Oh Joy it must be time near election time again

[OneEyedPimp]

On a side note, I wonder how long this will go on before a moderator steps in and shuts this thread?

[warbeak2099]

Warbreak, you may be trying to be too scientific about this. Remember that logical arguments only work with people who are themselves logical.

Heh heh, I know what you mean. He really isn't thinking logically. Instead of using facts and data that supports his findings, he's purely spouting his own unfounded ideology that really could never work in the real world. The reason he can't support his argument with facts is because there are no facts existing that back him up. When we look at examples in science, history, and even literature, we see that the data supports a system contrary to yours OEP. So whatever you think... well who cares. The way things need to be run is based on what is proven to work. Not your unprovable superstitions.

I think you'll find Switzerland a lot less glorious in reality than you might think it is.You want to talk about social responsibility, taxation and state authority...

I think you misunderstand me. I enjoy that structure. As we see from history, it's what is neccesary for a nation to progress. Without organization, the whole shows goes to hell in a hand basket. I again use the French Revolution and the first republic as an example. Switzerland is run very well. Their crime and poverty rates are very low and it's an all around clean place to live. Sure they are a little zenophobic, but they're a small country. They understand their limits and how many people they can sustain. Rather, in America, we take in way more immigrants, legal and illegal, than we should be taking in. We are seeing the effects of that presently.

I take contempt to that

I think you meant "I take offense to that". See what we mean?

[dave p]

A law can not be one in which the 51% vote what to do with the other 49%.



I fully understand my ideology, do you? And for now it is not a "the" just a "oneeyedpimp."



That is the beauty of age laws, they expire. I will be able to vote in the next presidential election. And I was sincere about moving to Switzerland. I hear it is nice there.

No, I do not know enough about it. But you see I can admit it. Ive listened to people like Neal Boortz talk about it for years. I dont see it gaining any momentum, and even Boortz will say they dont have it together, he even admits that they need to pick some better battles than legalizing pot, or letting kids run amok with bb guns. I do believe in personal property laws (because unlike you i actually own property, and pay significantly into our tax system). I do understand the government bloat we experience. I do understand the real problems that are associated with our governing bodies, when it comes to REAL issues, like where my kids go to school, or how much i am being taxed. or the burden of illegal immigrants on my health care costs, and their effect on the industry i work in. not little things like playing with bb guns. you son are still wet behind the ears in my estimation. when you can contribute and when you can vote, feel free to get all "idealist" on us. until then give it a rest. you think you have problems now, man are you in for an awakening. bigger concerns will be looming on the horizon.

big ups to the ayn rand reference earlier by the other gentleman.
one thing i learned in philosophy was that anything taken to the extreme is just not good. plato, aristotle or socates(i cant remember now) had quite a bit to say on the subject. as i understand it, even democracy in its purest form is not a desirable or necessarily beneficial governing system.

[OneEyedPimp]

Heh heh, I know what you mean. He really isn't thinking logically. Instead of using facts and data that supports his findings, he's purely spouting his own unfounded ideology that really could never work in the real world. The reason he can't support his argument with facts is because there are no facts existing that back him up. When we look at examples in science, history, and even literature, we see that the data supports a system contrary to yours OEP. So whatever you think... well who cares. The way things need to be run is based on what is proven to work. Not your unprovable superstitions.

Exactly, there is no facts on my side because it has never existed for any great period of time. My money says that my system, the U.S. system, would work if it was free of people electing representatives that vote it slowely away.

It is my belief that government is not natural, that it comes when society reaches a certain point. Eventually society gets bitten by the deal and over-throws it just to start the cycle over again. Pity really.

I think you meant "I take offense to that". See what we mean?

Technically speaking, as I seem to be doing that alot lately, both ways are right.

[OneEyedPimp]

No, I do not know enough about it. But you see I can admit it. Ive listened to people like Neal Boortz talk about it for years. I dont see it gaining any momentum, and even Boortz will say they dont have it together, he even admits that they need to pick some better battles than legalizing pot, or letting kids run amok with bb guns. I do believe in personal property laws (because unlike you i actually own property, and pay significantly into our tax system). I do understand the government bloat we experience. I do understand the real problems that are associated with our governing bodies, when it comes to REAL issues, like where my kids go to school, or how much i am being taxed. or the burden of illegal immigrants on my health care costs, and their effect on the industry i work in. not little things like playing with bb guns. you son are still wet behind the ears in my estimation. when you can contribute and when you can vote, feel free to get all "idealist" on us. until then give it a rest. you think you have problems now, man are you in for an awakening. bigger concerns will be looming on the horizon.

