GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   What's with the Visceral Reaction Towards "Obama Phones"? (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1178571)

TCLGirls 11-12-2015 03:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by galleryseek (Post 20633712)
What I could propose as a single individual, could likely never compare to the response of the market. You've heard it before in economics 101, where there's a demand, there'll be a supply.

In a stateless society, people would want roads, defense, dispute resolution, and everything we currently have. The only difference is that instead of relying on a monopolistic force to provide these things for us, the driving force behind innovation and better pricing (a free and private market) would handle it instead.

But that's all consequentialism, which I don't like to get into. Slave owners said "who'll pick the cotton", we said "it doesn't matter, it's wrong to own humans", just as it's wrong to steal people's money to provide services.



Without taxes, there would be no state governments, so that's not a problem.





You do realize that "the will of the people" is a load of bullshit right? And the constitution is just scribblings on a piece of paper?

It's been proven that we live in an oligarchy. The US passes 40,000 new laws every year. Do you REALLY think these laws are representative of the will of the people?

Don't drink the government kool-aid indoctrination man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by galleryseek (Post 20633715)
If you mean am I against being ruled by a group of people over a given piece of arbitrary land? Yes. I am.

State and federal governments and their branches are all a part of the same body and all funded in the same manner: taxation and expropriation.

Ok so you are an anarchist that is against state government. Should have just said that in the beginning, because then obviously that is your driving mindset against any program initiated by a state government body. Now I know.

galleryseek 11-12-2015 03:52 PM
Here's a fun logic experiment..

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCLGirls (Post 20633708)

Because that is the will of the people...given that people voted for their government representatives who initiated the program, and such program does not violate the Constitution.
If you believe that the "will of the people" is perfect justification for implementing something, then would you have a problem if "the will of the people" mandated suicide once 2016 rolled around?

...and it doesn't matter if "that would never happen", a principle is only good if it can be applied *consistently*.

So you would be sure to hang yourself with your shoe laces if the will of the people dictated suicide right?

Just want to be sure here..

galleryseek 11-12-2015 03:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCLGirls (Post 20633717)

Ok so you are an anarchist that is against any form of government. Should have just said that in the beginning, because then obviously that is your driving mindset against any program initiated by a government body. Now I know.
Lol I said there's plenty of anarchist/anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist philosophers with input on those subjects earlier. I thought you would have inferred it from that.

BlackCrayon 11-12-2015 03:56 PM
don't even bother replying to this guy. he just manipulates his argument no matter where you try and take it. he is a joke.

TCLGirls 11-12-2015 03:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by galleryseek (Post 20633715)
If you mean am I against being ruled by a group of people over a given piece of arbitrary land? Yes. I am.

State and federal governments and their branches are all a part of the same body and all funded in the same manner: taxation and expropriation.


Oh by the way, without a central state government, there would be no one to prosecute anti-trust issues and prohibit collusion between private companies...other than the consumer refusing to do business with those companies (if they ever become aware of it in the first place.) Is that ok with you?

galleryseek 11-12-2015 04:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCLGirls (Post 20633724)


Oh by the way, without a central state government, there would be no one to prosecute anti-trust issues and prohibit collusion between private companies...other than the consumer refusing to do business with those companies (if they ever become aware of it in the first place.) Is that ok with you?
Collusion between private companies usually happens only with the help and influence of government. A market where everyone is able to freely compete without artificial barriers to entries makes it nearly impossible for collusion and monopolies to rise. That's why you only hear about these types of issues in the most heavily regulated industries.

TCLGirls 11-12-2015 04:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by galleryseek (Post 20633719)
Here's a fun logic experiment..



If you believe that the "will of the people" is perfect justification for implementing something, then would you have a problem if "the will of the people" mandated suicide once 2016 rolled around?

...and it doesn't matter if "that would never happen", a principle is only good if it can be applied *consistently*.

So you would be sure to hang yourself with your shoe laces if the will of the people dictated suicide right?

