Author Topic: vote lazs.. (Read 1485 times)

moot · « **Reply #30 on:** December 29, 2006, 06:09:15 AM »

Just as the good sticks could, if they had their own country - back in the single Main Arena, clobber the other countries populated by all the lemmings put together, a single state based on those timeless ideas would shift the tide as well as Skuzzy's nationwide from-the-roots method.

Lazs, do you think one of these two is better than the other?

lazs2 · « **Reply #31 on:** December 29, 2006, 08:28:07 AM »

laser... you are quite young I would guess. There are many ways to take your property from you without your consent that are not socialism. It may be forfiet because of harm you have caused or debts that you owe. If you had no protection of law... you would be judged against without your being even contacted and if you lost... it would be just to take everything you own.

So go ahead... don't support the legal system... I would just publish your name in the paper. If it was worth it to you then you would pay to support it. It would be your choice. My guess is that your view of socialism is not tempered by you ever having to be on your own... I mean really on your own.

chairboy... I am not a fan of women voting... while there are some that can do so in a rational manner... most are not suited. Think about it... we spend the first 15 or so years of our lives trying to get loose form our mothers (modern kids maybe the first 30 or so) and then..... we allow em to vote and run our lives again?

Still... it would not be my call... neither would the 24th... there are mechanisms for amending.

To me... amendments should only be made to protect citizens from government power.

lazs2 · « **Reply #32 on:** December 29, 2006, 08:31:31 AM »

moot... not sure what you mean. In the arena idea.... many if not most of all the really good sticks I knew had no aspirations of "winning" the war. They were and are individualists. They would have no real affect on the arena but still affect individual fights or furballs. In some sense...they affect invasions... if they each kill 6 or so attackers before they die... then most invasions fail.

But what was the question anyway?

lazs

hardtack · « **Reply #33 on:** December 29, 2006, 08:48:31 AM »

Repeal of laws post-1912 means child labor, unsafe factories and working conditions, 70-hour work weeks. You're in favor of that?

Teddy Roosevelt advocated government oversight of industry (railroads, food and drug). He was a strong conservationist and set aside large amounts of federal land for parks and reserves, and established the U.S. Forest Service. (I think it's unlikely he would support drilling in ANWAR - and he would probably be going after the oil companies for those missed lease/royalty payments for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico).

moot · « **Reply #34 on:** December 29, 2006, 08:49:07 AM »

It's sort of a loaded question; I think it's apples to oranges, but I wanted to see your point of view anyway.

Skuzzy's idea is an alternative to the election process, where the candidates have a neutral platform to broadcast their plan and/or ideas straight to the public, and among other things, set their word in stone.

The other idea isn't conquering anything, I'm thinking of something like the Free State Project.
The proverbial invasion here is the inaction to constitutional erosions etc, so a single state would probably stand a better chance if it gathered like minded people. The analogy is that the lone sticks would improve their odds if they stuck together rather than sporadically kill off small fractions of the horde at a time, i.e. the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

lazs2 · « **Reply #35 on:** December 29, 2006, 09:00:59 AM »

hardtack... I am saying that TR was the last good pres... he was not god.

He was wrong about federal regulation... I would get rid of it. I would buy kosher food for instance. no one dies from it.. they do die from federaly regulated food and drugs.

child labor? You don't like? don't allow certain parts of it in your state. truth is... the morality of the people judges how these things would go.... if you abolished all child labor laws we would not go back in any event. the news would have a field day.

Unsafe factories? how long could they stay in existence with a strong court system? they would be sued into oblivion. No federal action needed other than protection from frivolous lawsuits in all things.

TR and conservation.... He simply took government land and said it couldn't be sold... he wanted it to be used by all people.. have you ever seen a list of the animals he would kill on a hunt? He would allow for the drilling for oil on public lands in my opinion.

lazs

lazs2 · « **Reply #36 on:** December 29, 2006, 09:03:08 AM »

moot.. I am not familiar with skuzzies idea of "direct action" I am not for democracy without severe limitations based on individual rights tho.

as for a free state.... I believe the the founders meant for any state that could not get along with the government that it was their right and duty to suceed.

lazs

moot · « **Reply #37 on:** December 29, 2006, 09:16:17 AM »

Thanks for answering, I PMed you something.

Chairboy · « **Reply #38 on:** December 29, 2006, 09:48:26 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
chairboy... I am not a fan of women voting... while there are some that can do so in a rational manner... most are not suited.

Bzzzzt. I'm out. Enfranchisement is the cornerstone of liberty.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. No Lazs, I won't be fooled again.

vorticon · « **Reply #39 on:** December 29, 2006, 10:02:54 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by hardtack
Repeal of laws post-1912 means child labor, unsafe factories and working conditions, 70-hour work weeks. You're in favor of that?

child labour- so a few more forward thinking 11 - 14 year olds gopher for a relative, or a friends relative on weekends. i doubt it would become widespread abuse.

"
If you think it is right for the government to take someone's property without the owner's choice, then you are a socialist."

so you want to pay for freedom and stability on a per use basis?

hardtack · « **Reply #40 on:** December 29, 2006, 10:05:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
hardtack... I am saying that TR was the last good pres... he was not god.

He was wrong about federal regulation... I would get rid of it. I would buy kosher food for instance. no one dies from it.. they do die from federaly regulated food and drugs.

child labor? You don't like? don't allow certain parts of it in your state. truth is... the morality of the people judges how these things would go.... if you abolished all child labor laws we would not go back in any event. the news would have a field day.

Unsafe factories? how long could they stay in existence with a strong court system? they would be sued into oblivion. No federal action needed other than protection from frivolous lawsuits in all things.

TR and conservation.... He simply took government land and said it couldn't be sold... he wanted it to be used by all people.. have you ever seen a list of the animals he would kill on a hunt? He would allow for the drilling for oil on public lands in my opinion.

lazs

Agree TR was not a god, but a good president nevertheless. Agree in particular with your statement about the morality of the people determines how things would go. Which is exactly why the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 came into being. Things had gotten so bad, the morality of the people demanded it. All you will accomplish with your plan is force us to march over the same gound, ground we covered years ago. Why do you think anything would go any differently than it did before?

Also, I don't share your confidence in the legal system and redress through lawsuit awards. For example, the Exxon Valdez ran aground and spilled 11 million gallons of crude oil into Prince Edward Sound in 1989. The resulting environmental damage caused serious harm to 34,000 Alaskan fisherman, who sued Exxon and won a $5 billion award in 1994. Exxon has not paid anything yet (almost 20 years after the event) and continues to drag the issue out in courts. Most recently, the size of the jury's original punitive award was cut in half Exxon Valdez damages cut in half

I don't have anything against TR's killing of animals. I think he had a great respect and appreciation of Nature. I think you are wrong about his attitude towards the oil companies - I think he would be as furious with them today as he was with the great railroad monopolies. Did you know he was in favor of the federal government setting maximum railroad rates? The Hepburn Act of 1906 gave the Interstate Commerce Commission power over railroad rates.

I think he was a great man. A clear-thinking, rugged individualist who fought for balance, restraint and oversight when he saw what a serious threat unregulated capitalism could pose to the overall health of our Nation. I don't think expanding the reach of the federal government was a first choice as policy, but more of a reluctant conclusion on his part.

lazs2 · « **Reply #41 on:** December 29, 2006, 02:27:17 PM »

chairboy... my thoughts on women voting have nothing to do with it. It wouldn't be up to me.

hardtack.. I don't feel you are thinking it through. You would not be covering the same ground again except in the most basic of ways. What I am talking about is a rolling back and re-assesment of these laws... What we have now is decades of foolish social engineering that most people can see is not working and was a bad idea. the expansion of basic human rights to include entitlements to socialistic levels over decades.

Hopefully we would think things through a little better this time and not go quite so far. But.. we can't roll em back.. we have to amputate and start over. There would be no more (or less) outcry from people if you pinched down the tit or took it right out of their mouth... might as well just rip the bandaid off as fast as we can and get the pain over with. we screwed up and are getting worse.

As for the exxon incident... how did a huge government help those fishermen? seems that they would be better off under my system where the spotlight would be on them instead of the government getting their pound of flesh first.

TR would not want to deprive the people of the oil on public lands... I believe that he would make sure the people got treated fairly tho... the land was public then the oil companies would pay the public and.... they would guarentee the safeguard of the land.

We both agree TR was a great man and great pres. I think we could both agree that he would not welcome the size and scope of government today.

lazs