bloomj31: Marko: So how you love America is you want Americans to die for the sake Israel. Got it. In a perfect world, no one would have to die. Seeing others in pain gives me absolutely no pleasure at all. But it's not that simple.
Marko: So how you love America is you want Americans to die for the sake Israel. Got it.
So how you love America is you want Americans to die for the sake Israel. Got it.
In a perfect world, no one would have to die. Seeing others in pain gives me absolutely no pleasure at all. But it's not that simple.
So is every other neocon.
Marko: No it is that simple. You are a traitor to your country. So is every other neocon.
No it is that simple. You are a traitor to your country.
Uh huh. Someone is going to have to die, who's it going to be Marko?
bloomj31: filc: bloomj31:Too much, too strong, too statist. I'm statist but I'm not that statist by any means. Hehe, how are you less of a statist than anyone else? Is it because you prefer to socialize war over healthcare? DOes that make you less of a statist? Or just a different type of statist, one with different preferences, one who seeks to exploit the masses for your own ends. Less, more, whatever. Different breed, whatever. I don't know. It's just a matter of priorities.
filc: bloomj31:Too much, too strong, too statist. I'm statist but I'm not that statist by any means. Hehe, how are you less of a statist than anyone else? Is it because you prefer to socialize war over healthcare? DOes that make you less of a statist? Or just a different type of statist, one with different preferences, one who seeks to exploit the masses for your own ends.
bloomj31:Too much, too strong, too statist. I'm statist but I'm not that statist by any means.
Hehe, how are you less of a statist than anyone else? Is it because you prefer to socialize war over healthcare? DOes that make you less of a statist? Or just a different type of statist, one with different preferences, one who seeks to exploit the masses for your own ends.
Less, more, whatever. Different breed, whatever. I don't know. It's just a matter of priorities.
So then you are not a minarchist. Minarchists believe in less state, you do not. You only believe in less state where convenient. Only less when it does not serve your end, but more state where it does. Your no different then a modern liberal who wants to expand healtchare, but retract war. Instead you just want to expand war, and retract healtchare.
bloomj31:'s complicated. I love America. But I'm a Jew. As for destroying wealth, the end results may be the same but bombing someone's factory and taxing their output are very different in practical terms even if, in principle, the results are similar.
So if you in general just want to squelch wealth and natural resources(who knows why), but do it in the prettiest way possible, why do you support blowing stuff?
ama gi:I agree with nonviolence, noncoercion, and civil disobedience; but I also pay heed to practical concerns. I would far rather pay for a driver's license than go to jail or else walk everywhere. I guess that makes me a sell-out to some extent.
Living in A State Run World - MNR
The difference is.. bloom wouldn't have a problem being a concentration camp director.
bloomj31: Marko: No it is that simple. You are a traitor to your country. So is every other neocon. Uh huh. Someone is going to have to die, who's it going to be Marko?
Apparently you prefer the American to die.
Bloomj31: Seeing others in pain gives me absolutely no pleasure at all. But it's not that simple.
Wouldn't it make more sense then for you to support an expansion of welfare over an expansion of war?
bloomj31: Listen, Marko, if you don't like the thread, why post in it? Just asking.
Listen, Marko, if you don't like the thread, why post in it? Just asking.
You've got issues. You didn't want to discuss this at all. You then see the thread about trolls. What better opportunity to shit stir, aye?
lol...
CHawk, listen mate - why keep ignoring my questions? If you don't like them, why'd you start the thread? You knew you'd get them.
Don't be rude, answer them OP.
filc: So then you are not a minarchist. Minarchists believe in less state, you do not. You only believe in less state where convenient. Only less when it does not serve your end, but more state where it does. Your no different then a modern liberal who wants to expand healtchare, but retract war. Instead you just want to expand war, and retract healtchare.
I do what I think is necessary. I will not be restrained by labels and rules if those rules are overly constrictive. I don't care what label people give me, I care about getting done what I want to get done. That's the first priority.
filc: So if you in general just want to squelch wealth and natural resources(who knows why), but do it in the prettiest way possible, why do you support blowing stuff?
I support defense. That just often happens to involve blowing things up.
bloomj31:Meh. National socialism maybe I dunno. I still think of myself as essentially a minarchist with a neo con foreign policy. And really, I'm not a big fan of the welfare programs. Those are a staple of national socialism as far as I know.
Okay, what would you eliminate: Social security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, welfare checks, public education, public infrastructure, subsidized student loans, FHA (federal housing authority), minimum wage laws.
So (a) why would you eliminate them, and (b) would you eliminate them if you thought they could somehow grant you access to political power?
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Conza88: bloomj31: Listen, Marko, if you don't like the thread, why post in it? Just asking. You've got issues. You didn't want to discuss this at all. You then see the thread about trolls. What better opportunity to shit stir, aye? lol... CHawk, listen mate - why keep ignoring my questions? If you don't like them, why'd you start the thread? You knew you'd get them. Don't be rude, answer them OP.
I've just got a lot of questions coming at me. No, I don't care about you guys trying to ban people you disagree with. I read the whole thing about having forum rules because someone got upset that ya know someone said something he didn't like. This isn't about that. This is about me venting things that have been on my mind. I wasn't sure how you guys would take it. I mean I knew how you'd react, Conza, but I wasn't sure how everyone else would react. Anyways, alright which question?
bloomj31: Daniel Muffinburg: So you want the US government to steal from others so that in can protect Israel? Yes....
Daniel Muffinburg: So you want the US government to steal from others so that in can protect Israel?
So you want the US government to steal from others so that in can protect Israel?
Yes....
Soooo.... this minarchy of yours would protect rights by violating them?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Esuric: bloomj31:Meh. National socialism maybe I dunno. I still think of myself as essentially a minarchist with a neo con foreign policy. And really, I'm not a big fan of the welfare programs. Those are a staple of national socialism as far as I know. Okay, what would you eliminate: Social security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, welfare checks, public education, public infrastructure, subsidized student loans, FHA (federal housing authority), minimum wage laws. So (a) why would you eliminate them, and (b) would you eliminate them if you thought they could somehow grant you access to political power?
Everything except public education. Because it's money that could be spent on the military or at least cutting taxes and giving it back to the people that earned the money. Let them decide how they want to spend it. But...what I didn't try to hand back I'd direct toward defense. Nothing is going to grant me access to political power right now.
bloomj31:I do what I think is necessary.
Even at the expense of everyone else. If only we were all as wise as you to know what was best for us. I'm glad I have you out there making decisions on my behalf.
bloomj31:I support defense. That just often happens to involve blowing things up.
Best defense is a strong offense eh Bloom?
filc: Even at the expense of everyone else. If only we were all as wise as you to know what was best for us. I'm glad I have you out there making decisions on my behalf.
As much as I can, I try to let other people make their own decisions. Anyways, I'm not wise, I just understand my priorities.
filc: Best defense is a strong offense eh Bloom?
Sometimes.
Daniel Muffinburg: Soooo.... this minarchy of yours would protect rights by violating them?
There will be no minarchy, there will be a socialist government with a few people who aren't as gung ho about taking everyone else's money as others are. I'll be one of those people. But yes, I would protect some rights by violating others. It's a nasty business.
I see no reason into supporting Israel. Regardless if you're Jewish and want to support Israel (why not move there?) that's no reason to support defending them half-way around the world for a war that has nothing to do with us. I support Iran on whatever they do as long as they don't aggress against other's (the aggression seems to come from Israel and the USA than instead of Iran).
Besides whatever war that could come up (out of deceit), I have no interest in us giving any type of funding or aid to Israel. I don't approve of what they do, and Zionism itself is a sorry excuse for Jewish advancement and empowerment. (Among other things involving the State of Israel...)
Do you agree with Ron Paul's foreign policy?
I don't like the topic, but I like posting in it.
But if you don't like me doing it, you are free not to open any more.
bloomj31:This is about me venting things that have been on my mind.
Nah, that's the front. You're not going to change your mind, we both know that. You arrived a neo-conservative and you're still a neo-conservative.
Your problem isn't adhering to logic, or principles - it's the fact that you don't care about them. Your whole failure stems from an emotional & irrational cognitive dissonance.
There is no helping you, when you can't even help yourself. This "discussion" is a waste of time for anyone who takes any of it, or anything you say seriously.
You're an attention whore and this is just another prime example (there are countless others).
When the heat gets turned on, like it has many times (With LS & Knight) - you back peddle, do your little jig ("hey I'm no troll, I'll read Hans Hoppe's D:TGTF I swear!.)" Well how's that going for ya? Would love to see your intelligent review of it... some thing that is based on more than laughable, "personal feelings".
bloomj31:Anyways, alright which question?
Alternatively: Ctrl + F
bloomj31:As much as I can, I try to let other people make their own decisions. Anyways, I'm not wise, I just understand my priorities.
Why not allow individuals to decide for themselves if they want to fund a preemptive strike on Israel's enemies? Or is that something only you can decide on their behalf?
EDIT: We should really have a Bloom's most outrageous quotes engine for humor.
bloomj31: Daniel Muffinburg: Soooo.... this minarchy of yours would protect rights by violating them? There will be no minarchy, there will be a socialist government with a few people who aren't as gung ho about taking everyone else's money as others are. I'll be one of those people. But yes, I would protect some rights by violating others. It's a nasty business.
I suppose that makes you a person of nasty character and a proponent of having nasty acts done upon people, as long as they are not Jews.
filc: bloomj31:As much as I can, I try to let other people make their own decisions. Anyways, I'm not wise, I just understand my priorities. Why not allow individuals to decide for themselves if they want to fund a preemptive strike on Israel's enemies? Or is that something only you can decide on their behalf?
That's something I'd be less comfortable leaving to chance.
bloomj31: Esuric: Okay, what would you eliminate: Social security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, welfare checks, public education, public infrastructure, subsidized student loans, FHA (federal housing authority), minimum wage laws. Everything except public education. Because it's money that could be spent on the military or at least cutting taxes and giving it back to the people that earned the money.
Esuric: Okay, what would you eliminate: Social security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, welfare checks, public education, public infrastructure, subsidized student loans, FHA (federal housing authority), minimum wage laws.
Everything except public education. Because it's money that could be spent on the military or at least cutting taxes and giving it back to the people that earned the money.
Eliminating food stamps for Americans to fund killing Arabs for the sake of Israel.
Daniel Muffinburg: I suppose that makes you a person of nasty character and a proponent of having nasty acts done upon people, as long as they are not Jews.
Maybe it does.
Conza88: bloomj31:This is about me venting things that have been on my mind. Nah, that's the front. You're not going to change your mind, we both know that. You arrived a neo-conservative and you're still a neo-conservative. Your problem isn't adhering to logic, or principles - it's the fact that you don't care about them. Your whole failure stems from an emotional & irrational cognitive dissonance. There is no helping you, when you can't even help yourself. This "discussion" is a waste of time for anyone who takes any of it, or anything you say seriously. You're an attention whore and this is just another prime example (there are countless others). When the heat gets turned on, like it has many times (With LS & Knight) - you back peddle, do your little jig ("hey I'm no troll, I'll read Hans Hoppe's D:TGTF I swear!.)" Well how's that going for ya? Would love to see your intelligent review of it... some thing that is based on more than laughable, "personal feelings". bloomj31:Anyways, alright which question?Scroll button, use it. Alternatively: Ctrl + F
Alright, if it's a waste of time, why are you having me waste my time writing responses to you?
bloomj31: Daniel Muffinburg: I suppose that makes you a person of nasty character and a proponent of having nasty acts done upon people, as long as they are not Jews. Maybe it does.
Maybe it maybe does.
Conza88: bloomj31: Walter Block essentially defines a minarchist libertarian as someone who think that the government must exist to perform three essential roles. One is as a protector from foreign threats. Two is as a protector against domestic threats (civilian against civilian, etc) and three as a final adjudicator in any and all legal disputes. So basically, army, police and courts. I think that Block does a great job of defining the basic minarchist position. Then we can go on and say that some minarchists might be ok with certain limited social programs. To that extent, minarchists, like myself, are very light socialists. Hopefully that helps. "Another inner contradiction of the theory of laissez-faire government deals again with taxation. For if government is to be limited to “protection” of person and property, and taxation is to be “limited” to providing that service only, then how is the government to decide how much protection to provide and how much taxes to levy? For, contrary to the limited government theory, “protection” is no more a collective, one-lump “thing” than any other good or service in society. Suppose, for example, that we might offer a competing theory, that government should be “limited” to supplying clothing free to all of its citizens. But this would scarcely be any sort of viable limit, apart from other flaws in the theory. For how much clothing, and at what cost? Must everyone be supplied with Balendaga originals, for example? And who is to decide how much and what quality of clothing each person is to receive? Indeed, “protection” could conceivably imply anything from one policeman for an entire country, to supplying an armed bodyguard and a tank for every citizen—a proposition which would bankrupt the society posthaste. But who is to decide on how much protection, since it is undeniable that every person would be better protected from theft and assault if provided with an armed bodyguard than if he is not? On the free market, decisions on how much and what quality of any good or service should be supplied to each person are made by means of voluntary purchases by each individual; but what criterion can be applied when the decision is made by government? The answer is none at all, and such governmental decisions can only be purely arbitrary. Secondly, one searches in vain in the writings of laissez-faire theorists for a cogent theory of taxation: not only how much taxation is to be levied, but also who is to be forced to pay. The commonly adopted “ability to pay” theory, for example, is, as the libertarian Frank Chodorov pointed out, the philosophy of the highway robber to extract as much loot from the victim as the robber can get away with—scarcely a cogent social philosophy, and at total variance, of course, from the system of payment on the free market. For if everyone were forced to pay for every good and service in proportion to his income, then there would be no pricing system at all, and no market system could work. (David Rockefeller, for example, might be forced to pay $1million for a loaf of bread.)11 Next, no laissez-faire writer has ever provided a theory of the size of the State: if the State is to have a compulsory monopoly of force in a given territorial area, how large is that area to be? These theorists have not given full attention to the fact that the world has always lived in an “international anarchy,” with no one government, or compulsory monopoly of decision-making, between various countries. And yet, international relations between private citizens of different countries have generally functioned quite smoothly, despite the lack of a single government over them. Thus, a contractual or a tort dispute between a citizen of North Dakota and of Manitoba is usually handled quite smoothly, typically with the plaintiff suing or placing charges in his court, and the court of the other country recognizing the result. Wars and conflicts usually take place between the governments, rather than the private citizens, of the various counties. But more profoundly, would a laissez-fairist recognize the right of a region of a country to secede from that country? Is it legitimate for West Ruitania to secede from Ruritania? If not, why not? And if so, then how can there be a logical stopping-point to the secession? May not a small district secede, and then a city, and then a borough of that city, and then a block, and then finally a particular individual?12 Once admit any right of secession whatever, and there is no logical stopping-point short of the right of individual secession, which logically entails anarchism, since then individuals may secede and patronize their own defense agencies, and the State has crumbled. Finally there is a crucial inconsistency in the proffered criterion of laissez-faire itself: limiting the government to protection of person and property. For, if it is legitimate for a government to tax, why not tax its subjects to provide other goods and services that may be useful to consumers: why shouldn’t the government, for example, build steel plants, provide shoes, dams, postal service, etc.? For each of these goods and services is useful to consumers. If the laissez-fairists object that the government should not build steel plants or shoe factories and provide them to consumers (either free or for sale) because tax-coercion had been employed in constructing these plants, well then the same objection can of course be made to governmental police or judicial service. The government should be acting no more immorally from the laissez-faire point of view, when providing housing or steel than when providing police protection. Government limited to protection, then, cannot be sustained even within the laissez-faire ideal itself, much less from any other consideration. It is true that the laissez-faire ideal could still be employed to prevent such “second-degree” coercive activities of government (i.e., coercion beyond the initial coercion of taxation) as price control or outlawry of pornography; but the “limits” have now become flimsy indeed, and may be stretched to virtually complete collectivism, in which the government only supplies goods and services, yet supplies all of them." - MNR, TEOL Chp 23.
bloomj31: Walter Block essentially defines a minarchist libertarian as someone who think that the government must exist to perform three essential roles. One is as a protector from foreign threats. Two is as a protector against domestic threats (civilian against civilian, etc) and three as a final adjudicator in any and all legal disputes. So basically, army, police and courts. I think that Block does a great job of defining the basic minarchist position. Then we can go on and say that some minarchists might be ok with certain limited social programs. To that extent, minarchists, like myself, are very light socialists. Hopefully that helps.
Walter Block essentially defines a minarchist libertarian as someone who think that the government must exist to perform three essential roles. One is as a protector from foreign threats. Two is as a protector against domestic threats (civilian against civilian, etc) and three as a final adjudicator in any and all legal disputes. So basically, army, police and courts. I think that Block does a great job of defining the basic minarchist position. Then we can go on and say that some minarchists might be ok with certain limited social programs. To that extent, minarchists, like myself, are very light socialists. Hopefully that helps.
"Another inner contradiction of the theory of laissez-faire government deals again with taxation. For if government is to be limited to “protection” of person and property, and taxation is to be “limited” to providing that service only, then how is the government to decide how much protection to provide and how much taxes to levy? For, contrary to the limited government theory, “protection” is no more a collective, one-lump “thing” than any other good or service in society. Suppose, for example, that we might offer a competing theory, that government should be “limited” to supplying clothing free to all of its citizens. But this would scarcely be any sort of viable limit, apart from other flaws in the theory. For how much clothing, and at what cost? Must everyone be supplied with Balendaga originals, for example? And who is to decide how much and what quality of clothing each person is to receive? Indeed, “protection” could conceivably imply anything from one policeman for an entire country, to supplying an armed bodyguard and a tank for every citizen—a proposition which would bankrupt the society posthaste. But who is to decide on how much protection, since it is undeniable that every person would be better protected from theft and assault if provided with an armed bodyguard than if he is not? On the free market, decisions on how much and what quality of any good or service should be supplied to each person are made by means of voluntary purchases by each individual; but what criterion can be applied when the decision is made by government? The answer is none at all, and such governmental decisions can only be purely arbitrary.
Secondly, one searches in vain in the writings of laissez-faire theorists for a cogent theory of taxation: not only how much taxation is to be levied, but also who is to be forced to pay. The commonly adopted “ability to pay” theory, for example, is, as the libertarian Frank Chodorov pointed out, the philosophy of the highway robber to extract as much loot from the victim as the robber can get away with—scarcely a cogent social philosophy, and at total variance, of course, from the system of payment on the free market. For if everyone were forced to pay for every good and service in proportion to his income, then there would be no pricing system at all, and no market system could work. (David Rockefeller, for example, might be forced to pay $1million for a loaf of bread.)11
Next, no laissez-faire writer has ever provided a theory of the size of the State: if the State is to have a compulsory monopoly of force in a given territorial area, how large is that area to be? These theorists have not given full attention to the fact that the world has always lived in an “international anarchy,” with no one government, or compulsory monopoly of decision-making, between various countries. And yet, international relations between private citizens of different countries have generally functioned quite smoothly, despite the lack of a single government over them. Thus, a contractual or a tort dispute between a citizen of North Dakota and of Manitoba is usually handled quite smoothly, typically with the plaintiff suing or placing charges in his court, and the court of the other country recognizing the result. Wars and conflicts usually take place between the governments, rather than the private citizens, of the various counties.
But more profoundly, would a laissez-fairist recognize the right of a region of a country to secede from that country? Is it legitimate for West Ruitania to secede from Ruritania? If not, why not? And if so, then how can there be a logical stopping-point to the secession? May not a small district secede, and then a city, and then a borough of that city, and then a block, and then finally a particular individual?12 Once admit any right of secession whatever, and there is no logical stopping-point short of the right of individual secession, which logically entails anarchism, since then individuals may secede and patronize their own defense agencies, and the State has crumbled.
Finally there is a crucial inconsistency in the proffered criterion of laissez-faire itself: limiting the government to protection of person and property. For, if it is legitimate for a government to tax, why not tax its subjects to provide other goods and services that may be useful to consumers: why shouldn’t the government, for example, build steel plants, provide shoes, dams, postal service, etc.? For each of these goods and services is useful to consumers. If the laissez-fairists object that the government should not build steel plants or shoe factories and provide them to consumers (either free or for sale) because tax-coercion had been employed in constructing these plants, well then the same objection can of course be made to governmental police or judicial service. The government should be acting no more immorally from the laissez-faire point of view, when providing housing or steel than when providing police protection. Government limited to protection, then, cannot be sustained even within the laissez-faire ideal itself, much less from any other consideration. It is true that the laissez-faire ideal could still be employed to prevent such “second-degree” coercive activities of government (i.e., coercion beyond the initial coercion of taxation) as price control or outlawry of pornography; but the “limits” have now become flimsy indeed, and may be stretched to virtually complete collectivism, in which the government only supplies goods and services, yet supplies all of them." - MNR, TEOL Chp 23.
Can I get your thoughts on this Bloom? Actually, I want your personal feelings... how does reading the above text make you "feeeeeeel" ?
bloomj31: O god, I knew this would happen, I'm out of here, we've gone through this before.
O god, I knew this would happen, I'm out of here, we've gone through this before.
You knew it would happen here... so why did you make this thread? Haha, apart from the obvious
Marko: bloomj31: Listen, Marko, if you don't like the thread, why post in it? Just asking. I don't like the topic, but I like posting in it. But if you don't like me doing it, you are free not to open any more.
Hey, if you want to be here, I'm ok with it, but I mean are you just gonna post in my thread about how you don't like posting in my thread?
bloomj31: filc: bloomj31:As much as I can, I try to let other people make their own decisions. Anyways, I'm not wise, I just understand my priorities. Why not allow individuals to decide for themselves if they want to fund a preemptive strike on Israel's enemies? Or is that something only you can decide on their behalf? That's something I'd be less comfortable leaving to chance.
Err are you confused? What does chance have to do with individual preference?
And so you are admitting you would prefer to control people's preferences?
bloomj31: What I want to do with this thread is lay down what I think about minarchism and explain why I'm a minarchist.
What I want to do with this thread is lay down what I think about minarchism and explain why I'm a minarchist.
Esuric: Some questions: Do you support the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan?
Some questions: Do you support the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan?
bloomj31: I do support both wars, [..]
I do support both wars, [..]
You're not a minarchist if you believe in pre-emptive wars fought on the other side of the planet. You have almost 1400 posts in this forum yet you still don't know basic definitions. I can only assume you have no interest in learning what others have to say; or even listening to it. Don't think other people won't see through you. You have some soul searching to do.
bloomj31: Marko: bloomj31: Listen, Marko, if you don't like the thread, why post in it? Just asking. I don't like the topic, but I like posting in it. But if you don't like me doing it, you are free not to open any more. Hey, if you want to be here, I'm ok with it, but I mean are you just gonna post in my thread about how you don't like posting in my thread?
Maybe he is.
Conza, when I read Rothbard, I feel like I'm reading an idealist who believed in the possibility of a better world full of reasonable, responsible intelligent humans working productively together. A man who believed that logic could guide us to understand how to organize society so that peace and prosperity would reign eternal. And I feel encouraged. Then I read the news.
Daniel Muffinburg: Maybe he is.
Well, cool, let's do it.
"This "discussion" is a waste of time for anyone who takes any of it, or anything you say seriously."
That being, I don't... [As far as I'm concerned, you're a joke and a distraction. I'm happy to use you for my amusement, although I believe this place would be better off without you, but that's for the "mods" and "admins" to decide.]
bloomj31:Alright, if it's a waste of time, why are you having me waste my time writing responses to you?
I want your answers. Please answer my questions OP. All of them are legit and warrant a coherent, lengthy, logical and well thought out post.
I just posted another one, the one you ran away from earlier. Would you be so kind? lol.
Nielsio: You're not a minarchist if you believe in pre-emptive wars fought on the other side of the planet. You have almost 1400 posts in this forum yet you still don't know basic definitions. I can only assume you have no interest in learning what others have to say; or even listening to it. Don't think other people won't see through you. You have some soul searching to do.
As far as I know, there's no rule that says minarchists can't have hawkish foreign policy views. Walter Block even said that our three priorities are foreign and domestic defense and courts. He never said we couldn't be hawkish or support Israel.
filc: Err are you confused? What does chance have to do with individual preference? And so you are admitting you would prefer to control people's preferences?
If I thought it was necessary yes. But for the most part, I'd refrain from doing so.
Can you read little chickenhawk? I said I like posting here. I love nothing better than to hound scumpties like you.
Marko: Can you read little chickenhawk? I said I like posting here. I love nothing better than to hound scumpties like you.
So post here bro, I'm cool with it.
bloomj31: Conza, when I read Rothbard, I feel like I'm reading an idealist who believed in the possibility of a better world full of reasonable, responsible intelligent humans working productively together. A man who believed that logic could guide us to understand how to organize society so that peace and prosperity would reign eternal. And I feel encouraged. Then I read the news.
Read the news, that is, the really old news. Jews have been persecuted and murdered for thousands of years. You are an idealist for believing that Israel and your fellow Jews can be protected by a falling empire, especially a socialist one.
Daniel Muffinburg: Read the news, that is, the really old news. Jews have been persecuted and murdered for thousands of years. You are an idealist for believing that Israel and your fellow Jews can be protected by a falling empire, especially a socialist one.
What are we going to be protected by then?
Maybe you are cool it.
Ok, now this time present counter arguments - not just "emotions" and "feelings".
Also, you still haven't addressed my previous questions.. don't leave any unanswered.