Just want to be sure here..

No, because you forgot the other part of my sentence...the part about constitutionality. Mandated suicide would violate 8th and 14th amendments.

TCLGirls 11-12-2015 04:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by galleryseek (Post 20633720)
Lol I said there's plenty of anarchist/anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist philosophers with input on those subjects earlier. I thought you would have inferred it from that.

Yea but you never mentioned anything about you being an anarchist until many posts after my initial question. That's why I said if you had mentioned your anarchist tendencies from the onset, it would have more clearly answered my question.

galleryseek 11-12-2015 04:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCLGirls (Post 20633726)
No, because you forgot the other part of my sentence...the part about constitutionality. Mandated suicide would violate 8th and 14th amendments.
The constitution has been amended 17 times, and the constitution is constantly disregarded by those in power.. Again, it's just a piece of paper.

Instead of gaining your moral compass based on ancient texts, there's a better way: it's called the non-aggression principle. It's wrong to initiate or threaten the initiation of force against a person or their property. Stick to that as the basis by which you associate with others and you'll be fine.

TCLGirls 11-12-2015 04:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by galleryseek (Post 20633725)
Collusion between private companies usually happens only with the help and influence of government. A market where everyone is able to freely compete without artificial barriers to entries makes it nearly impossible for collusion and monopolies to rise. That's why you only hear about these types of issues in the most heavily regulated industries.
Except there were huge antitrust issues in the 1800s before the government stepped in with the Sherman anti-trust regulations.

TCLGirls 11-12-2015 04:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by galleryseek (Post 20633728)
The constitution has been amended 17 times, and the constitution is constantly disregarded by those in power.. Again, it's just a piece of paper.

Instead of gaining your moral compass based on ancient texts, there's a better way: it's called the non-aggression principle. It's wrong to initiate or threaten the initiation of force against a person or their property. Stick to that as the basis by which you associate with others and you'll be fine.


Wait, how can the Constitution (which, as you state, has been amended numerous times) be an ancient text?

TCLGirls 11-12-2015 04:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by galleryseek (Post 20633728)

Instead of gaining your moral compass based on ancient texts, there's a better way: it's called the non-aggression principle. It's wrong to initiate or threaten the initiation of force against a person or their property. Stick to that as the basis by which you associate with others and you'll be fine.

Except without government, there would be no one to stop the aggression.

TCLGirls 11-12-2015 04:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by galleryseek (Post 20633728)
The constitution has been amended 17 times, and the constitution is constantly disregarded by those in power.. Again, it's just a piece of paper.

That's like saying a Beetles album is just wax, or a Metallica album is just a CD, etc etc. You fail to recognize the value of the intangible content beyond the mere tangible delivery method.

galleryseek 11-12-2015 04:25 PM
"Wait, how can the Constitution (which, as you state, has been amended numerous times) be an ancient text?"

- Are you really going to split hairs here?

"Except without government, there would be no one to stop the aggression."

- Who stops aggression under government? People. Who would stop aggression without government? People. Privatized security and defense companies would exist.

"That's like saying a Beetles album is just wax, or a Metallica album is just a CD, etc etc. You fail to recognize the value of the content beyond the mere delivery method."

- It's a piece of paper in the idea that it's written by men, and changed by men. It's an opinion piece, it's not rooted in nature. People who say, "Well, that must be fine because the constitution permits it!!!" are philosophically inept. If you derive your morality from the constitution, you're doing it wrong.

It's worth having first principles such as the non-aggression axiom. Not the opinions of others.

TCLGirls 11-12-2015 04:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by galleryseek (Post 20633745)
- Who stops aggression under government? People. Who would stop aggression without government? People. Privatized security and defense companies would exist.

So wait, only people who can afford to pay for private security deserve law enforcement protection? Or would the private security you propose also provide security for people who can;t pay for it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by galleryseek (Post 20633745)
- It's a piece of paper in the idea that it's written by men, and changed by men. It's an opinion piece, it's not rooted in nature. People who say, "Well, that must be fine because the constitution permits it!!!" are philosophically inept. If you derive your morality from the constitution, you're doing it wrong.

