Asunto: »Political & economic ideologies (communism, capitalism et

And my whereabouts are non of your business.

Indeed, and that was not my point. The problem is your IP's and you know it.

Also, your reasoning seems to imply that breaking rules is immoral. Which is plain nonsense obviously.

Plain nonsense for you maybe, but not for normal honest people!

Indeed, and that was not my point. The problem is your IP's and you know it.

The problem is your unhealthy interest in my whereabouts.

Plain nonsense for you maybe, but not for normal honest people!

Well, I guess you could say that Rosa Parks was not a normal person. She was an exceptional person.

The problem is your unhealthy interest in my whereabouts.

Try to change the point if you like, you know perfectly well what I mean.

Rosa Parks

lol :P Yes, compare breaking Sokker rules with Rosa Parks ... all is fine with you! LMAO

lol :P Yes, compare breaking Sokker rules with Rosa Parks ... all is fine with you! LMAO

Learn English. I was not comparing breaking the Sokker rules with Rosa Parks. I was showing that your claim ("breaking rules is immoral") is utter nonsense. But I guess even fools need a laugh now and then.

You make a mess of the posts, but you only fool yourself Levitate!

And you never seem to be able to counter the arguments other people give. Intellectual poverty.

I know your nonsense, you have posted it thousands of times on the forum already. Always the same subject, always the same political nonsense. You can make it easy for yourself and copy your previous posts Levitate.

Hope you will be banned again very soon. You should have been banned already for breaking clear Sokker rules; you are not Dutch so you are not allowed to sign up in the Netherlands and you are using Tor to hide the fact you are Belgium.

I am Belgium? Nah, I'm not that big.

You are not funny at all Levitate, you are a sad childish liar!!


Fanakick naar Willem
Hi Levi :D :D

Willem naar Fanakick
Hi who?
__________________________

Charles Hill naar Willem
And who are you? When I read your posts I get a déjà vu ...

Willem naar Charles Hill
I have no idea what you're talking about.

Interesting conference :

https://ac.arc.nasa.gov/p39bvbis2q5/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pbMode=normal

http://www.theworldaccordingtoguyer.com/

Or as Ayn Rand would put it: To say 'I love you', one must first know how to say the 'I'.

It's really hard to take anyone that quotes Ayn Rand seriously.

Also your argument that there can be no self-ownership (or let's call it bodily integrity) without property is a cop-out, it's a play on a words and hasn't any meaning in reality. Property, objects, things, are external to yourself. Your own body is internal to yourself.

You may own things, but without a state, there is nothing to enforce it. Without a state I might decide that your car is mine and the only way to change my mind is by being stronger than me (or own more deadly weapons). If there is a state to guarantee your property rights, it is dependent on the collective strength and effectiveness to protect the property of us all.

(editado)

The economic debate is still private markets vs centralized planning. The latter has failed over and over again (and will always fail, see Mises and the economic calculation problem). Private markets work.

Nobody is arguing for central planning anymore. The whole libertarian bullcrap that it's an issue between market control vs. liberty, statism vs. liberty, totalitarianism vs. liberty is a false dichotomy, a thing of the past. Private market have failed over and over again, not government control on unlimited free market capitalism. The current worldwide economic crisis was the result of unlimited free market capitalism. It allowed banks to give unlimited bonuses to bankers. Government intervention is what saved the US economy and is saving the euro.

Libertarianism and their ideal of unfettered private markets is the largest threat to modern western society. Just like communism and their ideal of central planning was the largest threat decades ago.

I cannot put a number on this. A little state is necessary, to provide for the public services: police, defense and justice. (But with lower costs than right now, because only the public tasks remain: no police in football stadiums, no border patrol, ...) How? By levying taxes on natural resources. Because private ownership of nature does not exist. Nature is a common good, that is best preserved if it's in the hands of an individual. Ergo, an individual must pay a tax to have the monopoly on a certain part of nature. If I want a house, I need ground to build it on. I buy the ground from the state by paying taxes on a yearly basis in return for the monopolistic right on the use of the ground.

This is the final proof that libertarianists are absolutely against any form of liberty. They say this because the rich are not concerned with land and housing while it's a large proportion of the expenses of poorer people. The rich prefer that income taxes go down so they can pay less. In order to provide the basic level of security and justice, the taxes on housing would need to become prohibitive for the poor, making them indentured slaves to the rich.

Without government restrictions on the free market, the rich would be free to exploit the poor and form monopolies. Maybe the outcome might be the same, but in the current system, which may be seriously flawed, everyone has a vote. In the libertarian's wet dream, only a very small group of ultra rich people have a vote.

Libertarianism is only supported by super rich people that want total control over the rest of us and abhor personal freedom of any kind, and by young and naive high school students.
(editado)

It's really hard to take anyone that quotes Ayn Rand seriously.

I'm sorry, I made a mistake. What I meant to say is that anyone that quotes Ayn Rand is a complete idiot.

I remember watching the movies. It basically went on all the time like this: "Look at me, I'm so poor for inheriting billions from my dad. And now they also want me to pay taxes. Poor me, they're all against me, I just can't stand it anymore. Super duper rich people are people too, w̶h̶y̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶w̶e̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶a̶l̶l̶o̶w̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶m̶a̶k̶e̶ ̶a̶l̶l̶ ̶g̶o̶v̶e̶r̶n̶m̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶d̶e̶c̶i̶s̶i̶o̶n̶s̶ why won't anybody listen to us?"
(editado)

Because taxation is theft. And in contrary to most people, I believe theft is immoral behavior.

Taxation is not theft at all. Taxation means that your income is adjusted for the expenses that the government (that is all of us) had to make for you so you could make the amount of money you really made (and the tax is probably too low for the richest people).

You would never be able to make €5k a month (or whatever it is) without the government paying for the construction of roads, waterways, ports, airports, railroad networks (the richest regions of Europe and the America are the regions with the highest infrastructure levels, paid for by the government), the eradication and prevention of infectious diseases (sewer system, pest control, vaccinations and health care are all included in this) and the school system. Admittedly, it's quite hard to estimate exactly which part of your income is due to government expenditure, but some things are quite obvious: 1) if you don't have any income, there's no money that can be withheld, 2) the more money you make, on average, the more the government actually invested in you.
(editado)