Ron Paul Loses to U.N. in Domain Name Battle
June 16th, 2013 by XMGS.com
Ron Paul's appeal to the United Nations for his domain names has failed. WIPO stated that they will not demand RonPaul dot com and dot org be transferred to …
Popularity: 3% [?]
No related posts
June 16th, 2013 at 1:45 pm
If you understand there is a safety net, who provides it is inconsequential. Are you incapable of civilized discussion or are you just an internet warrior?
Private charities do more for the common good than gov't ever will. Aren't you tired of the extremely violent racket responsible for millions of deaths all around the world in the past century alone that is gov't?
'If we got rid of the gov't safety net then those people would be pushed into the workforce'
That's a bad thing?! The ignorance..
June 16th, 2013 at 2:01 pm
You sound like a typical Paulbot.
June 16th, 2013 at 2:54 pm
I never said that there was no safety net whatsoever just no government safety net you idiot.
The private charities won't make up for all of the government programs we have now can you admit that?
If we got rid of the government safety net then those people would be pushed into the workforce out of desperation where theyd drive wages down. Thats Econ 101!
Do you bother reading my comments or do you just toss propertarian bullshit around and hope I don't question your ridiculous assumptions?
June 16th, 2013 at 3:41 pm
In what scenario would the markets be filled with unskilled labor?
Maybe in a society that calls for government schooling?
Wages go down when a business model proves itself to be unprofitable. Wages & incentives go up when the business model succeeds.
There's no gov't safety net?! That must mean there's no safety net whatsoever! Just like your first straw man fallacy.
Governments & bankers around the globe literally steal trillions of $ from the workforce every year. They sure see the abundance.
June 16th, 2013 at 4:32 pm
You're right…if you ignore economics 101
What happens when a market is flooded with unskilled labor? Wages go down.
What happens when they don't have the government safety net for food/medical care/unemployment insurance/minimum wage/other programs?
It increases the necessity for them to find work making them willing to compete against each other for the limited number of jobs (abundance of opportunity? That's magical thinking)
Now why don't you tell me if that will push wages down or up?
June 16th, 2013 at 4:44 pm
In a free market, there would be an abundance of opportunity.
It's sad that you can't see that a Voluntarist society would be far superior to this absolutely extremely violent, ancient governmental racket that persists in the modern world.
June 16th, 2013 at 4:54 pm
You still won't admit that desperation can lead to workers getting exploited, that's amazing.
June 16th, 2013 at 5:37 pm
How can anyone prevent, w/o an arbitrary authority, all forms of hierarchies? What about familial, social or voluntary hierarchies?
Your entire definition is not based in fact but in a subjective reality you create in order to, in your own thought process, make others buy into your nonsense.
Capitalism has proven itself, throughout history, to be the most mutually beneficial form of Voluntarism. To claim otherwise is to ignore fact & reason, which you seem to have no problem with.
Anything else?
June 16th, 2013 at 6:22 pm
Social democracies/Mixed economics
Anarchism is a political theory that aims to create anarchy, which is "the absence of a master, of a sovereign." In other words, anarchism is a political theory that aims to create a society where individuals freely co-operate together as equals. As such, anarchism opposes all forms of hierarchical control—whether by government laws or by capitalist business practices—as harmful to the individual and their individuality, as well as unnecessary.
June 16th, 2013 at 7:17 pm
What economic system better provides for the working class?
You're the one spewing economic ignorance here.
Anarchism: (Merriam-Webster definition) a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups
It's obvious this conversation keeps gravitating toward your subjective view on the world and not based in studied reality.
Get real. I'll be waiting
June 16th, 2013 at 8:05 pm
Capitalism would provide an abudance for the working class?
That's a pretty big assumption that ignores the basic economics of more people entering the workforce competing with each other for jobs
As for anarchism it's the opposition of authority or hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations
The state would be ONE of the hierarchies but it isn't the only one
June 16th, 2013 at 8:42 pm
the U.S government just takes trillions of unaccounted dollars, that more than enough to help those in need of charity n thats just the U.S not including all the other crap.
June 16th, 2013 at 8:58 pm
You do not understand that Capitalism would provide an abundance for the working class.
Anarchy has a clear cut definition, a society without a formal government established, not your subjective suggestion of a society without competitive hierarchies.
June 16th, 2013 at 9:17 pm
I understand capitalism and what would happen to the poor when the only safety net is private charity, you don't
As for anarchy, a system with no hierarchies is not a subjective definition
June 16th, 2013 at 10:09 pm
Supporting peace through violence doesn't make you a hypocrite?
Sorry, you either misunderstand the concepts we're discussing or don't understand the definition of hypocrite.
You don't HAVE to consent to the concept of private property rights, but try to take it away or claim it as part of society and see which, a social contract or a private property rights, carries more weight in the real world, bud. Molon Labe!
June 16th, 2013 at 10:20 pm
You clearly do not understand Capitalism.
And, as far as Anarchy goes, you continue to define these concepts subjectively.
June 16th, 2013 at 10:48 pm
Like I said capitalism creates hierarchies so while capitalists might call it anarcho capitalism it ignores the private coercion that the hierarchies create so the anarcho in anarcho capitalism isn't reflected in the ideology.
June 16th, 2013 at 11:16 pm
Did you wait for your inbox to update? Lol
Oh, the "Where are the Libertarian countries?!" question.
I will refer you to a man much smarter than you or I.
The Questions Libertarians Just Can't Answer – Answered!
/watch?v=nkcY7SVBG-4
So your argument is just that, as thin as your regional ties.
I'm actually a Minarchist but a thorough Voluntarist.
Thanks for never asking but only getting enraged when your own logical fallacies are pointed out!
Actually, you can be, it's called Anarcho-Capitalism.
June 16th, 2013 at 11:58 pm
If you don't think it would be worse then you're an idiot
I gave you an example from history of your ideology totally fucking over the poor
You haven't given me a single example of a successful propertarian country because there aren't any
The closest I'd come to anarcho anything would be european anarchism because it actually worked in spain not american propertarianism which is an insult to actual anarchists.
You can't be an anarchist and support the hierarchies capitalism would create
June 17th, 2013 at 12:05 am
The difference is that the govt has programs that help the poorest so they aren't completely fucked over
Without a government they'd be even worse off
Im fine with taxes bc supporting that so called force doesn't make me a hypocrite
On the other hand ignoring the plight of the poor and not calling the harmful decisions they make out of desperation exploitation makes you a hypocrite.
Not believing in social contracts but demanding that everyone consent to private property is hypocritical
June 17th, 2013 at 12:29 am
How convenient that you create such a terrible scenario, almost as terrible as the current system we have now.
I wouldn't doubt that it would be almost as bad as we have it now, but not quite!
June 17th, 2013 at 1:02 am
I didn't accuse you of anything. A bit sensitive, are we?
Do you see the benefit of taxes now? I'm sure you'll defend them then like you do now.
What's the difference? You don't have a gun pointed to your head (which you do in now) in order for you to comply to your compassionate government.
June 17th, 2013 at 1:33 am
Not every government is bad you asshole. Let me guess you're going to whine about ad hominems right after accusing me of supporting mass murder when there are plenty of good governments out there?
People will choose to pay for it? You mean the unskilled workers who now make less money? How about the rich people that bitched about paying for that stuff before we got rid of the government? They'd only pay for courts that give them an advantage
June 17th, 2013 at 2:23 am
In this scenario there are a lot of unskilled workers added to the workforce
There only safety net to provide necessities like food and water is charity which won't make up for getting rid of government
If you don't think that there would be a flood of people underbidding each other for crappy jobs then you don't know anything about economics