Hear, here.

It is worth pointing out that both philosophies claim to promise the abolition of the State - in libertarianism by direct dismantling, and in communism by 'withering away' - and both philosophies proclaim practically utopian outcomes from the implementation of their ideas. Neither has succeeded where they have been tried: the ballooning of the USSR and the expenditure on maintaining its sphere of influence, as well as the ballooning of the national debt and health care costs under Reaganomics attest to this fact.



'Fraid not.

Per-capita spending on public health care systems in Europe is drastically lower than the hybrid system we have. Of course, I could be wrong, but given these data the problem is probably not with the institution of public health care itself.





Indeed. And a few of these libertarian anarchists do have a pretty scary vision of what an ideal libertopia would actually be like (the red-lettered text are actual quotes from Hans-Hermann Hoppe). I certainly don't think all libertarians believe the same things Hoppe believes, but I do find it somewhat distressing that the fringe Austrian school of political economy to which Hoppe belongs enjoys some considerable currency amongst the Ron Paul crowd.

A little bit more on-topic, though: apparently Rick Santorum (like Dave Mustaine himself, I suppose?) was a bit more centrist and... well, considerably less nutty in his younger days.

My brand of Libertarian Anarchy, called Minarchy, is based on the principle that the government does very little. No welfare, no Social Security, no public education, no UN. Instead, the government defends from external forces and fraud, and punishment for said forces and fraud. This will drive down taxes and keep us out of wars, just so long as we are trigger-happy with our nukes.

I can honestly not give two shits about the poor, nor do I care about the animals, the druggies, the mentally ill, or anyone who I don't know and love, so why should I be forced to pay for their sorry asses (when I start paying taxes)? And why would anyone give two shits about me, and why do I want to die someday realizing that someone is being forced to pay for this? We would (or would not) have insurance (which would be privatized with no government interference), or we could maybe even pay out of pocket. After all, government-subsidized insurance is what drives up healthcare prices.

The entire point of the minarchy is to structure a government which literally and outwardly doesn't care about you. With all this "care" we have been receiving, we are having our taxes driven up, having these taxes put towards shit we don't need, and losing our rights. It's time we take responsibility for our own damn actions, and stop having the government force up to pay for other people's stupidity or misfortune. You wanna help the homeless? Fine, send your money to a goddamn charity, don't make me pay for it! You wanna fuck up your life with drugs, go ahead, I don't give a fuck! You wanna do a man, woman, and everything in between? Goddamn fine, just don't do it on public property.

What the minarchy does not approve of is aggression or fraud. If you kill someone, you are stealing their life, which is private property (All religion aside). If you rape someone, you steal their virginity, which is once again, their private property. If you sell someone an "Ipad" which turns out to be a heavy tile, because you are stealing a product which someone paid for, you are stealing their private property. This is what police would protect you from: the theft of private property.

If a terrorist group decided to bomb something, it would be the duty of the army (external) or the police (internal) to destroy and kill all the members of this terrorist group outside the US, and properly prosecute those in the US. If a nation went to war with the US, the US would destroy them immediately, preferably by atom bomb or something more destructive. Our borders would be secured. All the illegals who would swim into our Rio Grande would be shot and killed on site. Entering legally would entail a simpler passport system, and the naturalization system would become much simpler, so that there is no reason to enter illegally. We are a nation of immigrants, and this is how it should remain.

The idea of the minarchy is to give people all the rights possible to the People. It doesn't matter even if the second Civil War happens, if it is a civil war the people want, it is a civil war the People should get!

Wait, what?

Let me guess: 14, living with your parents in a McMansion in the suburbs, not very popular among your classmates, and spending most of your time on the net? Mom and dad are well off financially, and pay for all of your crap, but rarely spend time home, and never really discuss with you about anything, or, alternatively, those discussions are mostly Neo-con propaganda? Be honest here.

The USA nuking stuff is already such a childish idea that it might come from the mouth of GWB on crack, and letting people die on the streets, as you essentially suggest, is a very fine way to ensure happiness and well-being for everybody, including the privileged folks. Do you have any idea how idiotic all that sounds? No? Go for a summer job with real people for a month, and maybe you'll get a lesson, and most probably also beaten up. There is a real world outside your room, and being a silly ass juvenile moron is a very fine way to make you look like an ass. Which you just did. Being detached from reality is one thing, making noise without realizing having the said condition is another. Hopefully your parents are so rich that you'll never have to work, because otherwise, you're in for a MAJOR surprise once they kick you out.

Sheesh... I thought we could not go lower. I was wrong.

Yeah, I'm astonished such opinions exist in general let alone in an extreme music community.



Anyone with such pathological views already has a fucked up life, and I'd say drugs are just about the only things that can help you.

I, too, agree that the rich shouldn't be required to give a fuck about the poor! How could it possibly harm the rich if the proles are unhappy? I can't think of a single way!

Pbsisbad's reasoning is filled with more potholes than the infrastructure of a low-taxed society, so I wouldn't pay too much notice. Real life will smack him over the head with the proverbial rubber-bat when he emerges from his teenage musings.

Not really.

"The United States has exploded over 1000 nuclear weapons between the start of the nuclear age in 1945 and the voluntary moratorium on testing the US entered into in 1992."
http://web.mit.edu/stgs/nuclearweapons.html

There's a difference between nuclear testing and killing people with nukes. You're not silly enough not to understand that much. Lowering the threshold for their aggressive use would be the most stupid thing EVER, and the GWB talk about his tiny "bunkerbuster" nukes was the main reason why I really think he envisioned himself as the person to break the seventh seal of apocalypse.

Let's say the USA uses a nuke on the next Tora Bora, or Israel nukes the Iranian reactor, for some hypothetical discussion. Those incidents would only serve to reinforce the completely credible belief that only nations with nukes of their own are safe from the wrath of nuclear powers. Any idea what that would lead to? There are probably 50 countries in the world that could fairly easily build a working nuclear weapon from the stuff they have on hand in a couple of years. And it's better than governmental health insurance in a world where nukes instead of conventional war serve the purpose of extending the traditional means of diplomacy.

TL;DR: if someone uses the nukes, the only ones losing something in the medium term would be the current nuclear powers. The only ones winning would be the evangelicals and other nutjobs waiting for the world to end.

You misunderstand me a little, I'm not fond of the idea of destroying the environment to test highly destructive radioactive weapons nor do I think its a wise investment of resources. I wasn't implying that I am only concerned about humans dying from nuclear weapons, more so about several authoritarian governments measuring dicks via potential destructive abilities. Though, I guess that is pretty childish in a way...

Byrain, you don't really make much sense in the context.

Nope. I know there are people who think they are libertarian anarchists, and think such a thing can exist, but it can't. Like anarcho-capitalism, this is like saying you can have a football or a basketball match without a ref. It won't and can't work, even short term.



Libertarianism exists close to the opposite end of one stick with all forms of statism on one end and minarchism on the other; anarchy is an entirely separate stick. Comparing the two is like comparing a Christian and an atheist because they believe in almost the same number of gods compared to, say, Hindus. It's a complete farce of an argument.

That bat will also be shoved up his ass.

It amazes me how some people can believe the things that they think/say.

Well, I got my dose of stupid for the day.

Bears repeating this gem of a quote... I think I have a new sig:


Seriously now.
Again.

Brilliant. Just brilliant.



Do I detect a No True Scotsman? No matter. Tell that to them who self-identify as such and write lengthy essays defending their warped ideas, not to me. I couldn't care less since pretty much all brands of libertarianism is reality-denying lunacy anyway.

What I mean is that when you rape someone, you steal their not-being-raped-ness. You steal their dignity, as well as the time out of their lives you took to rape them. You may also steal their mental stability, and money from them for counseling. In the case of a virgin, you take their virginity, and possibly a few chances for mates, as some people view getting raped as a turnoff. I cannot think of a better way to explain this, and I know this isn't helping my case.




You cannot imagine what kind of a dumbass I feel like now for writing it like that. I have the flu or something, and I was up at three in the morning or something with 5 hrs sleep the previous night before and a 20+ mile bike ride in the cold. Sigh...

I wasn't going to say anything, but I think I have to now. If a virgin is raped, then they're still a virgin, that can't be taken away by force.



Who would think that way? That implies that it's the victims fault, which is totally untrue.

The entire idea of virginity is not well defined. Most of the LGBT community feels that you lose your virginity through anal or vaginal intercourse. Some believe that you cannot lose your virginity through oral sex. Some women will only do anal or oral because they feel that virginity is only lost through procreative (vaginal) sex. And then there is rape. Some people feel that virginity can only be lost through consensual sex. I personally feel that you can lose it through rape.

For the purposes of this discussion, I will assume that you can lose your virginity through any mutual sexual intercourse of any kind.

I know Im jumping in on this in the middle of a shitstorm but it doesnt really surprise me that Mustaine supports Santorum. Dave isnt the smartest person in the world and hes done so many drugs that hes killed enough brain cells to support such insane views.

