New Jersey Bill to Limit Magazines to 5 rounds or less.

No one said it was a utopia friend. Just unimaginably better than what we have now, where you've traded freedom for the illusion that you have influence a la this "democracy".

Can something be objectively silly? If it can, this statement is objectively silly.

We had a time when the market was allowed to dictate everything, and when labor laws, wage laws, antitrust laws, consumer laws, and the like were preempted in the name of small government.

Those times fucking sucked, and everyone was miserable and poor, working 80 hours a week to afford to bring home a few human-fecal-matter hamburger patties for their children, who happened to themselves be factory workers by age 8 and still illiterate at age 18. People rebelled.

It is genuinely offensive in light of the thousands who died to provide you your labor rights for you to comfortably speculate about how awesome it would be under the boot of parasitic aggregations of capital. For all the allegations that communists are privileged idealists, they have absolutely nothing on right-libertarians.
 
I thought, that legally, self defense means the threat has to be very close to you, or within the home and same room as you.
MMA forum....


And people don't get the concept of adrenaline dump? Things you train never work out perfectly in self defense. Besides that there are plenty instances of people taking multiple bullets and NOT going down right away.

Hell shoot a deer in its vitals and watch it run a couple hundred yards.
 
Honestly, right-libertarians might as well be Stalinists. Actualization of right-libertarianism, if history has told us anything, results in either a democratic departure toward social democracy (as it did in the West) or a non-democratic departure toward revolution and forced downward distribution of resources by the state (as it did in the East).
 
Exactly, it doesn't ban someone from carrying more than one gun.

The new "compromise" will be that people can only use one hand from now on.
Interesting factoid, according to the NFA, everyone who uses a handgun with two hands, is a felon.

Thus the reason for the AOW category which includes weapons that aren't rifles, but are meant to and intended to be fired with both hands. Yet another reason for sunset clauses and updating old laws
 
We had a time when the market was allowed to dictate everything, and when labor laws, wage laws, antitrust laws, consumer laws, and the like were preempted in the name of small government.

Those times fucking sucked...

Excuse you? The largest increase in living standards for the average person in history.... sucked?

<YeahOKJen>
 
Honestly, right-libertarians might as well be Stalinists. Actualization of right-libertarianism, if history has told us anything, results in either a democratic departure toward social democracy (as it did in the West) or a non-democratic departure toward revolution and forced downward distribution of resources by the state (as it did in the East).

I guess its better than some blend of Marxism that killed more people than black fucking plague... I think you have your priorities a little muddled up friend.
 
What dates you using?

Post-bellum period to 1913. (That's before installment of the income tax or a central bank). The only other living standard increase at that trajectory was in Norway, which had as unrestrictive of a market as the US up until the 1970s.
 
The greatest sin according to someone like @Trotsky is that there's inequality of outcome. People like this would prefer the equal slaughter by the Khmer Rouge one hundred fold before he would ever allow everyone's standards of living to rise with the caveat they increased disproportionately.
 
Excuse you? The largest increase in living standards for the average person in history.... sucked?

Compared to what immediately followed in the 1930's? You betcha. I don't think any rational historian would disagree. And state recognition of labor unions and codification of labor and consumer rights were necessary to stave off communist-style revolution.

You know, whether you want to admit it or not, that your fantasy would not last long. People didn't like uneven distribution of power and resources. They didn't like being exploited, made to work in dangerous sweatshops for untenable hours and measly wages. So, under the threat of violence, they leveraged their discontent through the democratic process.

Your desire to go back to that primitive state suggests a discontent with what route was taken. Private capital deployed state forces to protect itself from communist-style revolution and seizure of production. But the government constantly killing workers in the streets was unsustainable, so social democratic laws were passed through the government. Had the government been absent, it would have been the will of the people, not the logic of the market, that violently changed the status quo.

I guess its better than some blend of Marxism that killed more people than black fucking plague... I think you have your priorities a little muddled up friend.

Not an argument, especially since, as I said. actualization of your dystopia opens up the very real possibility of Stalinism.

Between my preferred policy avenue and yours, it is yours that is far, far more likely to lead to communist-style tyranny.

I'll say again:

Everyone was miserable and poor, working 80 hours a week to afford to bring home a few human-fecal-matter hamburger patties for their children, who happened to themselves be factory workers by age 8 and still illiterate at age 18. People rebelled.

It is genuinely offensive in light of the thousands who died to provide you your labor rights for you to comfortably speculate about how awesome it would be under the boot of parasitic aggregations of capital. For all the allegations that communists are privileged idealists, they have absolutely nothing on right-libertarians.


Unless you can rebut the reality that Americans, and persons all over the world, universally rejected your fantasy either through the democratic process or the revolutionary process, it seems that your argument is self-defeating.
 
The greatest sin according to someone like @Trotsky is that there's inequality of outcome. People like this would prefer the equal slaughter by the Khmer Rouge one hundred fold before he would ever allow everyone's standards of living to rise with the caveat they increased disproportionately.

The greatest sin is being an ideologue without regard for history or reason. You have committed that sin.

The only thing that makes Khmer Rouge possible in the future is people like you who want to go back to the precipice of violence for the sake of freedom that you are blessed not to have experienced, not persons like me who appreciate its circumvention. You want to go back to economic strata by which police kill workers in the streets and just cast your lot with the delusion that, eventually, the public will bend over for eternity.

No amount of communist straw mans will change that.
 
The greatest sin is being an ideologue without regard for history or reason. You have committed that sin.

The only thing that makes Khmer Rouge possible in the future is people like you who want to go back to the precipice of violence for the sake of freedom that you are blessed not to have experienced, not persons like me who appreciate its circumvention. You want to go back to economic strata by which police kill workers in the streets and just cast your lot with the delusion that, eventually, the public will bend over for eternity.

No amount of communist straw mans will change that.

I love when I get the "learn your history" lecture from people that have no clue what they're talking about.

Edit: Just to point out I referenced the greatest standard of living increase in history (post civil war to around 1913 US), and you want to reference the 1930s (presumably referring to the GD; a direct product of central bank interventionism). You have a wonderful epiphany headed your way my young idealogue.

But Let's try this. Look at this ranking, from the freedom economic index....

These are all the countries of the world broken down into various categories. Do you notice a trend?

Is the prosperity of a country pointing towards a larger state, or a smaller one? Is the quality of life indicative in countries with more onerous governances or more less restrictive ones?
 
Last edited:
Lol at 5 a piece you gotta be like this when the burglars get in. Plus more backup guns strapped on your body.

1355938-neo_matrix_hx-1489572392.jpg
 
I love when I get the "learn your history" lecture from people that have no clue what they're talking about.

Edit: Just to point out I referenced the greatest standard of living increase in history (post civil war to around 1913 US), and you want to reference the 1930s (presumably referring to the GD; a direct product of central bank interventionism). You have a wonderful epiphany headed your way my young idealogue.

But Let's try this. Look at this ranking, from the freedom economic index....

These are all the countries of the world broken down into various categories. Do you notice a trend?

Is the prosperity of a country pointing towards a larger state, or a smaller one? Is the quality of life indicative in countries with more onerous governances or more less restrictive ones?

There's nothing remotely "small state" about Government in Australia, Singapore or New Zealand, which are ranked 5, 2 and 3 respectively.
Not that I'd credit anything from the Heritage Foundation anyway.
 
There's nothing remotely "small state" about Government in Australia, Singapore or New Zealand, which are ranked 5, 2 and 3 respecitively.
Not that I'd credit anything from the Heritage Foundation anyway.

In reference to intrusion in people's lives... absolutely they're freer.
 
In reference to intrusion in people's lives... absolutely.

Singapore is a micromanaged, totalitarian shopping mall.
For example they used to have State run, mandatory social mixers, with failure to attend reported to your employer.
Their levels of media censorship and government control of industry (through avenues like Temasek Holdings) are broader examples.
Anyone that references Singapore as any sort of example of Libertarian freedom clearly has no idea what they are talking about.
The belief in free market economics didn't preclude totalitarian dictatorship.
 
SIngapore is a micromanaged, totalitarian shopping mall.
For example they used to have State run, mandatory social mixers, with failure to attend reported to your employer.
Their levels of media censorship and government control of industry (through avenues like Temasek Holdings) are broader examples.
Anyone that references Singapore as any sort of example of Libertarian freedom clearly has no idea what they are talking about.

They mention that civil liberties remain restricted on the site. Their economic freedom, regulatory burden, intl trade etc, however, is on par with some of the freest in the world.

Call the index out on its methodology if you want, but its not likely that they worked backward to find the highest GDPs per cap and messed around with the data to fit in economic freedom to correlate.... that would seem rather odd.
 
Back
Top