Personally, and you will hate this more than my view on age laws, I believe that taxation is theft. I believe that all taxes should be optional, as most are already, and you only have to pay them once, not year after year after year. Those who willfully pay taxes are not contributing to society, but increasing the slope in which it is falling.

And real issues are relative. Like me, my major concern is stopping the Iraq war and eliminating the public school system.

big ups to the ayn rand reference earlier by the other gentleman.
one thing i learned in philosophy was that anything taken to the extreme is just not good. plato, aristotle or socates(i cant remember now) had quite a bit to say on the subject. as i understand it, even democracy in its purest form is not a desirable or necessarily beneficial governing system.

In essence, no government system in its purity will last any great deal of time, it is not in our nature to be told what to do without some sort of reward.

And yes I agree that the Libertarian party needs to get on the map before they start campaining for the legalization of ALL drugs, elimination of almost all taxes, and many other modernly considered "radical" ideals.

[dave p]

Personally, and you will hate this more than my view on age laws, I believe that taxation is theft. I believe that all taxes should be optional, as most are already, and you only have to pay them once, not year after year after year. Those who willfully pay taxes are not contributing to society, but increasing the slope in which it is falling.

.

well, i like having my garbage picked up once a week and having a police force in my city, thank you. although if i were running things, id be getting more for my money. city employees are the laziest sacks on the planet.


but we have really deviated from the point. if it is illegal to buy bb guns under 18 in massachusetts than too f'n bad. its illegal. deal with it, or change the law. if people are breaking the law then punish them.

look kid, i have excercised many many personal feedoms in my lifetime. not a few of them less than legal, but i grew up. i now enjoy very many personal freedoms because I GREW UP and am old enough. you will to. for now you gotta deal with it. well. im out of this one. im gonna go have a beer. have fun carrying the weight of the world.

[OneEyedPimp]

well, i like having my garbage picked up once a week and having a police force in my city, thank you. although if i were running things, id be getting more for my money. city employees are the laziest sacks on the planet.

Essentially that is how it would work in "my world." You pay to have your garbage picked up and you pay the police officer when he fines you. If you don't pay for the garbage, it doesn't get picked up, if you dont pay the police fine, you go to jail and then have to pay for the time you were in there. My system at least, and I am not crazy enough to ask for people to use it.

but we have really deviated from the point. if it is illegal to buy bb guns under 18 in massachusetts than too f'n bad. its illegal. deal with it, or change the law. if people are breaking the law then punish them.

This whole thread is one big deviation. I agree with what you said above, but I also believe the children should be treated like adults in their punishment.

look kid, i have excercised many many personal feedoms in my lifetime. not a few of them less than legal, but i grew up. i now enjoy very many personal freedoms because I GREW UP and am old enough. you will to. for now you gotta deal with it. well. im out of this one. im gonna go have a beer. have fun carrying the weight of the world.

Look oldie, I get it. I know I will grow up, and will then still be arguing against the redundency of age laws. It is not as if by getting older, my brain will grow in. Oh well, at least some more people on AO know how crazy I am.

[jenarelJAM]

Essentially that is how it would work in "my world." You pay to have your garbage picked up and you pay the police officer when he fines you. If you don't pay for the garbage, it doesn't get picked up, if you dont pay the police fine, you go to jail and then have to pay for the time you were in there.

I'm still not understanding your utopian society...
You say if the people don't pay the police fine, they go to jail. Okay, cool; but you forgot one point: IF THERE ARE NO TAXES, HOW DOES THE GOVERNMENT GET THE MONEY TO PAY FOR JAIL???
(and I'd like you to answer this question please)

Similarly, how does the government provide any of the basic freedoms you are accustomed to?

As an example:
A woman is walking down the street in a shady neighborhood. She gets pulled down an alley and raped.

1. If you witnessed this scene, what would you do? Sit there without calling the police because the men raping her weren't doing anything to you? That shows an unparalleled level of immaturity.
2. Where are the police officers in the first place, since they have no government paying them for their services?

Let people live how they see fit so long as they do not harm others. A parent can punish their child, provided it is proper to the wrongdoing committed.

And who is to judge whether "it is proper to the wrongdoing committed" or not? You?
This is why we pay tax dollars, for the government(judiciary system in this case) to regulate and settle disputes.

