Democrats Supress Freedom Of Speech

[Valgeir]

The Libertarian party has become something like the Objectivist party. They kowtow to individual rights and blah blah blah, but they still "recognize" the authority of some sort of elected group over the people who did not elect them. They still support the idea that there's some way to justify initiated force by claiming that, as a government, they hold a "monopoly on force." As far as I can see, that's pure and simple fascism. You could call me a "small l" Libertarian, if you would like, since I have no official affiliation with the party, and I suppose that would be partly right. However, I consider myself a Libertarian in the same way that one would be either a Federalist or an Anti-Federalist; it's not a political association but a philosophical one.

 

Admittedly I'm not up on all the Libertarian rhetoric but isn't that more of Anarchism? Not saying that's a bad thing it just sounds more like it.

 

You could call me an anarchist and it wouldn't be inaccurate. I use the word Libertarian to describe myself because that's the foundation of my anarchy - the rights and liberties of the individual. I'm not a socialist- or communist-anarchist, who simply sees government as an extension of Evil Capitalism, I'm someone who thinks that using force or fraud to make someone act against their will is wrong.

[The-Captain]

Gotcha, and I respect that.

[Japedo]

He has never once said he was a savior or insinuated as such.

I just liked that picture Japedo. Felt like I needed to share it.

 

LR,

Might be cute the first 100 times... but it becomes like, well sorta like wanting to share a headache.

 

You hate his issues... say so..this shit is just for non-thinking sheep IMO and really doesn't do anything but propagate a smear.

[Legion]

Valgeir you’re an atheistic, anti-theistic anarchist? Do you also start small fires just for the hell of it?

 

Just curious.

[Onyx]

Obama or Cain? If I was a thoughtful person in America for an extremely tough election then I will vote for Obama OR start a philosophical revolution OR write in a candidate I truly admire. To have Cain and Palin - that would only spell disaster.

 

If Obama turns out to be a do-nothing president then that is MILES better than a do-something president like Bush. That will mean that after Obama, a better type of candidate can come in and take America into a recovery process.

It stands to reason that is, if the notorious Republican blame/smear machine came to a halt, there is no longer two parties elections, special interest groups well and truly ousted and no more religious tests. That will take nothing less if you want America to recover and not to nuke the world.

 

Of course, nothing of the sort might happen quickly... it takes time.

[Valgeir]

Valgeir you’re an atheistic, anti-theistic anarchist? Do you also start small fires just for the hell of it?

 

Just curious.

 

Only on my own property.

 

I'm not sure you entirely understand the concept of anarchy, but this isn't the thread to discuss it. I'll start another if you want.

[RankStranger]

Admittedly I'm not up on all the Libertarian rhetoric but isn't that more of Anarchism? Not saying that's a bad thing it just sounds more like it.

 

Definitely closer to Anarchist than Libertarian.

 

I've posted the same sort of views plenty of times- he kinda reminds me of me. And I had no idea how annoying I was until he started anarcho-spamming every single political thread.

[Valgeir]

Yeah, because it's a pretty serious issue. Literally life-and-death. I like these people, I'd rather they not become party to the murders of whichever asshole is our next Asshole in Chief. I'd also like to see their lots in life improve. I'd post the winning lotto numbers if I could, but I don't know 'em.

[♦ nivek ♦]

Moved to LD, starting to slide off edge, turning into something more fun than commenting on the original nooze story..

 

kFL

[Valgeir]

I agree Skip, it is more fun...

 

Does that mean you'll be joining us?

[♦ nivek ♦]

Guessing I'm firmly in the camp of desiring to have a whisp more Liberty than a few gallons more of goobermint *help*...

 

No one in this goat show on a national level has made any deal of Liberty than Ron Paul, and of course, we couldn't support that KIND of MAN...

 

Oh well, the resulting chaos that is already undercurrent and the messes our politicians have to try and clean up, on our backs and fiat dollars, or course, will be interesting.

 

Obomber? McSavinsNLoan5Cain? Same-o same-o.. "Janus Party". Only interest party politics has is to keep the party leaders in power.

 

Americans lost their way years ago. We're watching Lady Liberty fall as our Republic dies of strangulation.

 

kFL

 

[Valgeir]

Just out of 3 AM boredom I decided to analyze my prior lottery comment in terms of real value.

 

Two of the bigger multi-state lotteries are the Powerball lottery and Mega Millions. For the sake of discussion we'll assume that all of the people in question live within the states in which these lotteries operate.

 

Mega Millions has a jackpot value at the moment of 24 million dollars. This can be paid over 26 years, or alternatively the jackpot can be paid in a single lump sum of 15.1 million dollars.

 

Powerball has a jackpot value of 102 million dollars, paid over 29 years, or a lump sum of 52.1 million dollars.

 

At the time that I wrote my "offer" of winning numbers, there were about 25 members on the forums.

 

For the sake of ease we'll round the Mega Millions to 25 million and the lump sum to 15 million, and the Powerball to 100 million and the lump sum to 52 million.

 

Cumulatively speaking, the taxation on winnings would be at least 50%. So the winner could get 7.5 million/26 million lump sum, or 12.5 million/50 million paid out over a period of time (assuming steady rates of taxation and zero inflation, both unlikely).