It's worth having first principles such as the non-aggression axiom. Not the opinions of others.

Who said anything about using the Constitution as a basis to form their morality? I am using it as a basis to justify laws. Those are not necessarily the same thing.

TCLGirls 11-12-2015 04:37 PM
And imagine the scenario between two dueling private securities...in a land dispute between two land owners regarding property lines...who is going to regulate that in a government-less society?

TCLGirls 11-12-2015 04:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by galleryseek (Post 20633745)

- Who stops aggression under government? People. Who would stop aggression without government? People. Privatized security and defense companies would exist.


And what if my private security can overwhelm your private security...to the extent that I can occupy your land against your wishes? How would you be able to stop my aggression?

epitome 11-12-2015 06:39 PM
It's been around forever. It used to be landlines. Then it changed to mobile to keep up with times.

I think you get like 200 or 300 minutes and unlimited texting on the shittiest phone in the world. Not even MMS. My Nokia in 2001 was better.

mineistaken 11-12-2015 06:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCLGirls (Post 20633620)
Can some who is against "Obama phones" please explain their reasons why? Because AFAIK that program doesn't even use any tax dollars...it is 100% funded by the private telecommunications companies.
Why is Hussein getting credited if 100% is from tele companies?
Maybe they are against this undeserved credit? :winkwink:

mineistaken 11-12-2015 06:48 PM


Just had to be posted :2 cents:

TCLGirls 11-12-2015 07:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mineistaken (Post 20633852)
Why is Hussein getting credited if 100% is from tele companies?
Maybe they are against this undeserved credit? :winkwink:
Yea if they are against the undeserved credit, they should not be calling it "Obama phone" in the first place...which is why I used quotes.

Barry-xlovecam 11-12-2015 07:12 PM
The US government is talking about adding mobile data to the ''obama phone plan.'' This way it will be easier to log into the welfare agencies and EBT central. Will the be a new fee on your internet access?

They say the internet is an ''essential'' communications path today ... reverse ecommerce ...

escorpio 11-12-2015 08:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvae (Post 20633674)
A simple way to stir up Mark Prince is use "Republican" or if you really want to really stir him up use "Sarah Palin". Better yet go all out "Global Warming is a hoax":1orglaugh:1orglaugh
Or "Fox News." :winkwink:

TCLGirls 11-13-2015 12:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam (Post 20633879)
The US government is talking about adding mobile data to the ''obama phone plan.'' This way it will be easier to log into the welfare agencies and EBT central. Will the be a new fee on your internet access?

They say the internet is an ''essential'' communications path today ... reverse ecommerce ...

I believe data is already included in California...not sure though.

beerptrol 11-13-2015 12:53 PM
Seems those who need them the most are the ones to use them! I have no problem with that!
What cracks my nuts is standing in line seeing someone on the newest iphone using food stamps to buy food!

AMDWarrior 11-13-2015 12:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCLGirls (Post 20633620)
Can some who is against "Obama phones" please explain their reasons why? Because AFAIK that program doesn't even use any tax dollars...it is 100% funded by the private telecommunications companies.


You're as dumb as that stupid color you post in..

Tom_PM 11-13-2015 01:01 PM
Most are basically a Tracfone with 500 monthly minutes for the first 4 months, 350 after that. Free unlimited texts. From what I understand, you just fill in the form with proofs and they mail it to you. No need to even put your underpants on.

If you are on Medicaid, SNAP, other public assistance programs depending on US state, or simply have low income, then you could qualify. Apply now.

TCLGirls 11-13-2015 06:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by beerptrol (Post 20634570)
Seems those who need them the most are the ones to use them! I have no problem with that!
What cracks my nuts is standing in line seeing someone on the newest iphone using food stamps to buy food!

Maybe someone bought it for them as a gift.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:15 PM.
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc