Pages:
Author

Topic: Freedom is ... - page 3. (Read 14409 times)

legendary
Activity: 1330
Merit: 1026
Mining since 2010 & Hosting since 2012
January 05, 2013, 01:37:11 PM
You want to tell me what good a speeding ticket does the person who is harmed as a result of a driver speeding? (Assuming anyone is actually harmed... and if not, who gives a fuck?)

Victimless crimes FTW.

It is not a victimless crime.  I could shoot a gun in public, randomly waving it about, and not hit a single person, but it's still a bad idea because the CHANCE of hurting another person was increased due to my actions.  The fact that I didn't actually hit anybody doesn't change anything.

You've got it all wrong. It's not a bad idea because you might hurt someone, it's a bad idea because others might think their lives are in danger and they'll hurt you to stop you. Same goes for speeding.

So let me get this straight, waving a gun in public and randomly discharging it is not a bad idea because you might hurt someone?  But instead it is because someone might hurt me?   That is one of the most selfish statements I have ever heard.  I am sorry but unless you restate this, you discredit yourself on the grounds of your lack of judgement and common sense.  How can we take your opinions on this as reasonable if they is your thoughts on waving and firing a gun in public randomly.   
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
January 05, 2013, 01:06:01 PM

Freedom will be possible only in a world without the monetary system !

Peddle your robocommunism elsewhere.

This prove that you dont know what the Zeitgeist Movement is really about !

Apparently, adding exclamation points to sentences that don't need it. Let's see if any of this sounds familiar:

"a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the population as a whole. "

Does that sound anything like Zeitgeist?
legendary
Activity: 1002
Merit: 1000
Bitcoin
January 05, 2013, 10:38:02 AM

Freedom will be possible only in a world without the monetary system !

Peddle your robocommunism elsewhere.

This prove that you dont know what the Zeitgeist Movement is really about !
legendary
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1003
January 05, 2013, 10:29:31 AM
You want to tell me what good a speeding ticket does the person who is harmed as a result of a driver speeding? (Assuming anyone is actually harmed... and if not, who gives a fuck?)

Victimless crimes FTW.

It is not a victimless crime.  I could shoot a gun in public, randomly waving it about, and not hit a single person, but it's still a bad idea because the CHANCE of hurting another person was increased due to my actions.  The fact that I didn't actually hit anybody doesn't change anything.

You've got it all wrong. It's not a bad idea because you might hurt someone, it's a bad idea because others might think their lives are in danger and they'll hurt you to stop you. Same goes for speeding.
hero member
Activity: 793
Merit: 1026
January 05, 2013, 09:43:49 AM
Violence and freedom are inexorably linked.  This is because violence can always overpower nonviolence, unless you have for example a non-violent shield or other defense-- however this only encourages the violent to come up with better violent tactics.  At some point the effort required to maintain defense -- the people killed manufacturing the shield -- becomes so expensive in both property AND human life that the most ethical thing to do is to kill the attackers.

Non-aggression only works until it doesn't.
hero member
Activity: 793
Merit: 1026
January 05, 2013, 09:40:24 AM
You want to tell me what good a speeding ticket does the person who is harmed as a result of a driver speeding? (Assuming anyone is actually harmed... and if not, who gives a fuck?)

Victimless crimes FTW.

It is not a victimless crime.  I could shoot a gun in public, randomly waving it about, and not hit a single person, but it's still a bad idea because the CHANCE of hurting another person was increased due to my actions.  The fact that I didn't actually hit anybody doesn't change anything.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
January 05, 2013, 04:15:22 AM

Freedom will be possible only in a world without the monetary system !

Peddle your robocommunism elsewhere.
legendary
Activity: 1002
Merit: 1000
Bitcoin
January 05, 2013, 03:59:25 AM

Freedom will be possible only in a world without the monetary system !

.
newbie
Activity: 56
Merit: 0
January 05, 2013, 02:32:36 AM
Freedom is a government with low amounts of power
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
January 05, 2013, 01:05:05 AM
Cool! Education for the rich.

I think you may be confusing education and schooling.

Schooling for the rich, education for the masses.

You mean a reduced and cheap product for the masses, graduated in such a way as to insure the poor get the least education. How thoughtful.

Once again, you're confusing schooling and education. Everyone gets the same education (as I said, reading, writing, and math, and most importantly how to learn) but not everyone gets the same schooling - classes, curriculum, etc.

So you're saying they really don't get the same thing? Some get the Yugo of education, and others get the Rolls Royce of education.

Everyone gets basic education. Some get more schooling. Schooling ≠ Education.
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
January 05, 2013, 12:57:43 AM
Cool! Education for the rich.