 

Given that taxation is nearly impossible to predict we will have to assume it to be constant. Inflation on the other hand is rather easy to predict. The government figures for this past August are about 5.6%, while private estimates (which I trust FAR more) found here give us a rate of 15%. I will use both.

 

I'll save you the dull calculations: in 30 years, assuming no expenses, with a rate of value loss at 15% annually, compounded daily (the Fed's money machine never stops, and actually tends to accelerate) the equivalent of $83240.45/$288566.89 lump, or $277468/$554936.37 periodical.

 

With a rate of 5.6%, the equivalent would be $1397624.67/$4845098.85 lump, or $2329374.52/$9317497.75 periodical.

 

This will be divided twenty-five ways, yielding:

15%: $3329.62/$11542.68 lump, $11098.72/$22197.45 periodical.

5.6%: $55904.99/$193803.95 lump, $93174.98/$372699.91 periodical.

 

Now let's look at the alternative - namely, freedom.

 

Firstly, inflation isn't a problem. There is a wide variety of alternatives to the current monetary system, and many of them can effectively eliminate inflation (I'm not here to talk about monetary systems, though, so I'd suggest reading about them - fascinating stuff).

 

Secondly, let's look at the ways in which freedom would benefit a person's wealth.

 

Without the tax burden, any given person's income would just about double.

Without the burden of regulations, a conservative estimate would allow businesses to halve their prices, again effectively doubling income.

Without the burden of corporate taxes, a conservative estimate would again allow businesses to halve their prices, once again doubling income.

(Source of estimates: http://www.lneilsmith.org/utopian.html)

 

Income is, in effect, increased by a factor of eight.

 

Now, a middle class home may pull in about $30,000 a year. Times eight, that gives us $240,000 a year. Times thirty, we get $7,200,000.

 

That doesn't need to be split at all.

 

Now, that's a fantastic result, but a careful analysis of all the factors involved will demonstrate it to be entirely within the realm of reason. It could be skewed either way, of course, and it doesn't account for unforeseeable factors, but if I was placing bets, I'd actually put my cash in the pool that expects the yield to be better.

 

Assuming once again conservatively (using the highest possible lottery winning), my estimates would have to be off by a factor of fourteen to make winning the lottery the better option.

 

Now, I'm extremely fallible, but I can tell you I've not miscalculated by that much.

 

So, really, any way you look at it - freedom is better than winning the lottery. Monetarily speaking.

 

Edit: Correcting calculation errors.

[Valgeir]

Don't hesitate to point out the obvious math errors, right after this my computer crashed and then so did I. Also, I cannot edit the link, but when you click it just delete the parenthesis on the end.

[RankStranger]

So, really, any way you look at it - freedom is better than winning the lottery. Monetarily speaking.

 

But which is more likely to happen?

[Valgeir]

I see freedom as an inevitability, thanks to the ingenuity of the human mind and the unimaginable inefficacy of evil.

 

Even, though, if we disregard this - you can work towards making freedom more likely, but you can not do anything but cross your fingers when it comes to winning the lottery. True, if the only people who are trying to convince people of the benefits of Unanimous Consent are me and L. Neil Smith, the probability remains quite low. I don't know what percentage of the population would be necessary to set us as a species irrevocably along the path, but I think even one percent would be sufficient. One percent, decentralized, is too big to stomp out or shut up, and with that many people the likelihood of having a couple of really extraordinary talents on our side would be huge.

 

We really ought to implement "spoiler" tags on this board so that I could hide this next part from the people who don't give a turd.

 

One percent of the American population is about three million. I don't know what the current number of US signatories to the covenant of Unanimous Consent is, or the number of TOLFA graduates, or anything like that. Again, I can only go with what I know. Let's just start off with one person - me, someone else, whoever. That's the point of hypotheticals after all. We'll use TOLFA's exponential growth paradigm, since it makes sense and is actually sort of pessimistic - each person only bringing one more per year into the fold. Our basic format is then two^(number of years). Three million would be 2^22. Twenty two years is a long time to me, but a blink in the course of human events.

 

I would really like it if someone who studied social networking or even just had a hobby in it could provide a more likely paradigm for expansion, but I'll take an optimistic two-people-a-year approach - my own experience seems to suggest this. That makes the rate of growth 3^(years). Three million, with this rate of growth, is only about 14 years away. More likely, since the more popular a movement is, the faster it grows, we would see an accelerating growth in our base, from one of two, to three, to five, to eight and so on. Eventually a "conversion" would probably be so easy as suggesting the idea to someone rather than expending much time and effort.

 

Think of it this way - in the past fifty years, while Communism has faded, socialism has taken over the world. Christianity is still growing, Islam is spreading like a bad case of the clap, and shit, even Scientology is a force to be reckoned with. They're all based on "shutting the fuck up and taking our word for it." Lots of people think that way, but more people need something real to work with.

 

This idea actually offers them a way to improve their life. It's a traceable road map to a better life. What reasonable person could pass that up?

 

Once the reasonable "core" is established, the sheeple will follow. They sure do dig trendiness, they do. And hey, once they see the other side, they just might stick around.

[♦ nivek ♦]

spoiler] /spoiler]

 

Use properly, they work as supposed to.

 

Works fine..

 

kL

[Valgeir]

Thanks Skip, I had no idea we had those here!