Except for the fact that the "libertarian system" was in place in this country for a good hundred and then some years.

Are you talking about something along the lines of the Articles of Confederation? You will notice that this government had a similar approach to what you describe. It had no power, did nothing, and was eventually replaced with the Constitution.

Is your ideal anarchial government one where we must go back to trading bread for tools, and paper money is good only for burning? Where does it end? Please explain to me how society can function to your standards without a governing body.

(and if you say that people will regulate themselves, I suggest you open a history textbook. Any one will do; open to any page, and you'll see reactions to injustices. )

and eliminating the public school system.

And why do you think we should get rid of public schooling? So that education can be solely for the rich and privleged again, the select few who can afford private school? So that our country falls even lower below the rest of the world's literacy rate?

I can't figure out what kind of political views you have. Getting rid of public schooling is VERY conservative, while anarchy is completely on the other end of the spectrum. I guess Pump player was right. You seem to be a moral relativist in that what affects you positively is "right" and what you just don't like is "wrong."


And if you're looking for an example of your theorhetical society, look at anarchy. The steady progression of government is:
Stable government
Corrupt government
People overthrow government
Anarchy
People need structured government again
Stable government
[repeat]

Now, you look at how long it takes for people to get through each of these stages, and you notice that the corrupt (I say corrupt because it's shorter than saying immoral, unjust, impractical) british government commanded their colony in the americas for a long time. The people didn't like it, so they rebelled. When they had won, how long did anarchy last? They didn't just roll over and say, "we won, we're free, nothing will ever bother us again." They immediately started designing a system of government that would be strong, fair, and flexible while still keeping most of its moral integrity. That same government has been around for hundreds of years. It's still around today, and most people believe in it. Anarchy didn't work out so well, but the U.S. Government obviously has.

[warbeak2099]

Look, forget it. The kid is ignorant. He is totally rejecting everything that has been proven about the development of children through childhod, adolescence, and adulthood. Either that, or he doesn't understand the concept that a child's and even teenager's brain is not fully developed therefore hindering their decision making abilities. Basically, you can't have a asociety where children are treated as intellectual or developmental equals as adults. It would be unfair to the children and it would result in chaos. Imagine a 5yo voting. Do you think they'd really understand the issues in America? No they wouldn't. How about a 13yo? Still, they aren't developed enough the comprehend the big picture. I don't think you really understand yet OEP, that even your brain is not fully developed.

Oh, and your system has been tried already in various forms. Everyone is treated as an equal under the state? Huh, communism. Woah look at that. Everytime they try communism or bolshevism as it should be called, millions of people are slaughtered in mass genocide. Know how many people Stalin and the Bolsheviks killed during their reign in Russia and the Soviet Union? Over 54 million. That's over 40 million more than Hitler. Still think your idea of a completely free society where everyone lives in an almost communal arrangement is kosher? Well it isn't. So stop spouting that crap out of your mouth until you really understand the full implications of what you're saying. Millions of people have died, been tortured, beaten, raped, and taken from their families. Don't you dare think it's ok to revive the same system under which they suffered so much. Don't you dare spit in their faces by saying it could work if we tried again. They are proof, in many cases, living proof. To ignore them is inhuman. Your whole argument is based on humanizing everyone. Making children equal to adults in every respect of the law. Think again. Or maybe you need someone who witnessed their entire family get gunned down in the Ukraine or Hungary during the Cold War, to tell you what your ideas lead to. The current system is not inhuman kid, yours is.

[OneEyedPimp]

I'm still not understanding your utopian society...
You say if the people don't pay the police fine, they go to jail. Okay, cool; but you forgot one point: IF THERE ARE NO TAXES, HOW DOES THE GOVERNMENT GET THE MONEY TO PAY FOR JAIL???
(and I'd like you to answer this question please)

While I believe that taxes are theft, I do recognize that a SMALL, half to one and a half percent sales tax could be necessary for a "modern" system to work.

Similarly, how does the government provide any of the basic freedoms you are accustomed to?

As an example:
A woman is walking down the street in a shady neighborhood. She gets pulled down an alley and raped.

1. If you witnessed this scene, what would you do? Sit there without calling the police because the men raping her weren't doing anything to you? That shows an unparalleled level of immaturity.
2. Where are the police officers in the first place, since they have no government paying them for their services?

My belief is that the rapers have violated all of their rights, including life. Had I witnessed that, there would be one less raper in the world.