I think you may be confusing education and schooling.

Schooling for the rich, education for the masses.

You mean a reduced and cheap product for the masses, graduated in such a way as to insure the poor get the least education. How thoughtful.

Once again, you're confusing schooling and education. Everyone gets the same education (as I said, reading, writing, and math, and most importantly how to learn) but not everyone gets the same schooling - classes, curriculum, etc.

So you're saying they really don't get the same thing? Some get the Yugo of education, and others get the Rolls Royce of education.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
January 05, 2013, 12:49:44 AM
Cool! Education for the rich.

I think you may be confusing education and schooling.

Schooling for the rich, education for the masses.

You mean a reduced and cheap product for the masses, graduated in such a way as to insure the poor get the least education. How thoughtful.

Once again, you're confusing schooling and education. Everyone gets the same education (as I said, reading, writing, and math, and most importantly how to learn) but not everyone gets the same schooling - classes, curriculum, etc.
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
January 05, 2013, 12:38:42 AM
Cool! Education for the rich.

I think you may be confusing education and schooling.

Schooling for the rich, education for the masses.

You mean a reduced and cheap product for the masses, graduated in such a way as to insure the poor get the least education. How thoughtful.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
January 05, 2013, 12:27:14 AM
Cool! Education for the rich.

I think you may be confusing education and schooling.

Schooling for the rich, education for the masses.
hero member
Activity: 812
Merit: 1000
January 05, 2013, 12:18:16 AM
3.  At this point, most children and most schools.  If they change, they are still getting the same type of schooling so there is not escape unless you have money for a private boarding school.  Most parents are two busy running around to make one or two incomes provide for their family to even be that involved with their childs schooling.  Its tough out there. 

Why do you continually point at the failures of the current system in an attempt to refute the one we advocate?

I point these things out because they would persist in both systems.

Except they wouldn't. When all schools are private, they will be affordable, and teach the curriculum the parents want taught, not some wealthy businessman (unless, of course, the parents agree with said businessman). I can explain why these things would be true, but it can be best summed up by this statement: Even the poorest people in America can afford a color TV and a cell phone.

Yes they would.   [You're] patently wrong in this assertion.  The list I mentioned which in most part already is private would still be subject to that type of perverse influence.  Keep dreaming Myrkul.   
I can back my assertion with logic, can you say the same?

I do not believe you can.
I note that this is not a yes, indicating that you cannot. That's beside the point, however, so I won't address it.

As I said, I can explain why private schools would be affordable, and why they would teach the curriculum the parents want, and as I said, it can be summed up by the fact that even the poorest Americans can afford color televisions. Think about that for a few minutes before continuing.

OK, is it good and soaked in? Have you thought about why even the poorest people in America have color TVs? The answer is the market. People want color TVs. People want education. Because the people want these things, other people, seeking to make a buck, provide these things to those people. They know that the more people that can afford to buy their product, the more money they will make from selling that product. So they sell it at a price that people can afford. If they cannot sell it a profit, they can reduce the featureset until they get a profitable product for that pricepoint. A basic television is cheap to produce. Likewise a basic education (Reading, writing, and math, and most importantly how to learn) can be provided very cheaply, and not take too long to instil. Extra features (classes) can be added on, but they raise the price a little bit. If a school does not offer the curriculum that the parent wants, then they will enroll the child in a different school, which does, or they can always teach the child anything that they want beyond the basics themselves.

Monopolies do not serve the customers. Companies in market competition do. That is why private schools would be more affordable and teach the curriculum that the parents (their customers) want.

Cool! Education for the rich.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
January 05, 2013, 12:15:24 AM
3.  At this point, most children and most schools.  If they change, they are still getting the same type of schooling so there is not escape unless you have money for a private boarding school.  Most parents are two busy running around to make one or two incomes provide for their family to even be that involved with their childs schooling.  Its tough out there. 

Why do you continually point at the failures of the current system in an attempt to refute the one we advocate?

I point these things out because they would persist in both systems.

Except they wouldn't. When all schools are private, they will be affordable, and teach the curriculum the parents want taught, not some wealthy businessman (unless, of course, the parents agree with said businessman). I can explain why these things would be true, but it can be best summed up by this statement: Even the poorest people in America can afford a color TV and a cell phone.

Yes they would.   [You're] patently wrong in this assertion.  The list I mentioned which in most part already is private would still be subject to that type of perverse influence.  Keep dreaming Myrkul.   
I can back my assertion with logic, can you say the same?

I do not believe you can.
I note that this is not a yes, indicating that you cannot. That's beside the point, however, so I won't address it.

As I said, I can explain why private schools would be affordable, and why they would teach the curriculum the parents want, and as I said, it can be summed up by the fact that even the poorest Americans can afford color televisions. Think about that for a few minutes before continuing.

OK, is it good and soaked in? Have you thought about why even the poorest people in America have color TVs? The answer is the market. People want color TVs. People want education. Because the people want these things, other people, seeking to make a buck, provide these things to those people. They know that the more people that can afford to buy their product, the more money they will make from selling that product. So they sell it at a price that people can afford. If they cannot sell it a profit, they can reduce the featureset until they get a profitable product for that pricepoint. A basic television is cheap to produce. Likewise a basic education (Reading, writing, and math, and most importantly how to learn) can be provided very cheaply, and not take too long to instil. Extra features (classes) can be added on, but they raise the price a little bit. If a school does not offer the curriculum that the parent wants, then they will enroll the child in a different school, which does, or they can always teach the child anything that they want beyond the basics themselves.

Monopolies do not serve the customers. Companies in market competition do. That is why private schools would be more affordable and teach the curriculum that the parents (their customers) want.
legendary
Activity: 1330
Merit: 1026
Mining since 2010 & Hosting since 2012
January 04, 2013, 11:45:28 PM
3.  At this point, most children and most schools.  If they change, they are still getting the same type of schooling so there is not escape unless you have money for a private boarding school.  Most parents are two busy running around to make one or two incomes provide for their family to even be that involved with their childs schooling.  Its tough out there. 

Why do you continually point at the failures of the current system in an attempt to refute the one we advocate?

I point these things out because they would persist in both systems.

Except they wouldn't. When all schools are private, they will be affordable, and teach the curriculum the parents want taught, not some wealthy businessman (unless, of course, the parents agree with said businessman). I can explain why these things would be true, but it can be best summed up by this statement: Even the poorest people in America can afford a color TV and a cell phone.

Yes they would.   [You're] patently wrong in this assertion.  The list I mentioned which in most part already is private would still be subject to that type of perverse influence.  Keep dreaming Myrkul.   
I can back my assertion with logic, can you say the same?

I do not believe you can.
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
January 04, 2013, 11:31:05 PM
3.  At this point, most children and most schools.  If they change, they are still getting the same type of schooling so there is not escape unless you have money for a private boarding school.  Most parents are two busy running around to make one or two incomes provide for their family to even be that involved with their childs schooling.  Its tough out there. 

Why do you continually point at the failures of the current system in an attempt to refute the one we advocate?

I point these things out because they would persist in both systems.

Except they wouldn't. When all schools are private, they will be affordable, and teach the curriculum the parents want taught, not some wealthy businessman (unless, of course, the parents agree with said businessman). I can explain why these things would be true, but it can be best summed up by this statement: Even the poorest people in America can afford a color TV and a cell phone.

Yes they would.   [You're] patently wrong in this assertion.  The list I mentioned which in most part already is private would still be subject to that type of perverse influence.  Keep dreaming Myrkul.   
I can back my assertion with logic, can you say the same?
legendary
Activity: 1330
Merit: 1026
Mining since 2010 & Hosting since 2012
January 04, 2013, 11:23:48 PM
3.  At this point, most children and most schools.  If they change, they are still getting the same type of schooling so there is not escape unless you have money for a private boarding school.  Most parents are two busy running around to make one or two incomes provide for their family to even be that involved with their childs schooling.  Its tough out there. 

Why do you continually point at the failures of the current system in an attempt to refute the one we advocate?

I point these things out because they would persist in both systems.

Except they wouldn't. When all schools are private, they will be affordable, and teach the curriculum the parents want taught, not some wealthy businessman (unless, of course, the parents agree with said businessman). I can explain why these things would be true, but it can be best summed up by this statement: Even the poorest people in America can afford a color TV and a cell phone.

Yes they would.   Your patently wrong in this assertion.  The list I mentioned which in most part already is private would still be subject to that type of perverse influence.  Keep dreaming Myrkul.   
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM
January 04, 2013, 11:12:16 PM
3.  At this point, most children and most schools.  If they change, they are still getting the same type of schooling so there is not escape unless you have money for a private boarding school.  Most parents are two busy running around to make one or two incomes provide for their family to even be that involved with their childs schooling.  Its tough out there. 

Why do you continually point at the failures of the current system in an attempt to refute the one we advocate?

I point these things out because they would persist in both systems.

Except they wouldn't. When all schools are private, they will be affordable, and teach the curriculum the parents want taught, not some wealthy businessman (unless, of course, the parents agree with said businessman). I can explain why these things would be true, but it can be best summed up by this statement: Even the poorest people in America can afford a color TV and a cell phone.
Pages:
Jump to: