The rich and affluent: why hate them?

How does government acquire it's money? The answer is obviously through taxation. How does government enforce it's taxation, through fines, and other penalties. Those penalties are in turn backed up by the threat of violence. While government takes a more circuitous route the end result is taking money by the threat of force.

As for never needing government assistance. Since I've joined Fakku, I've lost my truck and my business, lost two other jobs and have spent close to a years time searching for work. There have been plenty of opportunities for me to justify unemployment benefits and I've chosen to NOT take them because it's theft.





So, if you chose to paint your house a color I don't like, I have the moral authority to threaten you? It's all a matter of natural rights taken to the logic conclusion. If I can not tell you how to decorate your house, you can't tell another being how to utilize their property. You have a double standard because you "feel" that it's wrong.



I was taking your logic to it's conclusion. "I don't believe person X is using their property correctly, therefore I can use violence against them despite that person not causing damages to me or others".



The business owner has the same rights you do in regards to your home. Those rights are; to consume, sell, rent, mortgage, transfer, exchange or destroy it, or to exclude others from doing these things. Much like you can say "I won't allow people with yellow shirts into my home" a business can say "You can only work here if you wear black shirt and khaki's". You have the right to set requirements to be in your home and a business can set the same requirements. It's only taking the same property rights you exercise everyday and allowing another person to exercise them.



If an employee becomes sick, injured, etc because of the negligence of the employer then they can seek damages. This is because a person has property rights over themselves and the employer has violated those property rights by damaging them.

"You don't have a right to that job" is the same as me saying "I don't have a right to walk into your home" Because both are violating the property rights of another person. Namely the right to exclude others from your property.

Sorry for being presumptuous about your own life circumstances. All i've been trying to say is that not everyone on government assistance is some greedy freeloader looking for a "handout".



Color doesn't relate to workplace safety at all, so i don't see how its a logical conclusion. And furthermore, the decorations on someones house don't affect anyone else's safety. Im not saying employers have to pamper their workers. All im saying is that the workers shouldn't have to worry about getting injured or sick on the job,or at least not for reasons unrelated to that job(obviously something like construction has some danger to it that can't really be avoided no matter how careful the boss is).



If a workplace isn't safe, then the employer is at the very least putting others in danger of receiving damages.



So do you believe someone has the right to not expect to get sick or injured(again, beyond whatever chance of that happening the job would entail) at a workplace?Cause that is all im trying to argue here.

I wasn't saying they are freeloaders. I was just pointing out that they are benefiting from theft and arguing the immorality and illegitimacy of such actions.

Another way of explaining it is. If I approached you and said "Give me $200 or you'll get a beating". We both agree that I've threatened(coerced) you with the initiation of force (violence). If I approached you and said "Give me $200 so I can give it to Bakapink so they can buy groceries or you'll get a beating" Is still fundamentally the same thing.



A house and a business are both forms of immovable property (which is a form of property). The same rights apply to a homeowner as they do to a business owner. Every justification you make towards violating the rights of the business owner, you in turn justify the violation of your own rights as a home owner. If a business can't exclude someone from their establishment, the same core argument can be used to prevent you from excluding someone from your home.




You're starting to understand, that's good. Let's change two words of that sentence to help you further understand





You own your body. It is your property, you have the right to consume, sell, rent, mortgage, transfer, exchange, alter, destroy, or exclude others from doing these things to your property, in this case, your body.

So yes, I believe a person has the right to demand a safe work environment and I believe nobody can force you to work in such environments but, if you are so inclined you can work there if you so choose. On the flip side, you can't force someone to have "safe work conditions" because it's not your property and by forcing them to make these changes, you are in effect violating their property rights.

So..
-if I walk around nude on my front lawn while I blast porno's on a over sized screen adjacent, to me, on said lawn...
-if I spew hate speech and show images of racial bigotry, picture of people who are a nationality I don't like being killed...
-if I shot off my gun, knowing "I could hit someone but as long as the bullets stay on my property" in mind...
-if I hurt and kill people indiscriminately for entering my area, for example a kid fetching his ball...
-if I beat my family on my lawn...
...I am within my right, because "ownership of property" is that simply and supersedes anything and everything else? Such as personal rights? (Scary...)





So the property rights of the owner, again, supersedes the right of the individual, and any law that prioritizes first the property owner before the person, is good.

If the person incurs injury, they can only hold the owner accountable afterwards, but it is their fault for accepting the job. Like if I paid a little kid (someone who is ignorant of the dangers) to get rid of a rabid dog (or person of danger that only I know of) on my land, it is the child's fault for accepting.

Any law that prevent this from incurring. Any law that makes it so that a person is prioritize over the feelings of entitlement,
any law that makes it so that the person does not have to die in order to receive equality,
any law that deems a person "continued well being" to "their life" is more important than someone being able to do whatever they want on what they feel is theirs,
is bad...

This is why I said theirs "difference in ideology between the 2 of us, and strikes me as a pointless conversation to have with you". Because I think in complete reverse of this.

I value a persons life before anything else.

I don't like CEO pay, it's more than reasonable in my opinion but, I can not use force against them just because I think they're paid too high. My views are consistence with Classical Liberal Theory.

Unless the CEO has violated your rights, do what to them what you should do to others who haven't violated your rights, ignore them. If the CEO spouts off nonsense you disagree with, don't buy there. If you believe the CEO of Goldman Sachs makes too much and his company makes reckless decisions, don't invest there.






You didn't really answer the questions. In those scenario's does a person have the right to demand money from others? Of course not.



You really missed the point on this one. It's an explanation of how people will lose jobs if the base costs of employing people goes up. You were a poor employee at McDonald's but, you were not unprofitable. There were more employees who made more profit for the company and they got more hours. If you were downright unprofitable to employ the franchise owner (unless he was a goddamned idiot) would have fired and replaced you.




An owner of property has the right to consume, sell, rent, mortgage, transfer, exchange or destroy it, or to exclude others from doing these things.

The hooker has the right consume, sell, rent, mortgage, transfer, exchange or destroy it, or to exclude others from doing these things to their body.

So the hooker has the right to exclude you from destroying their property (Person). Even though it's in your house, on your land that hooker still retains ownership of their property (person). By attempting to kill (destroy) them without their consent then you are violating their property rights.

If the hooker broke into your house, they violated your rights to consume (use) and exclude others from your house (property). Therefore, you are justified in the use of retaliatory force to expel them from your home or otherwise protect your property.

Ask yourself "If I can do this at home, can a business do the same thing?"

Do you have a right to leave your kitchen unsanitary? If yes, does the owner of another property have the same right? Do you have a right to leave your house messy or cluttered? Does the owner of another property have the same right?



Who said anything about fault? This was a discussion of property rights and their examples not whose fault it is. If the boss says "have sex with me or I'll fire you" he's coercing his employee.



You're violating his rights by threatening the illegitimate use of force. In other words, you're coercing him which even libertarians an anarchists argue is morally wrong. Poor example is poor and shows you misunderstand the nuances I am trying to convey.



We agree that a person has a right to not be harmed there is no arguing that. We basically disagree on where the line is drawn. If I enter your home, do I have the right to force you to sanitize your kitchen? No. I can demand it. I can refuse to enter your home or refuse to let you cook for me until you sanitize your kitchen but, I can't force you to do that without violating your rights to your property rights.

Another way of looking at it is, you do not have the right to force others to do something regardless of how significant or mundane it is.



Typically, the CEO/MD has responsibilities as a director, decision maker, leader, manager and executor. The communicator role can involve the press and the rest of the outside world, as well as the organization's management and employees; the decision-making role involves high-level decisions about policy and strategy. As a leader of the company, the CEO/MD advises the board of directors, motivates employees, and drives change within the organization. As a manager, the CEO/MD presides over the organization's day-to-day operations

It's a matter of scale. The store manager at a McDonalds doesn't have nearly as much to coordinate as the CEO of McDonalds therefore, they earn more.





Do you have the right to walk around nude in your own home?



First Amendment



Shooting a gun on your own property (land/house) is A-ok. You hit someone with a stray bullet, break a window, hit a car, put a hole in someone's roof. You've caused damages and must pay reparations to them for said damages.



Do you have the right to expel people who break into your home?



Simple explanation



Why are you having difficulty with a concept my 8 year old niece understands perfectly? Both people have rights. When the use of your "property" violates the "property" rights of another being then reparations must be made.

The owner has the right to consume their property.

The owner has the right to sell their property.

The owner has the right to rent their property to others.

The owner has the right to mortgage their property.

The owner has the right to transfer their property to others

The owner has the right to

The owner has the right to destroy their property.

The owner has the right to eclude others from doing the above mentioned things.

If you want specific examples of those in practice, feel free to ask.




We're not arguing fault, we're arguing property rights and their extensions. In any case you defrauded the child by deceiving them about the dangers. You'd be guilty of fraud and liable for the damages to the child. Both are justifications for the use of force according to the non-aggression principle.



To me, a person's life IS their property. So in essence we agree on everything except where the line is drawn.

Or rather, you believe in principle there is no line, except "the violation of natural rights." However, given such a lairess-faire approach, natural rights will be(and have been) violated throughout the course of history. As an example, the right of Prostitution puts those women at risk(of STD's among other things) and for what? Is it a profitable business? Not in the long run as one may lose attraction(especially if the high speed life includes drugs, etc).

It's harmful not only to the individual but potentially to the general public as well as morally decaying.

There's the right to purchase firearms as well as the right of association, but combine these two rights together and you have gangs and gun violence. Does that make firearms or the right to peaceful assembly wrong? No, but it does mean these "rights" need to be properly regulated and laws properly enforced.

Rather than a "free" society, we should aim for a stable and prosperous society. There is in fact such a thing as too much freedom.

First of all. Her body, her decision. She's not your property unless you feel you're superior to women and can direct how they should live their lives?

Now, let's break this cluster fuck of nonsense up.



Yes, so does all sexual contact between humans beings.



It varies between region, woman and clientele.



Most legal prostitutes actually don't have substance addictions. It's often the prostitutes in jurisdictions that succumb to substance abuse because of several reasons. First if they are abused by their pimp or customer they can not seek help without being arrested by police. Secondly, pimps can abuse the women and force them to take dependency creating drugs so the woman will have to keep coming back to their fix and it keeps them dependent and easy to manipulate. In areas such as Nevada and Amsterdam the women are able to choose who and when they have sex with and it is done without coercion. If coercion is involved then reparations should be made.



Careful now, you're starting to sound Ultra-social conservative.



So we should eliminate the right of assembly? and Gun rights? Wow. Starting to sound like North Korea there too.

If you go back to the 1890's were the government had no regulation over certain aspects of business. Back then it would justifiable to hate them. Now people work hard and have brilliant ideas to go with it, in most cases.

I hate the fact that most of them play the system in some ways. These banks get to the point in high markets where they are litterly just throwing money at irresponsible borrowers. I understand that if the government didn't bail out these banks and large corporations we'd be shit out of luck, but i don't see why they get so irresponsible again and again, and then get the same treatment. Why isn't there more control put on these companies that have proven they are irresponsible even when the government owns a majority of the company from bailing them out so many times.

It's funny, you guys got way off topic as you defend the rich. Why we hate them? Envy aside, many act poorly and feeling like everyone should lick their boots as they effectively keep money in their hands while taking it out of others, as they scream about the entitlement class.

They never act like this? have I ever truly witnessed such personally? I served a group of corporate types that was talking about all sorts of large numbers loudly as if bragging about it so other tables heard, the tip for $250 bill was "get a real job" written in the tip line.

Just so you know, I have to claim 10% of sales with or without being tipped that about 30% gets taxed, and tip out 4%, so they cost me about 17.50, lovely eh?

The community reinvestment act encouraged (read; Forced) lending to people who would otherwise be rejected as a bad credit risks.



By bailing them out the first time, the government gave these banks the green light to continue this course of action because the American people will need to bail them out because "too big to fail".

We should have let them fail, suffered the consequences for our greed then picked up the pieces.




Corruption within both American political parties. There is so much power at the Federal level that it's ripe for abuse and corruption. It's a roundabout way of saying, the majority of those in elected office and those who seek elected office don't care about you. They say they do but, when the time comes, they care more about being reelected than doing their jobs.




Anecdotes don't qualify as good evidence for an argument. In fact, it shows you're simply bitter about being shafted by a group of assholes and project that anger onto others.

I agree fed's are rather corrupt, and the entire system moves like a turtle. I guess you can say ideology is fine for a government that's not so self ensuring. Also, if the feds have some kind of legislature that really encourages/forces banks to lend to bad eggs in good times, they are effectively producing the next recession and really need to get shit together.

Utter bullshit.

I am, by most measures, quite wealthy. I have a nice house, my health insurance and university tuition is completely paid for, and I could probably never get a job and still live a pretty comfy life. You know what I've done to earn this?

Nothing.

I am in this position solely by luck of the draw. It was by pure chance I was born to a wealthy family; I could just have easily been born to a poor family in Yorkshire. Just to pre-empt the inevitable "the rich deserve it because they all work so super duper hard!" nonsense.


Now, I have dealt with more rich people than most, and the beliefs of most rich people can most succinctly summarised with the phrase "Fuck you, got mine".

People don't hate the rich "because they're just jealous prats" like out-of-touch idiots like to characterise the disadvantaged. People hate the rich because they're greedy bastards who only care about further enriching themselves at the expense of everyone else, and refusing to submit to anything that may level the playing field to help those less fortunate than them. Like when the rich throw childish tantrums at the thought of being forced to pay higher taxes despite having more money than they could spend in a lifetime, showing more concern for their precious money than the lives of other human beings. They think having one less ferrari is doing their part for society. It's selfish, it's disgusting, and I can't believe anyone can somehow support that sort of thinking.


Let me tell you a little story. My dad and my uncle have been having a feud for decades, since before I was even born. The reason for this is that they both believe that when my grandfather died, they thought he left the other more money than they got. This is despite the fact that they had more than most people will ever have in their entire lives handed to them on a silver platter, and that most people would be elated with it even if the other did get more. They're never satisfied with the fact that they have it really fucking good. They just want more, more, more. This probably contributed to my mum (who comes from a much more humble background) eventually divorcing him.

The rich are not victims. They don't have it rough. And the thing is, people aren't even asking a massive amount from them. They're not demanding that everyone get a mansion and a ferrari or because they just want MORE MORE MORE (which, again, applies to the rich more than anyone). People just want the rich to give more back so that people can pay rent, so that people can get healthcare without going bankrupt, so that people can get an education without going into massive debt, so that someone who was laid off can still provide for their families while they look for work, so that someone who is disabled can still make a living, so that people will have fucking food on the table. These are perfectly resonable things to ask, and yet the rich throw a hissy fit at the very suggestion, because, again, "fuck you, got mine".

People are angry at the rich. And that anger is completely justified.

I question the legitimacy of this. Anybody can claim to be wealthy on the internet. For all we know, you're some middle class, party troglodyte whose pretending to be an affluent person to justify their own political positions out of self interest.



Really? Isn't those same people who believe the rich aren't paying enough the same people who demand "free" stuff from their governments who by the way acquire the finances for that "free" stuff through the use of threats and intimidation against sections of the population. Yeah, resisting having things taken by force is such an asshole behavior.



Demanding that others pay for your schooling, healthcare, transportation, phones, etc is just as if not more disgusting and selfish.




Anecdotal evidence is considered dubious support of a claim.

^ Literal "fuck you, got mine", I'm impressed.

No, I don't feel as though I'm superior to women. I do feel as though women have the same rights to protecting themselves and being put in economically prosperous situations. When a woman goes out on the street, and fucks god knows who it puts her in a precarious situation.

If we were to curtail prostitution, it would have the double benefit of getting women higher quality pay, health care, etc while maintaining Social Dignity that a first World state should have.

Sex is meaningful(when had with a significant other), relationships are meaningful. Endorsing and in fact creating a social environment where men and women can have healthy relational and sexual lives on a platonic and serious level will be better for the community at large.

Which includes the rights of everyone.





That's true, but at least in a committed relationship you're (mostly) aware of
your partner's sexual past. The chances of a STD are less likely in those, then in some one night stand where you don't know the person. On EITHER end, males get screwed by this as well.

You may say its their natural right to screw themselves in the foot, and perhaps it is. But is it a 'right' worth keeping? What right does this grant us? There may be some validity in the affordability to make mistakes and to learn from them but what about mistakes that we can't learn from? That we can't undo?

Arbitrary rights brings about conflicts, and ultimately confusion. The true ultimate right that Human Beings have and aspire for, is the right to Happiness. All other 'rights' must lead to this conclusive end.

Rights that are more harmful than they are productive, are rights that will continue to keep humanity in perpetual disarray. Of course, such a philosophy dictates that people are able to distinguish between rights which are supportive of their right to happiness, and which rights are not.

The right to bear arms, for example isn't necessarily supportive of their right to happiness, as I highlight above. The right to bear arms becomes a right because arms exist in the first place, maintaining a perpetual conflict that at best is neutralized. But perpetual neutralization is not permanent as you and I both know full well.

But by highlighting, and enhancing other natural rights such as the right to work,
the right to exchange property, etc. We eventually highlight the ultimate goal of happiness and through that, there's no need for violence.

Humanity's goal is an end of itself(Happiness), all other rights are subjective to that end goal and those 'rights' which do not support it, need to be discarded. All they've done is destroy lives, create conflict and poverty.





But it's not a business, there's no respect or boundaries established between client and purchaser(god forbid, purchasing women as a piece of meat.) In addition, there's only one product and a hell of a lot wrong can go with that product, making her fast life go by just as fast.

So basically even if it's profitable in the short term, it most certainly isn't profitable in the long term and it most certainly isn't healthy. In the end, it most certainly doesn't make a self-conscious woman happy.

Which, again, is the End Goal. With which all other goals and rights are derived from and its their only specific purpose. When said goals and rights can no longer fulfill that purpose for Humanity, it's discarded.









Now, having mentioned all of this, let me phrase the question to you: Is the Woman happy? Is she productive? Is she healthy? Is this a long term, feasible solution for her economic needs?

And why should a guy have to pay for sex in the first place? At the very least, as far as economic concerns for sexuality should be involved, isn't it more benevolent and productive in a relationship setting?(IE: The couple share a car, or even buy a automobile for the GF/Wife in question(or of course for the guy, etc.)

And all the meanwhile, in a much more healthier and safer setting.

Secondly, isn't it interesting how you talk about reparations for the victim? Can't this only be had through coercion of the courts order? So, let's briefly understand and demonstrate Justifiable Force.

As long as people continue to act in a negative fashion, those who are victims of these potential aggressors needs to have the right to protect themselves. A sturdy shield is probably sufficient defense, but should it be cracked a person should have the right to wield the sword of Justice.

The flaw with Libertarian philosophy, lies in that it is not generally willing to wield the sword of justice for the right causes. If Force is used to its Justifiable ends, then it is for the good of the general public.

Of course, you will in turn argue that "Justifiable Ends" are always outstretched, to the point where they become malevolent. This is generally true, the solution being that others will also wield the sword and slay that which has malevolently infested in the country.

Hopefully Force isn't needed, for Force isn't a right that brings about Happiness. But it is a right that can sometimes secure it. As long as the Libertarian avows from the right of security, he cannot protect all other rights.




True as that may be, but they don't cause problems for others. In fact, they may not even cause problems for the consumer in general. As an example, cars have the great benefit of being able to travel from one distance to another.

And in fact, there are organic forms of said foods, drinks without the harmful chemicals. There's no need to regulate the consumption of food, more like regulating whether corporations are putting healthy foods(IE: foods that are not contaminated) on the open market.

As long as something can fulfill your happiness, and not threaten another's happiness, it's something we should happily accept. But if something is more harmful than it is helpful, both to an individual and to others then it's not a "right" to Humanity, it's not beneficial. We have no need for it, so we discard such a double-edged "right".







Not that I politically agree with this sentiment(IE: Comparing me to religious fanatics, etc) but I will use the very literal definition of Conservatism.

A political or theological orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes

What is the 'best of society'? In other words, it's happiness isn't it? Anything that preserves Happiness, should be preserved don't you think? What good have the radical changes have given us? The New Left swept into power in the mid-60's and held significant sway in the House, Senate. The movement gained credibility and
truly pushed through with Bill Clinton.

In the last 30 years, their new reality is theirs and theirs alone(whether that faction wants to uphold responsibility or not). All they've given us is more class division, more poverty and more debt through social programs.

The transformation from a Majority Country, to a minority-Majority country is
celebrated by these political factions, utterly unaware of the consequences. Whereas our Founding Fathers cultivated the English Colonies and expanded, these minorities have had about as much impact on America as the average citizen.

It's correlation with the loss of manufacturing jobs, manpower, etc. Nothing against these individuals to be sure, but they're not capable of preserving the country in any fashion. As such, their political rule is an affront to the well being of 99% of Americans.

Ignoring the social consequences of the "revolutionary acts", this political faction would like to pretend everything's alright with the world. As long as this political manifestation infests itself, whether we argue for Libertarianism
or Fascism(as both political entities have the same mutual agreement to Nation Protection) it doesn't matter because this political manifestation will destroy the Nation State you and I seek to enrich.


Political apathy towards all classes of America, will be the consequence of America losing her place as the World's reserve currency, her place as "the world's superpower."

And any instance of moving forward, must by nature move forward with the intentions of those who came before. Moving forward on the basis of the same platform that of course, led to success.

As a Fascist, I fully respect the Founding Fathers's belief in a government led by the people. And I believe the people can perhaps exercise political will, but for the most part. A: People don't want to(See: Our Political Apathy which led to the downfall of the Republic) and B: A politically active people leads to disarray, contusion, etc.

Many acknowledge bankers, lobbyists, etc(The degree to which, obviously there are some conspiracy theories, etc. Which I'll state here that I don't believe.) The solution to all of that, is a National Government for and by the people led by politically vetted, capable and ethic people.

Centralized Government, for the efficiency and rights of All Americans is far superior to a free-for-all government style that has people whom shouldn't be in the position of power in the first place, in power.

I see Lobbying, etc, all outside factors of Government as detriment to the lawful ethic means of government. If Government can be swayed, pulled in any direction and especially against the Well-Being of All Americans then it's better if we
don't have a government at all.

That, of course leads to Anarchy, which we know from history doesn't work, has a history of violence, chaos, disruption, etc.





I can't help but notice the part where I said A: These rights aren't inherently bad and B: That I called for their regulation. How does that equate to the elimination of those rights? Are we being a little intellectually dishonest now?

It's quite obvious you went to a government school because your reading comprehension needs some work.

Basic argument for taxing the rich "They have more than enough" which is a subjective argument based on your personal feelings of what is "enough".

Compared to the basis of our legal system a.k.a property rights and the moral stance that we all enshrined into law that taking property from another person without their consent is theft. Backed up by the reality that all laws, penalties and actions of government are "given teeth" by the fact that governments use the threat of violence and potential death against a person to deprive them of their property.

So you're entire argument can be framed as such






"Street walkers" are only common in areas where prostitution is illegal. In areas where prostitution is legalized (and thus regulated) prostitutes are confined to specific areas and are required to receive medical testing for STD's and use condoms, etc. Then you can compare the ability to seek help if a client or boss is abusing the prostitute because they would be protected by law. In fact, legalizing prostitution is better for the women involved rather than continuing to outlaw it.



Sex is just an action. The motivations behind it are what give it meaning. There are porn stars who've said they screw guys "on the set" and it means nothing but, they they go home and "make love" to their spouses and it has an emotional impact on them.





A right is worth keeping when the person that right belongs to believe it is worth keeping. If a person decides to put their property at risk (i.e their body) that is their decision. Morally speaking it's no different than if I want to potentially damage my car by not slowing down when I approach a speed bump, pot hole or if I want to toss my cell phone rather than gently lay it down.



There is no such thing as an arbitrary right. You're thinking of a privilege which is different from a right. Go look up the bloody definition as I'm quite tired of having to reeducate you on basic principles such as this.



So lets, see the right to freedom of speech, to a free press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, Right to keep and bear arms, protection from quartering of troops, Protection from unreasonable search and seizure, due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain, Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel, Civil trial by jury, Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment, property rights among others.

Yep, all arbitrary and harmful to society.



There isn't a "right to work" because the exercising of this so-called "right" means you're violating the natural rights of the person you are forcing to employ the person with "the right to work".

You are detracting from the happiness of one person to fulfill the happiness of another. You've actually removed the voluntary aspect of employment with such a "right".



Happiness is subjective, therefore no objective measure can be used to account for that happiness. The argument falls apart under the slightest of scrutiny. Go back to the lab and concoct a better argument.



Prostitution is in fact, a business. The person involved is selling their property (i.e their body), services (sexual gratification) and time for a set amount. It's no different than paying a restaurant for a meal. The restaurant is selling their property (meals), service (culinary gratification, and the attention of their staff), the time of their staff for a set amount.



Two reasons why women sell their bodies; First they are forced into it by someone they know or were trafficked into it in areas where it's illegal and consenting people are unavailable or in areas where it is legal the woman is consenting to being a prostitute for reasons as diverse as people on the planet.



That's an arbitrary statement. The only person who can decide if they should discard a "right" is the person the right belongs to. To force a person to discard a right they do not wish to discard is oppression and tyranny.









It's disingenuous to address singular questions to a broad demographic but, it's you so I'm expecting a little too much.

Is the woman happy? Depends on the woman.
Is she productive? Depends how you define productive.
Is she healthy? Depends on the individual and various factors inside and outside of her chosen profession.
Is this a long term, feasible solution for her economic needs? Depends on the person and those economic needs. It also requires that the women sees prostitution as more than a short term profession.



Why should a man have the option to pay? The same reason why you pay for anything. Someone has something you want (namely sexual gratification) and you have something they want (money). So you two make a voluntary exchange. I've heard of escorts charging thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars for an evening with them. So yeah, some of them do charge enough to buy a car with.




I like how you can take a reasonable statement and turn it into a pile of grandiose gibbering.

Just use simple English and dispense with the theatrical gibbering. Statements like "sword of justice" are just tedious to read.

If someone uses force or fraud then reparations should be made. If a prostitute or client is abused or defrauded by the other then reparations should be made in a court of law. It's basic civil law.



You claim it's a flaw because you disagree with it, not because you have any actual evidence that a flaw exists. Simply because Libertarianism doesn't force itself on society you feel it doesn't do it's job because it's not browbeating society like your beloved Fascism does. I don't judge you for being a social conservative.



Avows: To acknowledge openly, boldly, and unashamedly

Do you actually know what you type or just parrot words you hear?

For the billionth time you misrepresent the Libertarian stance. Force should be used to secure the rights of the individual. The use of force to deprive an individual of their rights is immoral and unjustified.

Force is used to protect and secure the rights of individuals, not deprive them.



You argue against the same premise and then turn around and agree with it. You're simply trolling me at this point.




I'll take the more accurate Encylopedia Britannica definition which is;

"political doctrine that emphasizes the value of traditional institutions and practices."




You're pontificating again.

"Best of society" is subjective. Anyways, as someone whose spend more time around "Conservatives" Republicans, Social conservatives, R.I.N.O's and the like. It's obvious from their rhetoric they take a "don't fix what's not broke" and "stick with tradition" attitude.




1). You've previously stated that rights are arbitrary.
2). Even I can point to a negative externality of several of our rights. Which could be used as a justification of why they should be 'discard" by your admitted views.
3). Regulations on rights are an erosion of those rights and thus a violation of them.
4). Once a right can be justifiably "curbed" then it's not a stretch to justify it's removal.

It's how we went from having a right to own arms equivalent to the military to protect us to now the government is attempting outright fire arm bans. Why? Because of political incrementalism. Each law, regulation and fee once normalized is the new median which means every additional regulation, law or fee simply doesn't have to be that much more than the previous.

I like the rich people who actually made an effort to get to where their at now.

If its one thing that uphold a title for American is the land opportunity.

Anyone can get rich but you gotta put effort into it and not make hell among middle-poor class families.

One sentence in and we've already resorted to a sweeping assumption based on nothing. This doesn't bode well at all!

And for the record, I went to private school for most of my life, so whatever your point was with that it doesn't apply anyway.


Tell me, do you support police forces? Or fire services? Or hospitals? Or public roads and motorways? Or traffic lights? Or the postal service? Or disaster relief services? Or waste management services?

Because the money for those services has to come from somewhere, and since you apparently consider the idea of taxes "theft", how are we supposed to fund them? Start charging people for calling 911?

Unless of course you're one of those loony an-cap types who thinks we should privatise the entire government, in which case might I recommend Somalia?





First off, you criticise me for my apparent lack of reading comprehension and yet you can't tell the difference between your and you're? Glass houses, my boy!

Secondly, that is the most hilarious and outrageous strawman argument I've ever seen. Thanks mate, you gave me a good chortle. :)

Right then, show me where I said I supported killing anyone, least of all over taxes (for the record, I oppose the death penalty full stop, and if I oppose it for murderers I'm sure not going to support it for tax evaders). And even the rest of it is shit that I never said, so there's sweeping assumptions, again.


Let me try and rewrite that in a less, well, wrong way:

You're travelling through the desert with a caravan, and while travelling through you notice a man collapsed on the ground. The man has no water and will die of thirst if he does not receive any. The man begs you to share some of your water; not a huge amount, mind, just enough for him to get his strength back and make it through the desert without dying. Your caravan has plenty of water, more than enough to last you your entire trip for the desert. Now, you have two options. If you have a heart and cared for the well-being of your fellow man, you could give him the water he needs, because you have plenty and this man needs it more than you. Or you can say "Fuck you, got mine! Pull yourself up by your bootsraps you lazy sod!" and head on your way, leaving the man to die in the desert.



Honestly, I still can't get over the fact that you apparently think I believe we should kill tax evaders. I mean, seriously mate?

That's an easy question to awnser, we take it from the roughly $690 billion that america spends each year on it's military and add it to the budget for the general good. They could literally take 10 billion from the military spending, and put it into all those things that you mentioned, it wouldn't even dent what the military is doing in the day to day, yet would probably be 10 times the budget for all those services combined.

If for simply 1 year, america spend half the amount of military that it does, it could literally increase productivity and advance the science by 1000 fold, it could completely redesign education, make hospitals more efficient, repair all the roads and highways, and so much more. And only for 1 year of half spending on military. They could go right back to giving all that money to the military the next year and the effects of spreading that money around even just a little would be seen for generations.

I don't think we need to tax the rich more, we need to be smarter about where we place those tax dollars.