ilovefuzz.com

dubkitty wrote:five hundred years ago you'd have been a knight

well that was nice

dubkitty wrote:

D.o.S. wrote:

snipelfritz wrote:I feel like over the last 10 years the term "libertarian" has gone from meaning "Somebody whose logic I can respect but sometimes disagree with" to "Somebody who based their policy ideas off of a completely arbitrary series of ideals."

For a long time libertarian was basically "Republican that smokes pot."

And I'm pretty sure that's still what it still is, actually.

modern-day "libertarians" IMO are philosophically anarchists who want the freedom of action anarchy entails but want to keep their wealth and real property. that's why i dislike them beyond my disagreements with their politics...i find their stance self-contradictory and hypocritical.

This immediatly springs to mind whenever someone talks about anarchy as a solution.

I wish I could be a major politician. I'd like to see how I could improve things. I would never be elected to anything however - unless I was deceitful, which is something I would never be. Even though I think I would be very good at the job, I am not the sort that 99% of people would want to put in charge.

i wouldn't want to be a politician. i can't think of a single thing that could be improved in the political sphere by "doing things," as opposed to undoing things that have already been done by government. and undoing things that government does or has done looks like taking goodies away to EVERYBODY, because they don't realize that government is literally feeding them to themselves. so anyone who tries to undo what government has done will suffer the fate of the Greek politicians who are now going down in flames for trying to tell the people that there really, really is no free lunch despite what they--and the rest of the West--have been been promised since World War II. nobody likes the person who tells them that the party's over.

IEatCats wrote:The only policies I don't like by him are his health care stances, the rest of his positions really seem like the way to go right now.

....

-Doesn't believe in the separation of church and state
-Is against women's rights
-Doesn't support the incorporation of the Bill of Rights
-Opposes equal marriage rights
-Supports completely destroying our social services
-Wants to go back to the gold standard
-Wants to repeal the 17th amendment
-Wants to remove corporate and federal income taxes
-Wants complete deregulation of the financial industry
-Wants to get rid of the central banking system completely

Tell me, how much of that sounds like a good idea?

Things I would want to do if I somehow became president or something - even though I doubt a president could effect all these changes.



jfrey 2012

And this is me saying: we CAN have an utopia
Fuck company-ruled politics, fuck greed, fuck shortsightedness!
There are thousands of great ideas that can change our everyday lives for the better, shift the economy, stop the pollution, feed the hungry, teach the kids with better techniques = more progress! The problem is that too much of the wrong ideals have been pumped into our cultures, and people refuse to give them up. I would gladly give up my luxuries if that would make me live in a world without hunger, with better working places, better infrastructure, better homes, medicine, food, air, water. A world that supports creativity, that relieves stress but encourages work - in a way that everyone can work at a job they prefer to do, making them more happy about it cuz people do what they love.
Imagine a world with REALLY small fossil fuel dependance, low cost of manufacture, no overproduction, better organization of everything.
And if it does sound far-fetched to you, you better go watch a bit of TED or sth

It CAN be done.
We live in an era that is the tipping point. This is the time for choice. This is the time to rise up for what we believe is right!
It's not gonna be easy, but it's gonna be worth it.
Go educate yourselves, watch TED, see what you can do in your daily lives to change the planet. Every small bit counts!

http://www.dac.dk/db/filarkiv/8380/letter_english.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gM95HHI4gLk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-GXO_urMow
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IUyIoEd6-I

Stop thinking like people and start thinking like the universe!

Bitch!

^ I also recommend Big Think videos.

jfrey wrote:Things I would want to do if I somehow became president or something - even though I doubt a president could effect all these changes.

NSFW: show

1. Enforce separation of church and state. It should not be tolerated at all in government, public schools, etc. It is outright unconstitutional.
A. Marriage between any individuals of consenting age made legal in the whole of the United States.
B. "Under God" removed from the pledge. Not only is it unconstitutional, but it wasn't in the pledge to begin with.
C. Sex education made mandatory in schools. You don't take the class you don't pass the year. Don't like it? Go to a private school.
D. Science classes including evolution "" "" "" "" "" ""
E. Religious organizations are only tax exempt if they collect no dues or donations.
F. Eliminate religious based hindrances to science, as in stem cell research.

