Recent posts by BongHits420 on Kongregate

Topic: Serious Discussion / Don't Tread On Me: A Libertarian Thread

In this instance, a lack of any state intervention has meant mass slave labour.

Slave labour would be illegal under a libertarian government. Just thought I’d like to point that out.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Don't Tread On Me: A Libertarian Thread

Less economic freedom, yes. (The New Deal)

Topic: Serious Discussion / Don't Tread On Me: A Libertarian Thread

700 Billion to bail out more failing companies.

We’re headed to a depression.

The government has started to take over private businesses.

The end to economic freedom is near.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Don't Tread On Me: A Libertarian Thread

Subsidizing anything is bad. If I wanted my money to go towards something, I’ll give it to that something myself.

True that. Here in Charlotte, we subsidized a billion dollar light railroad for the city. Currently, about 8 people use it.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Don't Tread On Me: A Libertarian Thread

I haven’t really been up-to-date with this thread, but I just thought I’d drop in and let you see this absolutely inspiring Obama speech. This country has been waiting for a candidate that won’t give us up, let us down, run around or desert us for too long. This one speech makes me want to vote for him.

Topic: Serious Discussion / WALL.E: the future (warning: spoilers)?

I got dragged along to this movie by some friends and wasn’t really looking forward to it. I was really surprised that I actually really liked this one.

Anyways, I don’t think the human race will survive long enough for the Earth to get where it is depicted in WALLE.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Don't Tread On Me: A Libertarian Thread

Then why have you been using the “I find a .45 works well” line so often? That’s clearly a call for self-protection.

Of course it is. Much like the current police force, they can’t respond immediately, and its always a good idea to have the .45 for protection until they do get there.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Don't Tread On Me: A Libertarian Thread

They are breaking in to steal something because they need it, they are not breaking in to kill you.

So what you’re saying is that you just need to hand over all your valuables?

Your and your relatives’ life is not at risk because he has no interest in killing you -> No self-defense because there was no threat towards you nor your family in the first place.

Oh, I think I understand. Just because a thief breaks down your front door with an MP5 threatening your family and your children, it means he’s a nice fellow. He sees that you aren’t brandishing your own MP5 in self-defense so he starts raping your wife. Its win-win isn’t it?

Topic: Serious Discussion / Don't Tread On Me: A Libertarian Thread

I like not having to equip my house with ridiculous amounts of weaponry just to sleep peacefully at night.

That’s not what we’re asking you to do. Your government’s police force will protect you.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Don't Tread On Me: A Libertarian Thread

Ok, so then, what’s the difference? It sounds like a return to a couple thousand years ago, followed by the development of small groups that want to work together, followed by bigger “governments”, which will progress into a group of nations. It just seems like a reset that will lead back to the same thing.

What’s the difference? The difference is we tell the government that we’re fed up with their shit. Its a historical process. Government gets too big, falls, and starts over. I think we’re at the part where the government is too big.

they also have as much right as you to own and use that gun, what makes you think they wont shoot you because of that?

They won’t come near you and try to steal because they know that they have no advantage over you. They realize that you, as well as all your close neighbors, and the government protecting you will come after them.

but you’re not allowed to shoot someone after they shot one of your relatives.

Nope, that is why we would have ‘private’ governments to operate the court system and whatnot. I mean, you can shoot them, but the government that protects them would likely to be pissed off.

So basically you think it’s alright for people to shoot someone after taking a worthless item, but you’re not allowed to do something when a valuable life has been taken?

Your obviously a bleeding heart liberal that has no idea what he’s saying. The person that comes on your property and attempts to steal something is endangering your life and your family’s life. You are shooting him in self-defense.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Don't Tread On Me: A Libertarian Thread

With our current world, you can move and switch your government. The only difference is physical displacement.

Well, you’d want to be within the physical protection of the government right? I think physical displacement, while not necessary, would be quite common.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Don't Tread On Me: A Libertarian Thread

Is the only advantage that you don’t have to physically move in anarchy?

I don’t think I understand what you’re asking.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Don't Tread On Me: A Libertarian Thread

Ok, so let’s say I’m convicted of a crime. Can I then go and call up a new government, or just announce that I no longer agree to the law I broke?

You’ve signed a contract. The government will hunt you down and convict you. (Much like the way it works today)

Why do you think that power over your government is the highest ideal? I think there’s far more to life than that, and having a strong government can aid people in living happy lives.

Because a strong government can aid people in losing their rights.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Don't Tread On Me: A Libertarian Thread

Since when is stealing worse than shooting somebody?

Since that person is trespassing on your property possibly endangering your safety and the safety of your family.

The family of the person you shot will come and revenge him, which will leave you dead and your family revenge you.

Nope, a nice .45 does the trick.

No law or peace enforcing unit to calm down the situation → again chaos.

Read lord_azaral’s post. There is law and there is a police force.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Don't Tread On Me: A Libertarian Thread

Ever had a friend who was in trouble very bad, unable to get out of those problems, and when you want to help them, they deny your offer? I’m talking about those kind of people, they’d rather just die in the streets instead of being helped.

And you think not having Anarchy stops this? Really? This has nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, to do with Anarchism.

A “nice .45” only works while you’re awake and holding it.

You went ahead and skipped over the important part of my post.

The different between anarchy and what we have now is… huge. You understand this as well as I do, or you wouldn’t be advocating one over the other.

Okay…

Topic: Serious Discussion / Don't Tread On Me: A Libertarian Thread

Yes indeed, and it works just perfectly up until someone decides they would like to takes everything you own. Unless you have armed guards patrolling the area day and night, there’s little you can do about it. Or worse, if your guards decide to take it from you.

How is this different than the scenario we have currently? That’s right, its not.

Again, a nice .45 does the trick.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Don't Tread On Me: A Libertarian Thread

And those who do get help will eventually be called parasites by some. Conflicts are inevitable.

Again, ask yourself: Did I question this statement? No.

The majority wishes to be self-sufficient.

Bingo kid! The majority will be self-sufficient leaving the minority as people who aren’t. The self-sufficient will help the non-self-sufficient.

A lot of people don’t want help from others either.

So what your saying is they want to help themselves?

Conflicts are inevitable and unsolvable without a superior they will listen to.

Bullshit. I find a nice .45 does the trick.

Every group needs some sort of leader to turn to when things go bad.

Repeating your opinion will not make me sympathetic to it.

Receive no help, give no help.

And yet billions get donated to charities annually.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Idiots On The Hill

I’m not a big fan of the “stop violence with violence” philosophy.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Don't Tread On Me: A Libertarian Thread

Bonghit, you truly are ignorant.

Thanks brah.

Open your frigging eyes, First you deny nature problems and now you deny that humanity doesn’t have a huge violent side.

Did I? I don’t recall saying anything of the sort. Maybe you should re-read my post and check for any statement that resembles this.

And that everybody is able to take care of themselves.

Now I am implying this. Those not able to take care of themselves will seek aid from those who can (charity).

Funny.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Idiots On The Hill

[ Hunt and kill anyone who wants to destroy peace and order ]

Wow that is just dripping with irony.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Don't Tread On Me: A Libertarian Thread

A large group of the world population can’t even cook his own food, let alone respect others and make the right decisions without someone guiding them, so we can all live in harmony.

Still not agreeing with it.

I’m actually starting to like anarchism more and more. I understand what lord is saying and it makes a hell of a lot of sense. With anarchy you truly have power over your government. I also like the idea that people can choose what laws they wish to live under. Anarchy would eliminate all taxes too and that is a major plus.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Russia starts war with Georgia

I didn’t think crossing into georgian airspace was considered an act of agression if it wasn’t a plane that able to attack. Shows what I know.

I don’t think it matters. A lot of spy can’t attack, yet we would shot them down instantly if they entered U.S. airspace. I think Russia is in the wrong here.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Russia starts war with Georgia

it was in Georgian airspace, but it was not a ground-attack plane.

Yes, Georgia shot down the first plane. However, this plane was, as you said, in Georgian airspace. Georgia had every right to shoot that plane down. The crossing into Georgia’s airspace is the act of aggression; thus, Russia was the starter of this conflict, not Georgia.

Topic: Serious Discussion / Don't Tread On Me: A Libertarian Thread

People are too stupid to lead their own lives and need to be guided.

I cannot agree with this statement.

Anarchy doesn’t work. Absolute freedom corrupts absolutely, it seems.

Yeah, I see anarchy as chaos; but, that may be because I’m not envisioning a very slow transition into anarchy. I think the negative connotation comes from this sort of belief. However, I don’t see anarchy as something that society can cope with even with a very slow transition. Maybe lord_azaral can change my mind…

Topic: Serious Discussion / Russia starts war with Georgia

Why does the US have to ally every single little country? We’re going to be involved in 30 wars before someone finally realizes: “Hey, let’s worry about our own asses for once. Some other people can take care of themselves for like 2 seconds while we take care of ourselves. FOR ONCE.”

Amen to that.