'uber-hawkish', which is certainly not in keeping with RP's philosophy.  The Orcanus link you gave seems to give an explanation that his support was a conspiracy of conspiracy theorists, or some such nonsense, and tries to pin him with racism... that's a pretty good stretch there.

on your fourth point, i'm not quite sure what your angle is.  If one shares a view with someone else regarding a specific issue, are you saying that you should not cooperate to its' end unless you agree with all else they hold to?  Or are you saying that his conviction against foreign interventionism is a clever ruse carried out for decades?