2. Remove any policies that favour a gender, race, etc. I don't care whether it favours the side that has in the past held power, or the side that has in the past been kept down. Maybe someone that's down won't get a leg up. Maybe someone that is up will have to lose their entitlement. I don't care. I consider any preferential treatment not based on merit to be immoral.

3. Make it a policy that laws have to be reviewed every 10 years. It's ridiculous that we have laws on the books that haven't made sense since before my parents were born.

4. No more political parties. Everyone runs as an individual. The amount of money spent campaigning is limited, and anyone that is caught going over is investigated and if deemed prudent removed from the running.

5. For all lawsuits: if you sue someone, and you lose, you have to pay their legal fees.

6. Government bailouts made illegal. I don't care if a bailout will save jobs or not. If a business fails, then it fails. It isn't the government's business.

7. Absolutely no foreign aid in the way of cash, until the government debt is eliminated, at which point this policy will be reviewed.

8. Unneeded political offices, departments, and government jobs eliminated.
A. Close the USPS. It's losing money, and there are more than enough private companies that can take over, and that actually make money.
B. Remove toll worker positions. Also, remove tolls in their entirety. They cause traffic, which results in higher spending on gas, costs to business, etc. We have the technology to simply scan cars as they pass at full speed, and charge them remotely. Any car that can't be charged will be flagged to be pulled over by officers.
Etc.

9. Peaceful political protests or rallies where legal channels are followed are allowed without exception. Anyone who breaks the peace is arrested without ceremony. Any protests or rallies that have not followed legal channels should be considered criminal unless it can be shown that their right to protest was being prevented.

I could probably think of a ton more, but I think that's a pretty good list.

jfrey 2012

you should run for the president of the planet someday. please do.


edit: just found this on Big Think. (also a thing that Allan Watts has said a long time ago )

"In many ways, children flourish where adults fail. Children are more creative and are natural inventors. Their worldview is incomplete and demands discovery. They prosper because they embrace their ignorance instead of ignoring it. And they are willing to explore, investigate and put their ideas to the test because they are willing to fail."

I can't emphasize this enough. I just can't. <3

http://bigthink.com/insights-of-genius/ ... dults-dont

i went out this weekend and jammed with some folks i know, and it reconfirmed my feeling that i love my instruments and setup but have to find somewhere to apply myself that's more compatible with who i am. being 55, every time i go and jam with people they wind up Playing The Blues. i grew up in Chicago, OK? i can play the blues standing on my head in ice water...you learn to do that living near Lake Michigan. but i pretty much hate playing the blues any more. i'm to the point where i can't even LISTEN to blues any more, and i LOVE blues. i'm like "everybody who came later than Duane Allman, shut up with your bending up to the flatted fifth. you're irrelevant. it's been done. GO AWAY." but whenever i go out, i wind up having to go all Peter Green on people's asses because nobody has the imagination for anything except 12-bar 'cos everybody knows the chords without having to think.

I fell on my ass when I was really drunk a couple weeks ago and it still hurrrrttttssss

I think I may have broken my ass bone

dubkitty wrote:modern-day "libertarians" IMO are philosophically anarchists who want the freedom of action anarchy entails but want to keep their wealth and real property. that's why i dislike them beyond my disagreements with their politics...i find their stance self-contradictory and hypocritical.

I'm with you there.

As for politics... I could appropriate Iceland's Best Party's platform pretty easily:

jfrey wrote:

NSFW: show

9. Peaceful political protests or rallies where legal channels are followed are allowed without exception. Anyone who breaks the peace is arrested without ceremony. Any protests or rallies that have not followed legal channels should be considered criminal unless it can be shown that their right to protest was being prevented.

I disagree with that. All protests that are non-violent should be legal. The point of protests is to make your grievances noticed. Legalising protests in certain places and criminilising it in others, puts the protesters out of the way, into a place they can be easily ignored, removing the entire point of the protest. I agree that anyone who breaks the peace should be arrested without ceremony, and all your other points are sound, but criminilising places you can and cannot have protests silences a voice that should be allowed to be heard.

GardenoftheDead wrote:-Doesn't believe in the separation of church and state

I can't say I agree with this one particularly, as his stance is kind of hard to interpret. I've only seen the paper he wrote in 2003 which didn't so much support a nationalized religion, as portray dismay for the tabboo that religion has caused when displayed in public. His paper calls for less of a kneejerk reaction when seeing public displays of Christmas, citing that he sees it as sad that such things have been called against in state and federal courts. I think it may be a misunderstood stance, more than a strict fall for the removal of separation.

GardenoftheDead wrote:-Is against women's rights

He's prolife. I admit that's not an ideal support, but I support everything else that he's said, like I mentioned before.

GardenoftheDead wrote:-Doesn't support the incorporation of the Bill of Rights

You're completely mistaken with this one. Sorry, but that's wrong.

GardenoftheDead wrote:-Opposes equal marriage rights

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3PXANu7mUc[/youtube]
Wrong again.

GardenoftheDead wrote:-Supports completely destroying our social services
-Wants to go back to the gold standard

I support his stance of overhauling the social services systems. I think they're poorly regulated in the US, as I have personally met many people that manipulate it to get free state money.

I also think that the economic system we now use (with floating currencies) is absurd. Like I mentioned in another thread, by buying and selling currencies, you can make money. Because of the floating worth system, you can make money, by having money. I feel like moving to a gold standard (which has worked for thousands of years) would help prevent inflation, or at least slow it.

GardenoftheDead wrote:-Wants to repeal the 17th amendment

Truthinexile.com's article on The Repeal of the 17th Amendment wrote:Without the 17th amendment the senators would be kept in check. They would be watched closely by the state legislatures. So what happens when the state legislatures fail to make sure no unconstitutional bills are voted for by the senators? That’s where the people come in. It is much easier for the people of a state to contact and put pressure on the state representatives which reside in their district than it is for them to try to get a U.S. Senator to listen to them all the way from Washington. You can’t just walk into a senator’s office without having to take a long trip to get there.
Source

GardenoftheDead wrote:-Wants to remove corporate and federal income taxes

This plays into the removal of the federal banking system. The corporate and federal income taxes have everything to do with inflation, which is almost entirely causes by the Federal Reserve, which I'll talk about when I hit that.

GardenoftheDead wrote:-Wants complete deregulation of the financial industry

Just read this.

GardenoftheDead wrote:-Wants to get rid of the central banking system completely

I would like nothing more than this. What people seem to not realize is that the Federal Reserve is not a truly federal central bank. In fact, the Federal Reserve is a privately owned bank that prints the money for the US. The US makes a call to the fed requesting more money to be printed, the reserve prints this, then loans it to the US with a compound interest rate. For every dollar printed, there is an automatic debt added to the GDP. This interest rate slowly builds, until it hits exponential terms, which is why the national debt has risen so absurdly significantly in recent years.

The dissolution of the fed and rise of a truly federal reserve system would be fucking incredible. Without the money being loaned to the country, and with no interest rate, the national debt could actually be reasonably paid off, although the federal reserve would have to be dissolved and the debt cleared or at least capped through federal courts (if the RIAA can be turned down based on unreasonable payment expectations, I see no reason that the fed would be exempt to this same verdict).

I don't understand people that say that the dissolution of the federal reserve would be bad.

And really quick, because I didn't actually use any evidence or sources on the reserve or income tax policies, here's Ron Paul's actual site explaining his stance on the gold standard and Ron Paul's actual site explaining his stance on taxation

Any more points to make that haven't been researched?

jfrey wrote:5. For all lawsuits: if you sue someone, and you lose, you have to pay their legal fees.

You mean... that isn't a law right now?