He could aslo he supporting Santorum because Metallica supports Gingrich and he just wants to prove he is more conservative and insane

I'm not sure that things like virginity, mental stability or time are best classified as legal property. Nor do I see why you would want to when we have criminal and tortious assault.

pbsisbad, how does it feel when you're in a pit and feel an irresistible urge to dig yourself deeper?

This thread is approaching the end. Once we start discussing virginity as an equivalent of trade goods that can be stolen, traded and/or lost accidentally at the railway station, there's something deeply wrong with the world. Get back on the subject, lest this gets locked.

Alright, I'll be honest. I'm 15, and I do live in the suburbs. My parents are well-off as far as I know, but not "rich." They pay for my food, lodging, and obligatory taxes, as well as $100 for my Birthday and Christmas.

My parents discuss everything with me. My mom is politically uninformed; she is more clueless about politics than you think I am. My dad is a staunch conservative with libertarian leanings, but not nearly as far as mine. My mom is home most of the day, except when she tutors, and this is during homework time. My dad is home in the evenings and on the weekends.

I am not popular amongst my classmates, and although I live in a slightly big home, there is a much bigger one down the street which would qualify as the McMansion of my neighborhood. I worked for my home (not as much as my parents): I put in the bolts which secured the house to the foundation (it was a prefab); I helped build the garage from scratch; I moved in all of the furniture; I cared for my dad when he fell 21 feet off his ladder. I obviously didn't do as much work as my parents, but I am not completely undeserving of the things I have been blessed with.

My political theory happens to be strongly in line with those of my dad, but I developed them on my own by careful observation of those around me.

I would get a summer job, but at least my school is anti-job. If I would like to get a job, I have to fill out a form, and the employer would have to sign it. Why won't they just hire a Mexican at Town Hall? Scrawny white boys can't get a job anymore!

People are already dying on the streets! The idea is to let private charities handle it. These charities do exist. If the government decides to delete it's welfare program (in this case for the poor), the money which taxpayers would be sending to the government, which at it's present size has a huge operating cost, could be used so people can donate at their whim to charities. Even though not everyone will be paying, some people will give bigger or huge donations, which will be specially distributed with lower operating costs.

Some people can live like bees in a beekeeping hive: they get free lodging, but at the expense of being smoked, losing your hard-earned honey, and most likely being disposed of if you get hostile or a tolerance to the smoke. I can't.

Ok, I'll shut up now.

When, oh, when will the white, middle-class, straight, conservative man have his time in the sun?!


A little bit optimistic, don't you think?

He's already laying in a deep tomb, don't throw more earth inside it. But the kid at least has some kind of political opinion and he's willing to defend them, even if it's wishful thinking and complete suburban idiocy. At 14-15, I was playing legos, I think it was more constructive.

Trying to forget the shitstorm I have caused, I will input my opinion on the OP.

I don't respect Dave Mustaine as a political figure. I will always appreciate his contribution to music and respect him as a musician, but politically, he gets as much respect as a talking parrot.

You got that right.

I honestly don't care what someone's beliefs are, if the music sounds good, it's good to me.

This is one of those moments where I have a lengthy response to something, and then these show up:

pbsisbad had better wish the money his parents have is sufficient for him to live in a bubble for the rest of his life. I, for one, hope for the reverse.

Please notice the missing smiley. I know a few people who think in the same way, and while I'm rarely malicious, they usually deserve a taste of what the real world is like.

But enough of teasing the retard, back to the subject.

[/quote]


How about nuclear "testing" in space, where the emp could be directed at a specific location?
A nuclear device piggybacks a ride on a satellite launch, orbits for a few weeks or months, then is activated, who knows where it originated? Maybe unusual sun activity will be blamed?

high-altitude test occurred on 22 October 1962 (during the Cuban missile crisis), in ‘Operation K’ (ABM System A proof tests) when a 300 kt missile-warhead detonated near Dzhezkazgan at 290-km altitude. The EMP fused 570 km of overhead telephone line with a measured current of 2,500 A, started a fire that burned down the Karaganda power plant, and shut down 1,000-km of shallow-buried power cables between Aqmola and Almaty

That was in 1962.

I'm not really allowed to tell you what I know about EMP, but as a precision weapon, it's comparable to a swarm of comet fragments aimed at Earth from Jupiter. You can't attack a small country, say, Belgium, with it because you'll fry the neighbors as well... and besides, if I was a terrorist with a nuke and a ballistic delivery system, I'd use it as an EMP weapon for reasons I won't specify here. In any case, while people in Congo would hardly notice being attacked by one, a moderate sized nuke used that way above New York, for example, would kill far more people indirectly than 9/11 did directly. So it's just another can of worms no western nation should ever consider opening.

EMP almost scares me more. I read a book called One Second After dealing with it, and it scared me. It also scared everyone else I let borrow it on my recommendation.

Best thing I got from this thread: Minarchy.

I like that. Get the hell out of my life, government!!

As for Mustaine: why do you care so much that he's conservative? Come on, do you really support Cannibal Corpse when they talk about disembowling virgin corpses? Please. Music is a fantasy realm. Nobody's tying themselves to anyone's religious or political beliefs when they listen to music. So stop holding Dave Mustaine to a different standard than everyone else.

He plays heavy music. You either like it, or you move on. The fact that he likes Santorum means nothing. NOTHING. And I say this as a musician who has never really liked Mustaine's work...

EMP from a nuke isn't the really scary thing, because the exact same thing is possible from purely natural causes. A large solar flare would be...quite horrific, for most of the developed world.

This is a bullshit excuse for an argument. Yes, music is a "realm of fantasy", but being a person writing music isn't. Everyone knows Cannibal Corpse lyrics are facetious, and that they don't actually spend the time they're not working with music butchering people. Do you think they'd retain the same support (and freedom) if they started doing it for real? At the same time, the problem here isn't that Dave writes lyrics about his paranoid conspiracy theories, the problem is that he, outside of music supports a nutjob bigot like Santorum.

You argue that music is just escapism, but you're the one who can't seem to separate them properly... funny that. Just my two cents. I've always had trouble supporting Dave, and these wacky antics of his aren't helping. I almost wonder if he's doing this for shock reasons... granted, he'd be going about it the entirely wrong way, but when has Dave ever done anything that wasn't related to music right?

It really doesn't matter about Mustain's music though, because the themes of his old material are so different from what he's saying now it might have been written by a different person. And his new stuff isn't even good anyway.

I see you what you did there. Clever. And god forbid anyone ever makes a typo.

So that I understand correctly:

Liberal says Santorum is an extremist who will take away your rights.

Conservative says Obama is an extremist who will take away your rights.

Independent says neither are extremists. They clearly just have opposing view points, and quite a bit of their rhetoric is more polarizing in order to appeal to the party base.

I wonder which one is the most correct. Clearly it can't be the independent with no party affiliation. He's too stupid and unenlightened.

It's so weird though...Obama got elected, yet I can still go buy hand guns, go to any church I wish to praise Jesus, and my income tax isn't at 90%. Hmm. And if Santorum got elected (which I wouldn't prefer to be honest), homosexual intercourse will still be totally allowed and legal, prayer won't return to schools, and women will have more of a "right" to an abortion in most states than either France or Norway. Hmm. It's just so fucking weird.

Personally, Santorum is my least favorite Republican candidate right now, I'd rather see Romney or Gingrich, it's just something about the way he carries himself, but I'd still vote for him over Obama.

I think if Santorum were to be elected, he'd be the president of a government that people would most comfortably revolt against. He's so bad that it makes him a solid candidate.

As an independent, I believe I must demur a bit.

The problem is not that both sides are 'extreme'; the problem is that both sides have completely divergent organising tactics and principles, neither of which is particularly appealing. We do have one party (the GOP) which is highly disciplined but pathologically extreme and getting even more so (and in odder ways, due to the tension between the libertarian and neoconservative strains), and one party (the Dems) which is so pusillanimous and casts its tent so broadly that it ends up standing for nothing. There are pro-life and pro-choice Democrats, just as there are anti-gun and pro-gun Democrats, just as there are anti-globalist and pro-globalist Democrats. There is a small sub-camp of Democrats who are principled leftists or principled liberals (or both), but the bulk of the Democrats (following Clinton) live in the mushy middle.

As to who is president, if this were the 1970's I would agree with you. However, since Nixon, since Reagan and especially since Clinton and Bush, the presidency has been given such a frighteningly wide range of executive powers that it very much does matter who is there.

Don't know what you mean: Abortion in France, Abortion in Norway

Any discussion comparing the US abortion issues with any other country is impossible on any sane level. And I mean this whether or not you're talking pro-abortion or anti-abortion. Both sides go to extremes, and the use of common sense seems to be illegal.

In any case, arguing or even hinting that Santorum's wishlist contains freedom of abortion comparable to any Nordic country is purely idiotic. He'd ban abortion in the blink of an eye if he could. And gays. Not just gay sex or marriages, but gays themselves. And contraception, too. And sex outside of marriage. And most sex in a marriage.