Giggan and Friends Rantus Politicos

Lol! Fisting. Dumb white lady.

Oh my.

Yet another thing we have in common.

uh....huh.

black guys don't like eating pussy.

Finally, something to legitimize my penchant for fisting! "Hey baby, if it's good enough for Michelle Obama, it's good enough for you. Now just lie back and relax."

What did she even think she was saying? I have no idea what that could mean other than what I think it means.

you KNOW Larry Flynt's gonna make a director's cut of that Palin movie now, just for this.

I think she was trying to refer to how they bumped fists.

What's with the thread title, Barack and....Woman. Really?

"A couple really needs to feel like they're fistically bonded to one another."

That's what she meant to say.

She meant 'terrorist fist-jabbing', what they call pounding fists on foxnews.

Say what fox news lady?

Since this video was removed, I'm seceeding from the union of this thread. New direction.

Whenever I take those political compass tests I'm put somewhere I don't wanna be. The only one where I like my standing is the world's smallest political quiz.

http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html

I took this back when I was a conservative republican, and they made me into a liberal. But I transcended that, those dark days are behind me now.

The only thing I don't like about the label 'libertarian' is that it implies too much government for me.

And yourself?...or, I say we have fun with this. Think of the one issue that you see is clear as day and don't understand how anyone could be opposed to, even though most people are, and I'll rant on that ignorant of how you actually feel about it one way or the other.

you can edit the thread title to suit the new topic if you were so inclined.

Oh you'll like this. I'm rather stubborn.
Actually, I see myself as fairly liberal, although in general there aren't many issues I won't be able to look at from different points of view; however, I'm severely opposed to censorship regarding political news or just national happenings in general.

Yeah, Fuck Censorship.

Give me an issue you're ardent in one direction for to rant on without saying your position. Possible choices (thought feel free to throw out whatever):

Guns
Drugs
Umm...I'm not good at seeing individual issues anymore since taking absolute stances on stuff. I see everything as state v. individual.

Let's talk about socialized medicine!

Oh...wow...I don't know, I did that with wickerkat...

But if someone starts us off, I'll swoop in and anarchize.

Alright.
Weapons in general as in the right to carry arms.

Rant away
I think I have a fairly strong opinion on this issue.

Aww, man, he picked something Giggles and I more or less agree on.

Haha, Shana knows ^^^

Okay, so there's two kinds of people in the world:

-Those who respect self-ownership.

-And those who do not.

I do love the concept, and live by it. And thus, I'll be the first to denounce your 2nd amendment rights. You have no 2nd Amendment rights. And I'll also denounce your first amendment rights. They don't exist. Because writing stuff on paper does not make something moral or just. It is either moral and just in and of itself, as an action, or it is not. Does it matter how its voted on? I mean seriosuly, that's just a way for humans to excuse bad behavior by passing the buck to another group of people, or to the majority. So amendments have no merit. If they did, tyrants could write amendments taking away your rights. And they try, but enough people don't recognize the legitimacy fo these things to care to change their behavior because of it.

It would be a violation of your right of self ownership for me and however many of my friends to tell you what you could possess. So long as you do not place a claim over me, I cannot place a claim over you. Thus, your right to own, carry, possess, play with, and use weapons is none of my GDB. So long as you are not using them on anyone else without just cause. And none of these are constitutional rights (concepts created by man), these are your moral rights as a human being, since it is immoral for me to violate them. You may chose to disregard these rights (by not having/carrying/whatevering weapons) but I cannot make that decision for you.

Certainly, there is responsibility with power, and weapons, guns, etc are no doubt powerful. The responsibility remains yours until it begins to harm others. Example, giving an infant a loaded gun would be irresponsible. This is a bit of a side note, but many opponents of self ownership on the issue of weapons draw forth the most ludicrous examples (such as arming infants) as an exntension of that right to oppose it. No, arming infants is inherently irresponsible and negligent, as is shooting in a random direction on property you do not own hoping you don't hit someone. So don't give infants loaded guns, or do anything else inherently negligent. But otherwise, what you do is your business.

I make a conscious decision to start any talk of 'rights' from its basis: self ownership, because without such basis, 'rights' mean nothing but fiat; what some piece of paper written by men says they are. Rights are natural, and though constitutions may defend them sometimes, the constitution is as irrelevant as religion being inherently moral because some religions happen to be moral.

So, self ownership, kickin ass. Here's more about it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z1buym2xUM

And on guns and freedom, here's Penn Jillette:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPnvwdwuU9M

He obviously doesn't care how it comes out, because he knows that if you don't agree with him that you won't care anyways. Point being, I have no reason to believe more legal guns means more death/mayhem, and most of the evidence I've seen suggests just the opposite, however, The Penn is right. Liberty or bust.

People will die because guns are legal, and people will die because guns are banned. People will (and have) died because of mandatory seatbelts, and have died because they weren't mandatory.

His TSA comment is probably the most shocking. Being an anarcho-capitalist, he doesn't think there should be no security at airports (since most people think no TSA = no security) but rather the property owners (airlines, airport) take care of themselves. Nobody wants to fly terrorist hijack airlines.

But, ummm...yeah, indeed. Viva libertad.

Haha, nice.

Feel free to bust it out your own way. I'm not sure it you stem from the self-ownership thing. I guess its compatible with LibSoc if you differentiate property rights from rights over self.

doesn't banning guns just put them into the hands of the criminals and out of our hands?

Depends who 'our' is. That would make criminals 'them'. I don't do Us and Them.

But yes, people will still have guns. Like me. But I'm not a criminal, there would just be people willing to attack me over having a gun. That makes the arresting officer the criminal, guilty of kidnapping, a form of slavery.

my brother has a few guns and i can't imagine him handing them over if they somehow got banned.

I don't necessarily believe guns should be banned, just simply more controlled. I understand, fully, the issue that people will be killed whether or not firearms are legal; however, I do think stricter restrictions should be placed on them. From what I know (and I may be wrong), it is fairly easy to purchase a gun in most states in the US, and even though with them being legal, they can be kept track of...this doesn't mean that they won't be used to harm others.
I do agree that people should be free, but I also happen to severely disagree with Penn. The way he states that in his video sounds like, "Freedom is more important than human life overall" and I happen to think that human life is worth protecting above all other things, and anything that can be done to protect it should be done.

I also happen to think that the negatives of gun ownership far outweigh the positives unless that gun is for hunting purposes.

Yeah, it's kinda easy to buy a gun legally in most states. And if you know people, it's even easier illegally.

This gets into a Clockwork Orange thing. I'll admit there's a huge difference between removing someone's ability to do any wrong and making one thing a bit less easy to do, but that's what Penn's getting at, that the less free (able to make decisions and take responsibility) that you are, the less overall human you are. I'd say the burden of proof is on the anti-gun crowd that restrictions will have an effect. It's a little too simple to play geographic and cultural games and say, "here they're banned, crime is lower, here, legal, and higher crime". There's tons of evidence supporting both sides of that (more guns, less crime, and less guns, less crime). There's also major cultural differences seldom taken into account when you go between countries.

The scary thing about politics is that it is the field in which ideas are manifested. It's one thing to pass a law, it's another thing to enforce it. How easy is it to arrest someone for altering a gun in an illegal fashion when they're otherwise not criminals? That person become collateral damage for what is assumed to have utility (a gun restriction). Is there enough assurance that such restrictions work that it is worth laying that person's incarceration on one's conscience?

That's the reason I decided I'd never be a cop, because I don't want anything of the sort (gun laws, drug laws, etc) on my conscience. There's an army of people who don't mind, as individuals, but I feel only because they have the moral zeitgeist currently behind them. If racial laws were brought back into effect, you'd see lots of cops walking from their jobs because the moral zeitgeist no longer approves of such law enforcement.

Guyz! The banks want to give the money back! How fucked up, I thought they NEEDED the money or BAD things would happen!! They just want to give it back so the government can't do shit with their business. And our people can't complain when they go out and do extravagant things! I want to punch them all in their tiny ballz.

They didn't realize that they were selling their relative sovereignty for whatever trillion.

Re: Tuffy asking in DDT what an anarcho-capitalist is...

Yes, simply calling oneself a 'capitalist' should be sufficient enough, as "capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism" (Rothbard, 1972).

Though the word capitalism is often defined differently among different people. I define it as voluntary interaction and trade among people using their own property, not infringing on the property rights of others. How property is legitimately acquired, to me, is through homesteading. I don't believe in such an entity as 'intellectual' property.

Basically, I'm a radical libertarian, who believes government should be so small that it ceases to exist.

I know people who don't use the word capitalist because of the connotations associated with it. Some say slavery was capitalist because it involved business owners forcing people to work, where I consider it an offense to capitalism to use gov't intervention to enable any involuntary servitude. For this reason, it's probably best to assert that I am a 'Voluntaryist', in that I contend all interactions should be voluntary and consensual, with all 'rights' being rights of property, ie, you don't have a right to 'life', you have a right of self-ownership. Whether you use your sovereign body to maintain and perpetuate life is your biz.

As for Rand, I'm more a fan of her philosophy and her writings then her shortcomings in applying her ideas. She was a minarchist, whereas her philosophy is totally anarchist. She just hated to admit the obvious because socialists had claimed anarchism for themselves and Rand would be damned if she'd be associated with anything socialistic.

My father-figures in political philosophy and such are Lysander Spooner and Murray Rothbard. As for attaining such a society, my model is Gandhi (and I contend that he was a voluntaryist as well. While he dug the word 'socialism', his writing reflects a disdain for violent implication of anything, thus, voluntaryism).

You can be socialist/collectivist in thought and still be a voluntaryist so long as you will not advocate using violence to reach egalitarian endgoals. Non-violent problem-solving is the capitalist thing to do, whether or not you believe capitalism should exist.

Links and such:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard

I'm just now getting into Rothbard's heavier stuff as opposed to just reading short essays online, and I'm convinced he was one of the brightest and most active minds of the 20th century.

Oh, and if you wanna see PFives and I go back and fourth on this for 2 hours, vid's here:

http://chuckpalahniuk.net/forum/1000026/cult-debate-live-from-flor

Guns don't kill people, they just make killing people easier.

Society creates the crime, the criminal commits it.

Power in our 'late-capitalist' society is information and not a gun in your hand.

Personally I feel about guns the same as I feel about abortion: I don't need one, but it's not my place to stop someone who does.