priligy after alcohol
Sandbox
[ Edit ]
Back to Snip <-- Previous Change | Next Change -->
| Diff Summary | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Title | That really caeturps | Tom Hickey:Yes, the | |||
| Date | 2014-02-18 16:07:45 | 2014-02-18 16:08:22 | |||
| Editor | Anonymous | Anonymous | |||
| Edit | Edit this version | Edit this version | |||
| Tags | |||||
| 2014-02-18 16:07:45 by Anonymous / Edit this version | 2014-02-18 16:08:22 by Anonymous / Edit this version | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| t | 1 | That really caeturps the spirit of it. Thanks for | t | 1 | Tom Hickey:Yes, the point being that when a privat |
| > | posting. | > | e inetserts are in control of the money they are i | ||
| > | n control period. And there is no recourse but rev | ||||
| > | olt.In a liberal democracy with govt in control of | ||||
| > | the money, the govt can be changed periodically t | ||||
| > | hrough elections.What's so hard to understand abou | ||||
| > | t this?You're confused. An individual has far mor | ||||
| > | e control over his own life when dealing with priv | ||||
| > | ate business firms than with the state. With the | ||||
| > | state, no matter who is in charge, taxation and ob | ||||
| > | edience to laws, however unjust, are mandatory. T | ||||
| > | he state's courts, their police, and in many insta | ||||
| > | nces their schooling, are mandatory "services." Y | ||||
| > | ou cannot abstain from dealing with them no matter | ||||
| > | how bad they get.With private businesses on the o | ||||
| > | ther hand, you can abstain from giving them your m | ||||
| > | oney and your solicitation. Their goods and servi | ||||
| > | ces are not mandatory by force. You can choose no | ||||
| > | t to deal with a businessman who does a bad job. | ||||
| > | You can instantly "fire" a seller by simply walkin | ||||
| > | g out of their store.4 year elections pale in comp | ||||
| > | arison to instant "No, I will not pay you and I wi | ||||
| > | ll not accept your goods/services" that exists in | ||||
| > | the market. You are so utterly clueless that you | ||||
| > | actually believe decentralization, and economic co | ||||
| > | mpetition, give you less options than state contro | ||||
| > | l, where it is the only one. What about the 49% m | ||||
| > | inority? At least in the market, if 51% of the pe | ||||
| > | ople pay to buy iPhones, it doesn't mean the remai | ||||
| > | ning 49% have to pay to buy them too. With the st | ||||
| > | ate, that freedom does not exist. If 51% of the p | ||||
| > | eople want X, it is made mandatory on the remainin | ||||
| > | g 49% even if they don't want it.If you are so ada | ||||
| > | mant that state control gives you more freedom thr | ||||
| > | ough the 51% election process, then why not advoca | ||||
| > | te that the state control ALL production, so that | ||||
| > | "society" can elect those who own the means of pro | ||||
| > | duction through majority vote, rather than on an i | ||||
| > | ndividual, case by case basis as in the market?Wha | ||||
| > | t is so difficult to comprehend that your worldvie | ||||
| > | w is utterly contradictory? That while you say st | ||||
| > | ate control over money is better than private cont | ||||
| > | rol because there are majority elections, but you | ||||
| > | do a 180 and believe that the means of producing f | ||||
| > | ood should not be under state control, but rather | ||||
| > | under private control? Food is more important tha | ||||
| > | n money.It is baffling how you can claim the thing | ||||
| > | s you do, and you can't even see how absurd they a | ||||
| > | re. You are truly uninformed about the market and | ||||
| > | of life. Your claims are that of a communist, no | ||||
| > | t a free society individual. | ||||