And who is to judge whether "it is proper to the wrongdoing committed" or not? You?
This is why we pay tax dollars, for the government(judiciary system in this case) to regulate and settle disputes.

So what makes the government workers better judging at the wrongdoing committed? Human nature is the same across the board, unless you are impling that the humans working for government are somehow cut from a finer cloth. If I am not worthy of judging wrongdoings to myself, than who is?

Are you talking about something along the lines of the Articles of Confederation? You will notice that this government had a similar approach to what you describe. It had no power, did nothing, and was eventually replaced with the Constitution.

No. The Articles of Confederation did not last that long. I was referring to the Constitutional government put in place.

Is your ideal anarchial government one where we must go back to trading bread for tools, and paper money is good only for burning? Where does it end? Please explain to me how society can function to your standards without a governing body.

(and if you say that people will regulate themselves, I suggest you open a history textbook. Any one will do; open to any page, and you'll see reactions to injustices. )

Are you insinuating that the government dictates every aspect of the economy?

And why do you think we should get rid of public schooling? So that education can be solely for the rich and privleged again, the select few who can afford private school? So that our country falls even lower below the rest of the world's literacy rate?

No, it is so that the billlions that we spend on that could be spent on the common protection of the average citizen. Currently there is a monopoly on the School system, namely why it is so expensive to go to a private one. Competition dictates prices.

I can't figure out what kind of political views you have. Getting rid of public schooling is VERY conservative, while anarchy is completely on the other end of the spectrum. I guess Pump player was right. You seem to be a moral relativist in that what affects you positively is "right" and what you just don't like is "wrong."

You will notice that I never advocated the use of anarchy, just as close as humanly possible while still having order. I.E. a tiny government. I just said that anarchy is my particular utopian system, as every party has. I am a libertarian.

And if you're looking for an example of your theorhetical society, look at anarchy. The steady progression of government is:
Stable government
Corrupt government
People overthrow government
Anarchy
People need structured government again
Stable government
[repeat]

I personally despise anarchy becuase of what it is. People live as they please until someone declares they are in charge, whether individually or as a collective. Anarchy is always temporary, generally with much chaos.

Now, you look at how long it takes for people to get through each of these stages, and you notice that the corrupt (I say corrupt because it's shorter than saying immoral, unjust, impractical) british government commanded their colony in the americas for a long time. The people didn't like it, so they rebelled. When they had won, how long did anarchy last? They didn't just roll over and say, "we won, we're free, nothing will ever bother us again." They immediately started designing a system of government that would be strong, fair, and flexible while still keeping most of its moral integrity. That same government has been around for hundreds of years. It's still around today, and most people believe in it. Anarchy didn't work out so well, but the U.S. Government obviously has.

True. True. But, the government we have now is NOT the one set up in the late 1700s. The people who set up that one went to war over three very small taxes. Lord is me, that does not sound like today.

I will tell you what we'll compromise, no anarchy but we revert to what the constitution says, revoking most laws made after 1912. I think that is fair, no?

[OneEyedPimp]

Look, forget it. The kid is ignorant. He is totally rejecting everything that has been proven about the development of children through childhod, adolescence, and adulthood. Either that, or he doesn't understand the concept that a child's and even teenager's brain is not fully developed therefore hindering their decision making abilities. Basically, you can't have a asociety where children are treated as intellectual or developmental equals as adults. It would be unfair to the children and it would result in chaos. Imagine a 5yo voting. Do you think they'd really understand the issues in America? No they wouldn't. How about a 13yo? Still, they aren't developed enough the comprehend the big picture. I don't think you really understand yet OEP, that even your brain is not fully developed.

Ok, what if I could prove that a race, of any age, was intellectually slower than the rest. That they were not capable of understanding "the issues in America"? Should we not allow that race to vote? Wonder how that would go over with the populance.

I am not saying that children are as developed as adults, just that I, personally, disagree with a universal age in which a person becomes fully developed.

Oh, and your system has been tried already in various forms. Everyone is treated as an equal under the state? Huh, communism. Woah look at that. Everytime they try communism or bolshevism as it should be called, millions of people are slaughtered in mass genocide. Know how many people Stalin and the Bolsheviks killed during their reign in Russia and the Soviet Union? Over 54 million. That's over 40 million more than Hitler. Still think your idea of a completely free society where everyone lives in an almost communal arrangement is kosher? Well it isn't. So stop spouting that crap out of your mouth until you really understand the full implications of what you're saying. Millions of people have died, been tortured, beaten, raped, and taken from their families. Don't you dare think it's ok to revive the same system under which they suffered so much. Don't you dare spit in their faces by saying it could work if we tried again. They are proof, in many cases, living proof. To ignore them is inhuman. Your whole argument is based on humanizing everyone. Making children equal to adults in every respect of the law. Think again. Or maybe you need someone who witnessed their entire family get gunned down in the Ukraine or Hungary during the Cold War, to tell you what your ideas lead to. The current system is not inhuman kid, yours is.

Never once have I advocated a communal system.(!) I am against those type of systems to the biggest degree becuase it implies that people are not individuals, but rather a group of animals.

System like ours are the ones that lead to communism, socialism, and fascism. If we do not reset our system from time to time, they will come. Millions more will die when that happens before the people are able to over throw it. I would rather be the radical advocating that we revert back to what our constitution says, rather than the one who thinks the current system works, the one who is the reason that fascism, communism, and socialism can step in.

[jenarelJAM]

Okay, I've come to the same conclusion Warbeak has. That this kid needs to take a breather and learn something about the world instead of spouting misrepresented arguments that don't address the arguments at hand.
I just saw flight 93 today, and am too emotionally drained to sit here and argue with you, since the other 50 people who have already done so have failed to make you see common sense.

If I may ask you a personal question: How much money does your family make? Because your views still seem to be, " If it benefits me" oriented, as if you have a careless disregard for anyone less fortunate as you.

On the topic of the original thread:
At walmart, the last time I tried buying paint(scorch, because it's cheap and decent) they wouldn't sell it to me because I'm under 18. My dad was standing right next to me even. When they said that, he took my money(cash) and said, "well in that case, I'm buying it." and the lady said, "you're just buying it for him." We had to get the manager to come over and specifically say it was okay for us to buy the paint. This seems like MAJOR overkill for anything paintball related, but for paint??? The items they should be monitoring are the co2 cartridges(those 8oz disposable ones), and the VL Orions. What is it you can do with paintballs? Vandalize with them? You can already buy buckets of paint as a minor, and it's easier to vandalize with that. I think people need to stop being stupid and crack down on the real issues, like enforcing the law, not punishing the people trying to run a business.

As a parting request, Mods, please close this thread, it's off topic, and I am sorry to say I have contributed to that.

[snoopay700]

OH HORRORS SOMEONE ENFORCING THE LAW OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

foolish children.

Sigh, not upholding it, they're just being stupid. To make them stop selling look-a-like guns as they called them just because a few people are stupid and hold up places with them is stupidity. So a few people don't have common sense, why punish eveyone else? Oh, also, i'm 16 and i have an airsoft gun bought with my money, however my parents are the ones who approved of me buying it online and are the one who used their credit card to buy it. It's not against the law for minors to own them, just to buy them, and it's the same thing with paintball, so do you think they should stop selling paintball guns? Basically it's up to the parents to keep that kind of stuff away from their little children, not the store owners, i mean they can't ask if it's for a child and if it is refuse to sell it. Now the case of actually going into like wal mart and buying one while being underage, that IS the store's fault and then the store should be fined and told to check ID, but not told to stop selling the guns altogether.

[jenarelJAM]

No no, you misunderstand.
First, I was buying paint, not a gun.
Second, my dad was standing right next to me.
Third, she wouldn't sell it to my dad, because she knew he was buying it for me. And it took a manager to correct that.

[Lohman446]

Except for the fact that the "libertarian system" was in place in this country for a good hundred and then some years..

You have brought a lot of dubious facts into this argument and I am going to start calling you on them. There are too many counterexamples to prove your libertarian system under the current Constitution. If you're talking pre-constitutionional era I doubt I need to point out the failures with even a generally small population. You certainly are not talking post-constitutional and mentioning 100 years, thats just blatantly false Whiskey rebellion

Your argument becomes weaker and weaker the further you try to justify it. The fact of the matter is you don't have history or economics on your side. Once the base of your argument is debased it becomes logically harder to justify it. The accounting that comes up with a 1.5% theory is dubious as well. Considering since 1940 we have not spent less than that one and a half percent of GDP on our military alone the numbers do not come out. That doesn't consider roads, hospitals, administration, etc. Even if one accepts the theory that the private sector will step up and provide for the greater good you certainly cannot make an argument that they should directly fund / control the military can you?



Source on military spending