Here's the breakdown of your results

Conservatives 25.00%
Lib Dems 25.00%
UKIP 50.00%


This election reminds me of the phrase "no matter who wins, we lose" (c) Bush vs Kerry 2004.
Considering that realistically no party outside the big two has enough status or promotional capital or major representation to have a chance to challenge (sorry, Lib Dems c: ). Also Green Party, UKIP and BNP are there just for comic relief anyway. Cant really asociate myself either with Labour or Conservative. General concensus in my office is "lets vote for Labour cos they know what they are doing. And Cameron is evil and unexpected which i turbolol at.

I will not vote. Cos if i did go, only to vote for "Against All" cos all suck ballz. Or i could vote for the most retarded party just for comic appeal.

do they pay parties money for each vote they get in the uk?

I don't believe they do, just the majority-winning party gets their Leader into prime minister's candidate.

If parties paid voters to pay for them, i would actually vote for Jamerio National Party of Wales if i had to.

edit: I think ima register and vote for COOLLER. Or at least the Communist party which is the closest thing.

Well, I always did think people should get paid maybe 5 or 10€ just for showing up and voting.
At least then I would have some more motivation to actually go.

So far in Germany parties only pay back to people or companies who donated money to them. Via tax reductions, etc.

I think it would create chaos, as the people who have no interest in politics or even know any of the parties' issues or portfolios would just vote for "household" names as they only showed up for the extra money they can spend on a few beers.

You wouldn't let a random chav on a bus draft up a major business contract. Or perform brain surgery. So why let them decide a political future of a country. (couldnt find a more subtle comparison, sorry :D)

uhm, yes, but if the parties fail to attract the voters then that has to have some reason as well.
Anyway, I always had the feeling that certain groups are more likely to go to a vote than others.
E.g. retired people, or simply those that are smart enough to figure out that one single vote hasn't ever changed an election with many voters (say 1000000 votes and more)
for me the last one is the reason why I see zero benefit in getting of my ass to vote on a sunday. But if you take 10000 people just like me it does make a difference.


The other half of your post is pretty much against democracy as a whole, but I guess you know that.

How far do you need to go to cast a vote?

I have to go round the corner :P

5 minutes by foot, plus waiting in line.

And don't forget having to put outside clothes on :P

it's weird really. when i was 16 i was literally looking forward to vote. i even volunteered as a helper and shit.

now that i'm old and sarcastic i just don't care anymore. also they forced me to walk 10mins last year. hope they change their minds and let me vote IN THE FUCKING SCHOOL RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET. this year. wankers.

.

got me 50€ and cake the whole day, so nP~.

I guess he meant "want" rather than "let"?

That's why voting isn't compulsory and you can't pay people to vote in the UK so that only people who either care or understand the issues vote.

I can tell you that the concept of figuring stuff out didn't work so well for ~30% of the people in Germany in the 30s :(

Agreed on first part of your post regarding the number.

However, i meat my "anti-democratic" sentence to be against "forced" democracy where the only factor for someone to show up being given a crispy banknote and no care for who they are voting for. That does defy freedom of choice as it makes you vote with no prior intention to do so. I guess that was a wrong way to put a finishing statement on my argument. Any1 should be allowed to vote on their own free will, don't get me wrong on that. As long as it's their own free will.

ok, it does make more sense, now

As if the UK could afford that :)

Also it benefits the Conservatives and Labour if people don't vote anyway so they'll never implement anything to get people voting (or a fairer voting system).

I don't understand the concept behind being paid to vote. Instead we should be grateful that there is even a democratic process for us to be involved in. Money is irrelevant to the ballot box, or should be

In the current situation in a big vote, my single vote is irrelevant to the ballot box even though it shouldn't be.
If I convince 100 people with an opinon like mine to vote I might make a difference. But even then it won't make a difference if I go myself or not.

My results. In my defence the BNP do have damn good policies regarding health care, but they're consistent as ever with their reprehensible policies on literally everything else

* BNP 44.44%
* Labour 33.33%
* Green Party 11.11%
* UKIP 11.11%


If the BNP weren't such racist cunts id probably vote for them..

But again, i won't be voting.

Also, great site, i'm totally clueless when it comes to the election.

Post the link to your results. I'd agree BNP are fine on healthcare but 44% agreement is a big number :x

U ONE DEM EE-MEE-GRANTZ AINT U BOYY?

BUBBA, CUZIN EARL, GRAB HIS HANDS AND FEET. YEEE-HAAAAAW.

DEY DUN TUUK ARR JAARBS

Page has gone (private browsing at work ftw or lose in this case)

Maybe i should vote Labour :|

eh... http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/survey/results/4BB210D27954B

Here's the breakdown of your results
Green Party
80.00%
Lib Dems
20.00%

i'm pretty sure i wouldn't want to vote for any of the parties involved in this election.

would you vote for the parties suggested over here?

as in: would i vote for the greens over here? no, i wouldn't.

i took a similar but more complex 'test' during our last two elections which gave different results for me. i'm unsure how comparable the green parties are though, for example.

worst shit hole in europe

[+] not cos what you said, but due to rarest reverse-Poland flag I have seen. I tip my hat to you Sir

do not insult europe

http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/survey/results/4BB219563E3D0

skimmed through it. lot of terms i'm not familiar with and i cba to look it up.

http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/survey/results/4BB138F5A0485

Funny though, I thought the Conservatives were planning on copying the Swedes with the parent setup/run schools or whatever it is.

No way I'd support that in a million years.

I dont think Ive ever heard of a parent run school in Sweden, its pretty common for pre-schools though, ages 1-5. They dont really differ compared to regular pre-schools though, more like parents do chores to cut costs so there can be more teachers per capita.

The private school system is a fucking joke though, meet segregation creater #1 :)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educatio...to-UK.html

In the UK they always say they are setup by parents. We already have private so it's a bit different.

IES and Kunskapsskolan sounds like corporations thats in it to make money rather than concerned parents setting up their own school.

Dont know how it is in other countries but the private school system has really raped the public one in Sweden. Retarded/concerned parents sends their kids to schools whose only purpose is to make money - thats all well and good I suppose, their loss etc. The problem is that each city/state/dont know the word in english have to guarantee room for every pupil living in the area, so they pay rent for children that bring no money to the school = lower quality etc, bah, Im off topic I guess, and I could talk about this BS all day, but, time to cook dinner, gl hf @ elections ;)

Well, there was some documentary about them on BBC/CH4 (Don't remember which) and from what I gathered it sounded like parents could petition to create a "free school" and send their child there with the state funding, as opposed to finding a private school and paying.

Anyway the documentary said that after 10 years (or something) of these free schools standards hadn't been raised at all, it may have even been worse but don't quote me on that.

Anyway, it's a good sounding idea, parents like the idea of choosing a better school obviously and it promotes the private sector... so the Conservatives in all their wisdom picked up the idea and have promoted it as raising standards even though they don't!

If it was about Sweden then yes, the quality have not been raised at all since they started allowing that, its the opposite really, and its gonna get worse before it gets better.

ini is an admin too? so both drew and aaron are admins of some sort? way2 takeover!

all heil us regular users though

aaron is gone, get over it already!

he'll always have a place in my heart.

was on irc less than 2 weeks ago, so much for gone

also hadn't really noticed 8<

\o/

I'm a libertarian, but I voted all the options which sounded most attractive, despite of their unrealistic possibility

http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/survey/results/4BB225D2814D9

If I were a brit I would probably vote tories, there's no point of voting outside the two, and Cameron destroys Brown

25%
25%
25%
25%

looks like i know who i'm voting for!

cba with that shit but will probably vote lib dem

if i can be arsed

Get rid of Brown for me drew!

Think my area is a safe Labour at the moment :(

the country will go bankrupt and people will lose all their rights either way. you just vote who gets to steal the last good bits

May as well vote BNP then eh?

do it.

Can't wait to bomb Wales and be called the good guys afterwards :P

if you really hate the poles

.

Slough isn't London.

.

nowaibrah

I'll just be voting on whoever has the best policies for my area. To be honest, it'll probably be Labour or Lib Dem. I hate David Cameron with a passion. Has a face I just want to punch repeatedly and can't stand Green, UKIP or BNP

.

elections usually end up with 30% of people voting. everyone else has better things to do. and britain is full of criminals and dont want to go on the public electoral registar list

I don't vote actually, what's the point, they are all failures in making a country I want and by the time I'm 40 I'm going to be too rich to care anyway.

They all think they have the answers and none of them do.
At best its a small tempoary shift in annoyances.

The damage has already been done and its impossible to repair witout a major shift in attitude and if that gets done the people who try to do it will be called racists or dictators or someting.

The best solution is to get rich and buy yourself a first class ticket while the common man flounders.

In the meantime, bitch about it on the net so you have the luxury of saying "I told you so" in 20 years time.

Getting rich and elevating yourself so the problems of common people don't get you down is the only solution, if you're unskilled and average then have fun sleeping in poop all your life and being part of a notably failing society.

that's why I'm not really bothered and its the failed leadership of that country that has made me and other people that way.

Like i said, you fill a country full of immigrants, make it profitable for losers to get through life doing nothing and your country will fall apart. And I'm sure there are still dumb fucks in think tanks with a degree from oxford scratching their puny heads and wondering why this is the case.

Britain sucks, my only comfort is, most other countries suck more.

"Keep your mind on your riches baby, keep your mind on your riches!"

good luck with that

money is the answer to everything.

Not everything, but most things.

Love & health are free and down to fate/luck.

sad thing is that you won't get any of it. (well, health maybe. but hopefully not.)

jamerio is so poor he can't afford to pay attention

Good luck winning the lottery!

I don't do the lottery, I'll be rich through..

Hard Work
Dedication.
Talent.
Vision.
Never Giving up.

You can't teach those traits.

The common man will see such people as egotistical, or whatever, but that's just their way of dealing with their normality.

Why else do people say things like "if someone has a nice car they have a small penis"?

It revolves around trying to project that persons own insecurities/failure onto someone else and boy are there enough nobodies in this world to do that.

If I ever go all little hosue on the prairie I'll let you know.

you're so stupid, it hurts my balls. why do you have to ruin every thread, mate?

I bet everytime you see someone in a nice car you say he has a small penis too.

Congratulations on being average.

Not everybody cares about cocks as much as you do.

It's a typical sign of someone with a tiny penis.

oooft good one

jamerio is so poor he can't afford to pay attention

Hard Work
Dedication.
Talent.
Vision.
Never Giving up.


The same traits that make a great troll.

I love the irony of being called a troll on a gaming site.

This is exactly what I'm referring to:)

Wasn't calling you a troll.

Infact i agree with most of your post :P

Apart from saying :

Hard Work
Dedication.
Never Giving up.

can never be taught.. These are all things are learned during childhood and how you are raised.

Infact, they are things everyone can do given the motivation to reach a goal. Some people just don't have goals.

Also, everybody has a talent, they just haven't found it yet. (unless they have, then well done)

Talent is just Knowledge+Experience.

Well yes and no..

I would say Talent can be acheived in anything given enough time/experiance/motivation but some people are "naturally" talented, eg quick to learn and master.

So talent is just intelligence?

depending on what you look at it can also be physical traits.

That's more advantage than talent though, no?

I guess that depends on what you see as "talent"

For example, a good feel of balance can be a physical trait, but all an average person will see is a telented high wire artist.

That's because people don't want to believe someone trained and put the effort in to have excellent balance.

Why can they do that but not me?
Talent.

Of course you can train it, but you can also be born with a better balance than others. Yes it is an advantage. But if you look at two babies one balancing on one foot while the other keeps falling, many people will call it "talent". That's what I wanted to say.

To put it differently, a physical advantage that can't be easily seen, unlike height for example, often gets called "talent".

When did they start the baby tight-rope competitions?

Chinese sports centers.

I wanna plus this again :(

No..

If you think of a sporting talent, like being good at football for example. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to knock a bag of wind around but you can be naturally talented at it.

Like you said to becks, maybe its just a physical/genetic? advantage.

so being a football is a sporting talent? being kicked around a lot as a child is the same thing is being talented at football? sounds like jamerio-logic to me

rofl, being a football :D

/ninja edit

I bet he would even claim a world title after being used in the final.

Being good at football is intelligence. It's just not language intelligence or maths intelligence.

Nobody is born good at football. Occasionally you get a guy who is the size of Koller or Crouch whose height genuinely gives them an advantage but for the most part it's intelligence, knowledge and experience.

Messi can dribble the way he does because he learnt how to keep close control of the ball and practiced it. Fabregas can spot and make a pass because he learnt how to and practiced it.

Ok, you've got a point..

also: what becks said.

jamerio is so poor he can't afford to pay attention

Hard Work
Dedication.
Talent.
Vision.
Never Giving up.


And yet we've yet to see any success.

You can't teach those traits.

Yes you can.

obama rules

I'm gonna give you "vision" and never "giving up."

Unfortunately, those are also the traits that mark big failures.

no intelligence, no education, lame personality

It revolves around trying to project that persons own insecurities/failure onto someone else

it must take a special sort of insercurity for you to feel the need to do this on random internet forums amirite?

the state of your gutter dwelling existence is of such amusement to me i honestly hope you continue posting here :D

I'm sorry I struck a nerve & said you were a disappointment to your parents, I'm sure they always dreamed of producing what you became.

See how I say one thing but you just know I mean something else (and worse still you know its actually true don't you)?

Your posts are a 1000 times more transparent.
The only difference is you don't seem to realise it yet.

Why would I stop posting? Someone has to balance out your nightmare.

jamerio is so poor he can't afford to pay attention

jamerio is so poor he can't afford to pay attention

wait you told me i was a stupid wanderer for leaving that failure of a country and there you are harping on about buying a first class ticket out of there? aight

T_T

Stupid reptile wanderer

I think he is dreaming of collecting enough wealth to be able to move to canada.

Something none of us would ever be able to achieve!

jamerio is so poor he can't afford to pay attention

are you kidding me? on the economy page there almost wasnt a single good point for any of the 6 options. canceled the test after that bombshell

It's not a test.

yeah i know, it's shit

.

Probably for the best mate ;)

.

Their solutions for crime and education is to reintroduce violence...

.

What's the point in killing people?

It doesn't prevent people from committing crime anyway.

.

Yeah cause that wouldn't be an infringement of freedom ;)

And the death penalty wouldn't mean that much of a cost decrease if you're still having prisons. Because honestly, how many people would get it? We're talking murder, rape etc and that's not exactly filling up the prisons. More like drugs, theft, violence and other 'petty' crimes are filling up these prisons, so whilst it'd sure cut costs, it wouldn't be by much, and it's not exactly a deterrent anyway (if you're gonna kill someone, you're gonna kill them. You must have a reason or be fucked in the head to do it so either way, it's gonna happen).

.

Well, having a speed limit is there not to infringe your freedom, but moreso to not infringe someone's else's freedom as you plow through their skull at 90mph.

IUD's aint the answer to teenagers having kids. Information is. Prevention - Cure.
Decent sex education in schools would work, since most of the teenagers that are having kids have shit parents in the first place that don't explain the birds and the beezzzzz

I for one am undecided on the capital punishment area because (whether people like it or not), people can get it wrong and the wrongly accused is fucked. However, for the ones that are proven (without any doubt), then go for it. Get rid of them. Green Mile 'n all that.

.

Oh God really?!

So you're suggesting that the speed limits are there purely to edit your choice on whether you run someone over or not?! You don't have a freedom of choice to kill someone else, purposefully or not. If you did, what would be the point in capital punishment?

and I'm not talking about financially deprived households. I'm talking about any class. Having implants forced upon you is the stupidest thing I've ever heard and it nears on Fascism.

If anyone out there purposefully has a child to get on benefits and live in a flat thinking they'll be living the easy life, then they're retarded and they need to have information first hand about why it's a stupid idea, not implants and selections to find if they're worthy of having children.

.

You should need to pass some kind of "Parental fitness test" in order to raise and keep a child (Adoption/Foster care if not).

If you can't pass the training course, have serious mental problems or are simply economically unable to raise a child you shouldn't be allowed to (Right to see the child, sure, but not raise).

This may infringe on peoples freedoms, but everything in civilisation infringes on peoples freedoms. The whole point of civilisation is creating a better society to live in, a safer, healthier, comfortable society.

.

The problem isn't people having children, it's people aren't raising their children correctly.

Ideally you wouldn't need to take any children away from parents but currently the assumption is that parents are capable rather than having to prove they are.

Most parents are perfectly capable, however, one bad parent creates one bad child and it causes all sorts of problems and corrupts other children with good parents.

You put them in foster care until the parent(s) proves they are capable of raising the child themselves but allow access in the mean time.

lol, no offence but putting the child in foster care until the parents have proved have proved themselves is a sick idea. I may have misunderstood, but the entire suggestion is stupid :) you cant really corrupt a child thats a couple of months old. So a better solution would be to monitor new parents, but how in the hell would you do that?

Anyway, what kind of test would detect if a parent would beat his child? How could you tell if a couple would stick together once they have the child? Or that one wont die and the other lose its job etc?

People arent just digits in some statistic, children needs loving parents and parents need their children. Helping parents that cant handle the situation is a much better solution, wether it is economically or if its other problems. However, abusive parents is another matter, beating your child or any other maltreatment is of course never in any way ok.

If someone suggested above that people have babies to collect welfare and hope to somehow make money out of the baby, I can only assume that the people doing such a thing, if they exist, is as stupid or even stupider than the person that suggested they exist. Ok now Ill prepare dinner.

They already remove children from poor parents and put them in foster care, it's just they wait until the damage has been done and proven (Violence, neglect) but often it goes unnoticed.

You can't corrupt a child who is a few months old, no but you can cause it harm and you can stunt a childs learning over the first few years. Then you can cause even more damage through neglect, lack of discipline and an indifference to education.

You can't monitor new parents, it's far too large scale, so you make them pass a knowledge and practical based test either before or during pregnancy. Check they have no dangerous medical conditions and check they are financially capable.

Most people would pass the test because you'd teach them first, most people aren't mentally ill and most people are financially capable (and there is child support money anyway).

It wasn't a suggestion for some kind of PhD Physics type thing, but so many people just don't know the basics of raising a child and their children grow up not knowing or having an example and it just gets worse and worse.

By all means educate parents, I wouldnt have minded some sort of education to prepare me for what was to come myself. But I dont see how a test could distinguish between those who are child molesters or not, or those who will beat the child.

Sure though, if there were a way to prevent drug abusers from having children, at least until they were positively off whatever addiction they had or whatnot then I would be for it too. But putting children in foster care because the parents are poor is probably the worst solution possible. Look at the world today, how many people losing their jobs would be deemed unfit when all they really need is help in one way or another to function.

Neglect is of course a serious issue too, but how do you decide whats neglect, is a single mother working two jobs neglectful because she rarely sees her children?

Anyway, dird and jamerio would never be allowed to reproduce so I guess that their suggestion wouldnt be all bad.

Obviously you wouldn't find everyone and unlikely any child molesters but I actually do think you could reduce violence. Violent people really aren't stable.

You'd also be able to prevent people who have bad drink/drug habits or smokers etc from having children, as you just know some people must be doing these things during pregnancy.

I know it sounds terrible but, people or society need to take responsibility here. If someone is incapable of supporting themselves effectively they shouldn't be having children.

You need to offer some support of course but you can't simply provide 18 years of pure economic freedom for every woman who can't support themselves.

I think you are judging my point of view in a rather harsh/extreme way when I haven't outlined at all (don't have the knowledge to either :P) what levels would force foster care.

I think as a society we are hugely neglecting the well being of children purely because of the "freedom" and the over importance we give to biological parents. Plenty of adopted parents out there prove that it's not important and that good parenting is.

Id agree with somehow restricting people that has an addiction one way or another if it was possible.

You might be able to find a few bad people/parents, and that would obviously be good. But I think that in most cases, you cant compare the pre child situation with the one ones you have a child. Personally, I havent really had a good nights sleep in a year, the added pressure and the removal of any spare time is probably enough to push otherwise stable people over the edge.

Anyway, like you said, you havent said which cases would equal foster care, and obviously there are cases where it would be best.

However, my point is that in most cases help is the answer. Not necessarily monitary help, but rather different kind of support.

Well, the system would start with help through education. I'd imagine once taught, most people would pass and most people can provide economically for small families (1/2 kids).

I don't think the situation is all that bad, it's just clearly a lot of parents over here are clueless, some manage to make a good job of it anyway but some make a terrible job as their children grow up they influence other children.

You see good kids fall into bad groups all the time.

.

"Uncapables" lol

Just no. It's fascism and it would never work. Stupidest idea I've ever heard to force people to have implants.

If you know of a better way to stop the mongs from reproducing then enlighten me.

You need a license to drive a car, but any fool or failure can have a series of kids and dump a massive drain of resources on the the tax payer (and often do).

The only way to do that is by some kind of implant at birth.

It would stop child births.
It would stop dysfunctional people having children.
It would make the world a better place if all kids were born AFTER a series of checkpoints have been made.
JOB:STABLE RELATIONSHIP:INCOME:NO DRINK OR DRUG HABBITS. You know basic things which ensure the best possible chance.

For fucks sake you can't buy a dog from the RSPCA these days without them coming round your home and checking its suitable and you are a suitable owner.

Yet you can bring a child into the world no matter who you are.
A drug addict, an alcoholic, no means to support it.

Its a joke and that's why there are so many problems.

Democracy among failures is a recipe for disaster and there are plenty of such people in the world.

Implants aren't a practical solution though.

.

Er, you think it's a good idea to implant a BABY?

Are you stupid?

Screw it, lets just manufacture babies in factories like The Matrix. Fuck romance or anything like that. It's all about controlling the human race.

:D

I don't see the point in preventing people from reproducing, just make sure they are fit to raise a kid or take it away before they have a chance to fuck up in the first place :S

Overpopulation is a problem though, but "killing" off the elderly is surely a better solution.

That's what social services are for aint it? :P

Yes, but they only seem to drop in at the last second usually when a kid is fucked for life.

If its acceptable to cut a childs forskin at birth I think its acceptable to put protocols in place to ensure a better world and for the future children.

Bad parenting is almost like a cancer these days there are literally millions of people in this world who were born with a doomed life becaues of their parents and their upbringing and more often than not, they go onto produce equally dysfunctional kids. Go to any council estate, you won't need to look far for such a family.

Implants aren't some magic bullet, they would harm the child.

Is it acceptable to cut a childs foreskin? I don't think it is and the quicker it's made illegal (except in a case where it may be medically required obviously).

There are plenty of ways to do it.

Its ok that kids are taken to the dentist against their will.
Or injected with needles agains theit will.

Yet a simple, reversable procedure at birth that will produce a better, safer society for the world to live in is not a good idea?

You're wrong. It would work and it would work very well.

The GVT is way too stupid and left wing to ever do things that work anyway, making real changes would be a disaster for thier polls, but most people don't know what is best for them.

Not to be too harsh here (but screw it I'm going to anyway), you're about the most dysfunctional, delusional spaz out there, so are you saying implants are a deterrent of future Jamerios? In which case, you might just have won me over to the idea

You wouldn't say it to my face, so quit acting tough behind the keyboard and I'm guessing I did a lot more than you by 21.

Call it a hunch. Nobody knows who the fuck you are. Go away.

Everyone knows who you are though. The delusional fool who makes up wild claims about himself but has no evidence to back it up.

It's irrelevant what I've done by 21 because I don't bang on about it to everyone. If you're going to make silly claims that you're the best 'general gamer' (lol), that you've got 3 businesses and that you've traveled to almost every continent, a little proof wouldn't be bad ;)

You don't really do yourself any favours when you say things like I'm delusionsal because I worked with games.

You're the deluded one. The beauty of being deluded is you just don't know it yet so at least you've been afforded the comfort of ignorance.

My comfort is so many of you have dumped it all over the internet :). Humility is a wonderful thing.

Still waiting for this evidence. Guess this shit never happened.

jamerio is so poor he can't afford to pay attention

jamerio is so poor he can't afford to pay attention

I'm not part of your shitty little "pics or it didn't happen" culture.

Its why you are the way you are.

jamerio is so poor he can't afford to pay attention

.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iud

How on earth could you consider this a wise decision in a baby?

.

If you know of a better way to stop the mongs from reproducing then enlighten me.

Like I said, information and education on the situation. If having ID cards is an infringement of freedom then being forced to change your body certainly is...

I'm hoping you guys are trolling or something, because only a retard would want it so that someone else should have the choice to do what they want with your body. If it were up to many of you, we'd be living in a bubble wrapped society with security cameras everywhere (oh wait, hang on...)

.

And with information and education we wouldn't have as much crime that would resort to needing security cameras :)

Interesting that you directly link pregnancy to crime...

.

we dont have facist implants or cameras everywhere here, and we still live. go figure?

Lol. I love how you tried to take over the world less than 90 years ago then a few decades later act like butter wouldn't mealt in your mouth.

When someone gets their ass beat they shut up for a while, Germany is still in that phase.

actually we're not. good job playing the history card too, I'm not surprised you're so backwards and living in the past.

I play the history card?
Maybe you just say that to stop me from talking about it?

Its a well known fact that your countries history syllabus is a joke compared to the rest of europe.

Did you really think the powers that be in germany would paint themselves as the bastards of the 20th century in a bid to reform?

Go to china and see how much you learn there in a history lesson about tiananmen square "tank man" one of the most powerful chain of events in the alast 100 yrs, yet not welcome thre.

Why?
Because it makes them look bad, Germany did the same thing and you're a victim of that.

Rofl, once again making a fool out of yourself with pinpoint accuracy.

Once again you imply so much without saying so little.
Your counter points are non existent. You just want to deny it, partly because you're german and because its me.

It's funny how the 3 people denying it without a single counter point are all german to. Ignorance is bliss guys, did you really think your country was going to demonise its school children while it was trying to recover?

If you had half a brain you would realize that three Germans call you a moron, because they actually know the German syllabus.

Unlike you and most other people who are not from Germany.

And it is very apparant that you don't have a clue about how the holocaust is handled in German school by what you write. For you information: The average German schoolkid runs into that topic three times:

In German class a related book such as Anne Frank or others is read. And then everything is covered in history class in different years, 8th and 11th grade for example. Also many classes take field trips to sites of former Konzentration camps.

You comparison to the Tianamen massacre is also completely retarded, and shows a lot about you level of intelligence, because:
a) all information about the Holocaust are freely available in Germany, and we have lots of Museums covering it
b) the only books about the topic which can get banned are those denying the holocaust, thus the opposite of what you claim is actually true
c) The Chinese system which is curently in place is the same that was in place during the massacre, while the German system is not the Weimar republic or the Third Reich and has directly distanced itself from those systems.
d) Probably most of the current Chinese leaders already held a positionduring the massacre, while most of our current leaders were not even born before the end of WWII.



And most importantly, if you had enjoyed the same education on German history as we did you would have learned how the entire holocaust was started.

In short:
By a world-wide financial crisis that caused peolpe to lose their job. The political parites stating blaming a minority and through that gained voters. That minority back then were of course the Jews.

And here you are a moron far too ready to blame minorites in your country for everything that goes wrong.
Thus: I can say without a doubt that you would have bee among the roughly 30% who voted for Hitler in 1933.

hahahahah

lllllllllllllllllllllllol keep it up :D

that's Jamerio for you.

jamerio is so poor he can't afford to pay attention

your a nazi and a hypocrit.

you hate bureaucrats but would want them to control the most basic of behaviors.

its funny you and dird both arguing for implants to prevent scum having kids without realising that you both probably wouldnt be here if such a thing did actually happen :P

Nor would either be allowed to reproduce :)

child birth is a good thing you know..

don't know how it is in britain, but in germany the amount of newborns is way too low.

...still the mind of a 12 year old :D

are you quoting adolf hitler?

Err yes it is does. I don't agree on killing people so much, but stiffer sentences are needed.

Many of the people who do crimes lead such bad lives the proepect of jail isn't enough.

If there is isn't a sufficient gap between crime and punishment you'll always have problems and if and when that does not stop, then like I said its time to start looking at things from a genetic level. At lest if you really wnated to make a reak change that works.

It's a pity you seem incapable of distinguishing vague sounding appealing nonsense (the non-racist BNP policies) which mainly boil down to 'we will make stuff better!' from actual policies that give some indication of what will be done.

.

fucking hell please never EVER vote

Here's the breakdown of your results

* Conservatives 25.00%
* Lib Dems 25.00%
* Labour 25.00%
* UKIP 25.00%

Thanks for the help... Made it alot clearer... REALLY.
[/sarcasm]


edit: okay did it again and it came up with this:
Here's the breakdown of your results
* BNP 50.00%
* Green Party 50.00%

Which is rather disappointing because I hate them both, but I suspect that it was because I used different options. I expect the BNP parts came from the ID cards and welfare with GP stuff coming from energy efficiency and education

.

I'm not trying to save the planet, I'm trying to find cheaper more efficient energy. Don't see what's wrong with that.

the bad thing about political environmentalists is that they are all for banning nuclear energie as a power source.

at the risk of sounding like jamerio:

being against nuclear energie is a polular stunt by politicians since 15 years or so, it gets you the sure vote of uneducated hippies.

in germany, it even goes so far as that research in that field is forbidden.

banning the construction of new nuclear powerplants will only cause one thing: they will be built in bulgaria, romania or other easter european countries. and tbh i'd rather have one of those things next door than over there...

Other reasons to care about the environment than climate change:

- Potentially more efficient and longer lasting energy supplies
- Nicer environment to live in
- Pollution free air, water, food et cetera

If you can't spot the fucking BNP on every single one of those topics you should be shot, honestly.

I don't know what you're talking about..

Re-introduce corporal punishment for petty criminals and vandals.

Restore capital punishment for paedophiles, terrorists and murderers as an option for judges in cases where their guilt is proven beyond dispute (such as with DNA or other compelling evidence).

Abolish the "Human Rights Act" which has been imposed on this country through the European Union, and which is nothing but an excuse to prevent British laws stopping the scroungers of the world parasiting off this nation.

Abolish "anti-discrimination" laws which prevent people from making a free choice.

Offer generous grants to those of foreign descent resident here who wish to leave permanently.

Capital punishment suggestion is always good, but this is my all time favourite:

"Abolish "anti-discrimination" laws which prevent people from making a free choice"

How dare anyone legislate against employers rejecting job candidates based on ethnicity? If you disagree you're anti-freedom. How could u be against freedom to choose?? Don't oppress me bro

I know you're being sarcastic, but you're actually correct. If you disagree you are most definitely anti-freedom, at least in that one area.

Freedom is anti-freedom so it's pretty irrelevant.

Freedom is anti-freedom? What kind of doublethink is that?

You can't be totally free, it's impossible. You'll always be imposing some form of anti-freedom stance on others.

On another note, civilisation is by nature anti-freedom.

Anti-discrimination laws (specifically the example I gave above) are about as anti-freedom as resisting an attempted assault/battery. "Freedom" brings responsibility (especially ethical) and u can't be "free" when u have that. You wouldn't consider rejection as being legitimate if the reasoning was "sorry u didn't get the opportunity/position 'cos I don't like your face"

LMAO freedom brings responsibility. Go back to sleep slave boy.

Assault is a crime under natural law. It's called the non-aggression principle and it doesn't need to be written down, it's just an emergent property of human nature. Anti-discrimination laws are just words on a piece of paper that derive their authority from nowhere.

Deciding not to hire somebody for whatever reason you choose is not the same thing as beating somebody up. You have ZERO ethical responsibility to hire anybody, unless you're a fucking slave.

how do you punish crimes without diminishing the culprit's freedom in some way?

Didn't you read, violence is a crime under natural law, thus nature punishes violence by doing... nothing.

Not by nothing. Defence against violence is legitimate. Initiating violence against somebody who wont give you a job, for whatever reason, makes you the violent aggressor. Or it makes the state the aggressor, if the people have supposedly collectively deferred their 'right' to initiate violence against their discriminators to politicians through a democratic process.

But obviously democracy is bullshit too, because you can't legitimately defer rights to others that you don't even have yourself. Unless you believe in magic?

The only natural law is:

Power wins

So why is a group that has a monopoly on the use of force in a given geographical area desired? If ultimately power wins and that is a bad thing then we should try to dissolve power, not concentrate it into the hands of a few elites.

Ultimately defensive power wins over offensive power in a free society, just like how with free speech the rational ideas ultimately win over the irrational ideas. Hopefully we can all recognise that you don't need legislation against retarded ideas for a society to make progress?

People are on the most part rational and moral by nature, and so the irrational and immoral are swamped away into virtual oblivion over the course of time, unless the odds are stacked in their favour.

It's not desired, it's just how things are and how things will need to work until a time when technology emancipates people from labour. A process that's already begun but it's going to be a long hard road and will put many people into poverty and deprivation before things get better.

Simply aiming to remove power from complex systems is a sure fire way to reach degradation of society and return to primitivism, fine if you want that but personally I think it's worth the sacrifice for now.

Remove power and emancipate people gradually, as technology allows, is the key and then we will pass civilisation and enter some new form of society.

I will just assume you're talking about some sort of zeitgeist addendum utopia bullshit here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1JcUBx2dxU

No I'm not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTO1nculTJE

How would the private court get paid?

When I use the word freedom I don't mean freedom to aggress against others. I mean freedom FROM aggression by others. Self defence is legitimate.

First time I have heard that definition of freedom.

Why? It's the most common definition of freedom pertaining to the concept of liberty. I thought it would be obvious that when people speak of 'freedom' they don't mean you are free to murder people, and defence against aggression isn't generally considered an infringement of the aggressor's freedom.

it doesn't have to boil down to violence.

what about my freedom to walk wherever I want to versus the freedom of another person to reserve a spot of land for himself?

If you're wilfully infringing on somebody else's private property without their permission then you are 'aggressing' against him/her. But you're right that aggression doesn't always boil down to physical violence. To take another example, if a slave conforms to his master's wishes because he fears being beaten, it's still 'aggression' even if no violence actually occurs.

you misunderstood.

why does he get the freedom to hold property and why don't the rest of us get the freedom to walk on it.
At some point a decsion has been made to sacrifice one freedom for the other, because they contradict each other.

Because he/she appropriated the land for their own use, so that makes it their property. I'll just quote John Locke:

"Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it that excludes the common right of other men. For this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to. . . .

He that is nourished by the acorns he picked up under an oak, or the apples he gathered from the trees in the wood, has certainly appropriated them to himself. Nobody can deny but the nourishment is his. I ask then when did they begin to be his? . . . And ‘tis plain, if the first gathering made them not his, nothing else could. That labour put a distinction between them and common. That added something to them more than nature, the common mother of all, had done: and so they become his private right. And will any one say he had no right to those acorns or apples he thus appropriated, because he had not the consent of all mankind to make them his? . . . If such a consent as that was necessary, man had starved, notwithstanding the plenty God had given him. We see in commons, which remain so by compact, that ‘tis the taking part of what is common, and removing it out of the state Nature leaves it in, which begins the property; without which the common is of no use."

aha, so he simply took the land.

In my opinion that can be seen as an aggression toward others who would also have like to own that land or just walk over it without owning it.
Keep in my there are tribes that do not have the concept of owning land.

Thus having the concept of property in a society means taking away one freedom to grant another.

Well he got there first and mixed his labour with it. That makes it his.

Of course, there should also be more than enough land to go around, but this isn't the case because all of the land was taken by monarchs and such 'rulers' illegitimately centuries ago (or even millennia ago?), merely by pointing to vast acres, entire islands and even continents and proclaiming 'that's mine'.

So not by mixing it with their labour, but because they have 'divine right' to it or some such nonsense. This results in serfdom, and so we must ultimately rent land from others who 'acquired' it unjustly, because we have no other choice. So this I would agree is a form of exploitation.

But ultimately there is no exploitation by me if I build a house on common land and then prevent you from walking around on it because you think it somehow should belong to you instead.

You might be be interested in reading about georgism too if you find this topic engaging. He's more on your side.

This isn't really about taking sides.

Not matter if it it legitimate or not, peoples freedoms get reduced if some claims a property.
Before you can walk there, afterwards you can't. It is as simple as that.

Again though it's not freedom to aggress, it's freedom from aggression. I am not aggressing against you by stopping you from walking around in my home without permission, or from taking my stuff. On the contrary, you are aggressing against me. So I'm not reducing your 'freedom' if we are simply talking about freedom in the way I have defined it.

as far as I understood it we were discussing your definition of freedom, as I think it is wrong.

Freedom in my eyes is the opposite of being restricted.

Also, imagine this:
You have a house near the sea with a beautiful view, over a wild meadow towards the sea. Then someone starts cultivating that meadow, and afterwards starts to build a house. And through that effectively blocking your view towards the sea.
Or as a slight variation, that meadow was the only access to a wonderful beach, and now you are prohibited from walking there.

is that really no aggression at all?

Oh and since you consider the concept of property as being invalid I'll be round your house this weekend to take some of your stuff. I'm sure you'll have something in your possession that I'd quite like to use for myself too.

If you fight to keep it then I'd consider that an aggression against me who would also like to own some of your stuff, or just throw it around a bit without owning it.

way to misunderstand.

I was discussing the concept of property in relation to freedom. That our society at some point decided the freedom of owning property is worth than the freedom of others to access and use that property. As it is not a concept all humans are born with (hence the trbies example)

I never discussed the sense of legitimacy of that decision.

As it is not a concept all humans are born with (hence the trbies example)

Of course it is. Even a two year old can understand aggression when it relates to other people taking their toys.

I just think you're being nit-picky now so I'll stop here. I enjoyed the discussion with you though. Again I think you should read about left-libertarianism because I genuinely believe you'll find it interesting. There is a somewhat legitimate schism between different forms of libertarianism that basically boil down to property and how it relates to land ownership. None of them are big government advocates though.

In addition, if the crime has already occurred then attempting to recoup your losses from the culprit by means of force is also legitimate. In case you were wondering.

I smell teen angst.
"You have ZERO ethical responsibility to hire anybody" - I didn't say that employers have an ethical responsibility to hire anybody. They have an ethical responsibility to not discriminate on matters which are not relevant to the job or the workplace. Are u saying it's fine to discriminate on race? I really want u to answer this question even if u sort of have already.

"Assault is a crime under natural law" - Natural law? You mean like the laws of motion? What's natural law and from where do u derive it? The Bible? The Quran? From Aristotle? What's natural about the idea that your face is off limits from any impending baseball bat? If you have "certain inalienable rights" it's not because of something "out there" but because the idea is enforced. The only rights that you have are the rights u can protect, or that are protected on your behalf (law enforcement etc.) You might claim a right to life, but your claim is rendered empty and meaningless if some street thug killed u to get at your wallet

Are u saying it's fine to discriminate on race? I really want u to answer this question even if u sort of have already.

I think it's more a case of people having to be politically correct and having the token woman, ethnic and 'challenged' person at work, when really they could just have the best for the job (and if they happen to be all caucasian males, so be it)

It's "fine" from the perspective of personal freedom.

But don't worry, it's fine to be anti-freedom, civilisation is anti-freedom and is required to be that way to function. So long as that decision improves the way society functions it's fine.

Don't let the freedom worshiping morons control what you believe is right or wrong and don't try to justify everything you believe in as being for freedoms sake, it's worthless and ultimately plays into their hands.

I don't really understand your stance that civilisation is anti-freedom. I will go as far to say that governments are inherently anti-freedom, but states are not integral to civilisation or required for them to function. Infact they would function much better without. So could you explain?

Are you insane, what do you think civilisation is exactly?

What's your plan for a functioning civilised society that has no governance and no restrictions on freedom exactly?

Well it's not 'government', is it? Civilisation is towns, cities, agriculture. Anything that's not hunter-gatherer primitivism. Again could you explain how that is inherently 'anti-freedom' because I must confess I don't follow what you're saying.

For complex societies such as civilisations to work some freedoms have to be restricted for it to work effectively.

The evidence for this is that every civilisation has restricted freedoms. Nobody just arbitrarily restricts freedoms for the hell of it, they do it because they believe it helps. There's a lot of misguided and unhelpful restrictions sure, but some are required for the greater good.

When they are no longer needed society will be in such a radically new shape that it could no longer be called "civilisation".

I suppose you would argue in the middle ages that forced religion is for the greater good too, and secularism and elightenment philosophy would lead to bad things? Since the evidence from history shows that all cultures have had religion so it must be there for a legitimate reason, not just irrationality.

Memes are pretty powerful dude. The statism meme is no exception to this. Indeed it is telling that states were pretty much born out of religions. But I strongly believe we can outgrow the state.

No, because some things work and others don't, some make sense and others don't.

States were not born out of religions, don't be stupid.

Sure, we'll grow out of statism, but it will require technological advances to work.

I suppose you think states arose from a majority anarchic population who all mutually agreed one day that they must form a state, because there were SO many problems that couldn't be solved with freedom.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ByA6BMh6jU

Ok I'm done with this topic. I think I've made my point :) Have fun voting May 6 guys.

"Democracy is the suggestion box for slaves" - Stefan Molyneux

Er, so one site, that doesn't appear to have indications of a social hierarchy proves it works?

I don't see any proof that civilisation works without restricting freedom there or without governance.

In fact we have societies with governance (civilisations) and tribal hunter gatherer societies with no state but they aren't civilised so they're irrelevant.

Why does no in between exist if it works so well?

nobody said 'it works so well'? you're the one riding the tautology wave :S

"They have an ethical responsibility to not discriminate on matters which are not relevant to the job or the workplace"

Can you explain why? Just who is aggressing against whom in this scenario? Of course I don't think racism is legitimate, but it's not the same thing as aggression, obviously. I don't know how you can equate the two.

Being an arsehole isn't a crime, but it is a social faux pas and that's more than enough. Initiating violence against arseholes to stop them from being arseholes makes you an even bigger arsehole, besides it being completely unethical. And stealing from others to fund your aggressive acts makes you an uber arsehole.

If you're really concerned about freedom from aggression you should be railing against the state itself. Freedom doesn't bring responsibility to not be violent against others, it comes as a result of it. Humans are a social species and are naturally empathetic towards others. Natural law is the emergent property of that. You don't need a government to have law and order any more than the soviets needed their government to distribute food.

Except the human mind evolved in tribal societies which wouldn't ever top 150 people.

When the human mind comes up against thousands or millions of people it turns off that empathetic side of things for everyone bar his "tribe" of 150 people.

This is why you get more and more crime as you increase the population size.

I disagree. Are you saying that without the threat of government you would gladly murder and steal from everybody save for 150 of your closest friends? And would you be comfortable carrying that out personally (i.e. without the aid of state aggression)?

I thought about this a little further and I actually think you're right. People don't empathise with the vague, amorphous notion of a collective of people. It's just too abstract. We empathise with individuals, or at the most small enough groups of individuals for our brains to grasp. So it's not limited to 150 specific people in 'our tribe'. It's only limited to the concept of individuals. To deny this is to be a straight up sociopath.

So that's why it's even more important to understand that aggression can never actually be performed against a 'collective'. Collectives don't actually exist, they're just conceptual groups of individuals. The real way to think of it is as many individual acts of aggression against many individuals.

That's why it's so easy to be blind to the inherent aggression of governments. We don't tend to think of individual relationships between people and governments, we think of one big relationship between the state and a large collective we call 'the people'. It's far too abstract to feel any empathy.

If you think of it more personally it's far more difficult to lose that sense of empathy. I assume you like taxes and think that they go to good use for society. I happen to disagree. Would you be personally willing to use violence against me, a peaceful person, to force me to pay taxes against my wishes? Would you be willing to go as far as kill me stone dead if I resist you?

I presume this was the second response so I'll just respond to this one.

Firstly, no I'm not saying I would do any of those things, but other people, usually those in poverty, are willing.

I agree with the whole individuals thing but, don't forget the way people will ignore and walk past someone collapsed in a city street (Check out the documentary series "The Human Animal", one of the episodes has a good example of the difference between villages and cities).

I think taxes are good for civilisation, yes. Societies work better when there is less of a gap between the rich and poor, when everyone is well educated and everyone is healthy. Infrastructure is also a very important aspect of civilisation and it just wouldn't work without somehow restricting peoples freedoms.

The problem is, governments don't tax in a fair or clear way nor is it clear exactly where the money goes. It needs to be much simpler and totally transparent.

If you come up with a technological revolution causing the emancipation from work or live in a primitive state, then sure by all means pay no taxes. But it's important to remember that most of what is good in civilisation has been provided by some form of government intervention and taxing/spending.

It would work. Just because a state has a monopoly on certain things it is unfair to suggest that I am against those things or that those things wouldn't be provided by the market because I oppose the state.

The soviet union has a monopoly on shoe production because it was deemed too important to be left to private greedy companies. Would it be fair to say the state is therefore necessary for shoes to exist? As a matter of fact they didn't a pretty poor job and private companies are far more efficient and superior due to market forces.

The wealth gap is also a common misnomer. There is not a fixed amount of wealth in the world, so one person getting wealthier does not mean another is getting poorer. Also trade is not a zero sum game. When two parties trade, acting rationally free from force or fraud they are both wealthier as a result or they would not have done it. Viola wealth is created.

So some people are simply higher up the wealth ladder than others, but them being higher doesn't put you a lower rung in absolute terms. It just looks bad if you look at it in relative terms.

Some people are also climbing faster than others, but them climbing faster doesn't make you climb down the ladder or even climb up any slower. You're ultimately responsible for climbing the ladder yourself, though some charitable people may help you up if you're struggling which is of course good.

Consider also that the effect of economic equalisation, that is putting everybody on an equal rung of the ladder post facto, would actually make everybody worse off in reality. Even the poor. Everybody in society would be forced onto a much lower rung than they would otherwise be able to climb to on their own. It just sounds nice because everybody is 'equal'. The best way to eliminate poverty is through the free market.

But it's important to remember that most of what is good in civilisation has been provided by some form of government intervention and taxing/spending.

Fundamentally disagree. What is most good has come from voluntary interactions between free individuals. The government has only slowed that down because it is a parasite. Of course good parasites don't kill their hosts, but that doesn't make them good or necessary.

Because it doesn't work at this level of complexity.

Please explain how land development would work at a micro and macro level if left up to a purely free market.

Please explain how land ownership would work or make any sense.

If totally free market, private enterprise was such an efficient and successful system how comes the world moved away from it when it became civilised?

If it works so well, how comes every advanced society isn't a totally free market based society with no state?

Dude can you not see that me how me coming up with all the solutions to every little aspect of your society is an argument FOR a central planning? If I could design you a perfect society then you should just vote for me in May.

You sound just like a creationist who can't understand how complexity can emerge from the bottom up. No no, there must have been a designer!

Ah, the "I dunno but the state isn't required!!!" response, typical.

A state and partial free markets can and do exist, and they clearly work better. Do you really think that people would bother with inefficient things?

Why was slavery abolished, that fulfilled the supposed power trip right?

For your information I did talk about land ownership with becks if you scroll up. I just don't want to repeat it, especially not when your whole premise is flawed anyway.

If you can't personally explain to me how the dorsal fin could evolve, in excruciating detail on both macro and micro scales then obviously it must have been designed from the top down! *eye roll*

Yes people would 'bother' with inefficient things. Because of religion and irrationality, pervasive memes! I've already said this.

Slavery. Yeah of course because governments helped to free slaves. Yawn. Governments were helping catch slaves! If you have to fund the catching of slaves without offloading it to the general population through taxes it's simply impossible! Ugh. Only when the government stopped catching slaves was it abolished!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7R2Vwrwv_w

So your argument comes down to, "I don't know, it would just work".

You haven't even attempted to think how it might work or currently does and simply evade the issue with creationism implications.

I wasn't asking about property rights, I understand how that works and yeah it "works", but it doesn't improve things.

The point I was making about slavery wasn't about the state getting rid of slavery and thus it is good. I was saying that it's an example of how it's clearly not just a power trip to restrict peoples freedoms for the sake of it.

But feel free to keep throwing out the word meme and comparing everything to creationism logic for no reason.

You haven't even attempted to think how it might work or currently does

I like how you think you know this about me just because I'm not going to engage you with your flawed premises and loaded questions.

And instead of criticising me for supposedly not thinking about it why don't you go and fucking look it up for yourself you fucking retard. Then maybe I wont have to spend all night coaching you on every tiny detail relating to anarcho-capitalist philosophy, as if I'd even want to. Just type it into google if you really give a shit. But no, you have no inclination to actually learn and try to understand other philosophies. You just care about me being WRONG so that you are somehow automatically RIGHT!

Ah, the "I dunno but the state isn't required!!!" response, typical.

I also like how you pretend to have heard these arguments before when it is clearly the first time you've come across them. When in actuality I'm the one who has heard the same objections you're spouting enough times in one life to make me want to scream with frustration.

Yeah, you're the first guy on this site and the internet to ramble on with these "arguments".

If you want to argue a point you don't just say "Oh, it'll just emerge and work".

The Vatican makes money, people pay for it because it provides them with something they want no matter how worthless it actually is.

Free open spaces don't make money, someone would rather build something productive on it and own that land. For me, pure free markets don't do this well.

There's a world of difference between no-state and a totalitarian state that you just lump together as "statism".

How inefficient do you consider Vatican is? What a colossal waste of resources! So why oh why would people bother with inefficient things? Oh I wonder what it could possible be that contributes to this.

Sorry I linked to the wrong video.

Here is the one I was looking for. The latter half of it at least:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYWxflErVWk

Plymouth Plantation: So they had a governor...

Anyway, I'm not interested in property rights that isn't what I'm asking you to describe. How could you ensure essentially that shanty towns were not developed?

Or that you don't destroy diversity of uses, or that you have free open space?

Why are you asking me these weird questions? I'm just some random guy on the interwebs, not a city planner.

Exactly. Yet you say with such conviction that it would just work in an anarchic system.

So because I concede that I personally can't centrally plan an entire society down to the excruciating minutia that would satisfy you, we therefore need central planners to organise society because it couldn't spontaneously emerge. Such brilliant logic astounds me.

My question wasn't asking you to plan, it was to describe how it would work.

For example, the contract - arbiter situation does work under a free market, it's simple and obvious.

I'm not talking about centrally planning an entire society, city planning is already mostly free market they just need the permission of the government, to follow the government regulations for building standards.

Sometimes they come in with terrible proposals though, despite owning the land, if there was no planning authority the cities would be horrible environments. The planning authority protects the public property (And private in fact).

Well I don't fucking know dude, but what you're failing to understand is that it's not contingent on me personally knowing everything, is it? It's also not contingent on you personally liking my personal proposals. And if it was contingent on those things then we are not even discussing market emergence by definition.

And yes I'm fully aware you're not asking me to know everything, but if I do somehow manage to come up with a satisfactory answers for you you will just move the goalposts. I've heard it all before dude. There is a reason I don't want to go down this road of answering all the tiny little details of unprincipled utilitarianism.

The only thing I need to know is that initiating violence against people people is wrong. End of.

How do you know I'd move the goal posts?

It's nice to have a purely principled world view, but it won't achieve anything and you'll just be stuck in a society you fundamentally hate until you are able to convince people of how systems would work, at least theoretically.

The world abandoned principles decades ago, you won't convince anyone on that alone.

You've already moved the goal posts, when I didn't answer the first question you jumped to another. There are infinite questions you could ask in infinite detail about how society would function without a government, AND THAT'S WHAT EVERYBODY DOES. You're no different. I've heard it before and it drives me insane and it's missing the point entirely anyway. We're talking about inherently subjective preferences from a centralised perspective instead of the morality of initiating violence against peaceful people.

Things are changing already. Firstly the large state paradigm is so unsustainable it's not even funny. Secondly, the only thing that perpetuates government is its perceived legitimacy. But the reality is it's just a criminal gang.

I also note that you didn't say that YOU personally abandoned principles. Just the world. Again that's what everybody says. Not me, everybody else. Because I think you would have a hard time advocating violence against peaceful people too.

If you want to protect minorities, the smallest minority in the world is the individual. You don't claim to need a government to protect the liberty of the people and then violate liberty as your first step in government by taxing people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z1buym2xUM

But how will people get shoes dude? How many shoe factories will we need in society?! How will poor people get shoes!? How much leather will be needed?! How much string do we need for the laces?! How many trucks will we need to distribute all of these shoes in society!? OMG IT COULDN'T POSSIBLY ALL "JUST WORK OUT" IF YOU, SOME MERE RANDOM DUDE ON THE INTERWABS, DON'T PERSONALLY HAVE A CENTRAL PLAN FOR ALL OF THIS!

Yeah, keep misrepresenting what I say, or perhaps you just don't understand.

It's a different situation anyway, with shoe manufacture there's level upon level of resource production, purchase and product manufacture going on.

None of this exists in the example I gave since it's about ensuring that what you do on private land doesn't damage other peoples private property or public property in some way.

You can choose not to buy a shoe in a stateless society, but you can't stop someone building something on his private property that causes a problem for everyone else, it's his private property after all.

Of course you can. If it "causes a problem" for other people then you have a legitimate claim to be awarded damages. It's not rocket science, it's just how HUMAN BEINGS will naturally want to seek compensation for their losses and defend themselves from attack.

The market regulates all by itself. It's government that is the unregulated arbitrary whim of elites who do nothing but protect themselves. As if that's any better. I mean just ask yourself if these things you're asking are such major concerns then why do you advocate a VIOLENTLY ENFORCED MONOPOLY as a solution?

None of this exists in the example I gave since it's about ensuring that what you do on private land doesn't damage other peoples private property or public property in some way.

Yeah because a VIOLENTLY ENFORCED MONOPOLY of elitists wouldn't abuse their position AT ALL. They wouldn't just use it to help their politically connected friends at the expense of everybody else.

I suppose next you're going to argue that all we need is a constitution to limit government, a magic piece of paper that can stop bullets!

http://theuklibertarian.com/2010/02/06/planni...-bullshit/

I also want to apologise for getting angsty :) I guess I'm just frustrated by this entire thread

It's not a case of I couldn't spot it, but more that I agreed with some of the policies (ID cards, abolishing free choice etc)

anyone that votes a right wing party / BNP deserves to be sterilised or given the death penalty.

conclusion: nuke uk xD

vote bnp people. they want to give me money to leave this country, which is what i want to do anyway. no party ever offered me a deal as good as this before :-)

This seemed relevant to the discussion:
http://www.boatangdemetriou.com/2010/04/guard...y-ban.html