katie tully
ashleey luvs roosters
Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck Lentern, stop fucking posting jesus christ.
I expect that from Katie not from you.Remember it's down the street, not across the road, Lentern.
Oh, wait. Sorry. I forgot this was the fucking internet.Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck Lentern, stop fucking posting jesus christ.
What do you mean when you say "rational actors"?waf said:(apart from the school thing, which fails because children aren't rational actors capable of making such decisions)?
Setting the line at 16-18 is also subjective and perhaps unnecessary too. I could also make an argument that it is also expensive, because some children are better off working and getting experience, high school isn't for everyone. So when those children aren't working, they are instead learning stuff that they don't really need to know and have little interest in anyway.waf said:Subjective, expensive and unnecessary. You have to draw a line in the sand to ensure uniform enforcement and 16-18 seems reasonable.
What the hell is that? Are you high? Did your Daddy touch you in the private places as a child? What the hell?What do you mean when you say "rational actors"?
Because if you're talking in an economic sense, Mises (in Human Action) argued that all action is "rational", it's only when people impose some kind of external arbitrary standard on what "rational" means, that they are able to call an action irrational. See What Do Austrians Mean by "Rational"? for a better explanation of this concept.
Setting the line at 16-18 is also subjective and perhaps unnecessary too. I could also make an argument that it is also expensive, because some children are better off working and getting experience, high school isn't for everyone. So when those children aren't working, they are instead learning stuff that they don't really need to know and have little interest in anyway.
It's interesting because if you look back in the past, it wasn't like "child labor" was outlawed because people thought children working was immoral, it was because the unions didn't want competition that younger people (and cheaper labour) represented. There are many examples of capable children in the past, such as Braille who invented the Braille system as a child, if Braille lived today he might be cooped up in some special needs class instead.
I think there is a bit of an agenda against children, it's almost like teenagers are the "whipping boy" of society and people want to control their lives and make them go to school, or make them do service in the army something similar, like whatever the young libs were thinking of talking about. There's drinking laws, strict driving laws, teen wage laws, smoking laws etc. Today's culture is infantilizing teens by isolating them and giving them very few responsibilities. Here's an interesting book: The Case Against Adolescence By Robert Epstein
It's not like the government education system is all that great anyway, most people probably learn their trade by working on the job, even for people who go to uni first! So I say that the myriad of laws restricting teens should be abolished (along with the govt obv).
So in conclusion:
- teens should stop being the whipping boy for society
- voting should be voluntary
- scrap anti gun laws
- let's not have a police state
You're right. We should give guns to three year olds.What do you mean when you say "rational actors"?
Because if you're talking in an economic sense, Mises (in Human Action) argued that all action is "rational", it's only when people impose some kind of external arbitrary standard on what "rational" means, that they are able to call an action irrational. See What Do Austrians Mean by "Rational"? for a better explanation of this concept.
Setting the line at 16-18 is also subjective and perhaps unnecessary too. I could also make an argument that it is also expensive, because some children are better off working and getting experience, high school isn't for everyone. So when those children aren't working, they are instead learning stuff that they don't really need to know and have little interest in anyway.
It's interesting because if you look back in the past, it wasn't like "child labor" was outlawed because people thought children working was immoral, it was because the unions didn't want competition that younger people (and cheaper labour) represented. There are many examples of capable children in the past, such as Braille who invented the Braille system as a child, if Braille lived today he might be cooped up in some special needs class instead.
I think there is a bit of an agenda against children, it's almost like teenagers are the "whipping boy" of society and people want to control their lives and make them go to school, or make them do service in the army something similar, like whatever the young libs were thinking of talking about. There's drinking laws, strict driving laws, teen wage laws, smoking laws etc. Today's culture is infantilizing teens by isolating them and giving them very few responsibilities. Here's an interesting book: The Case Against Adolescence By Robert Epstein
It's not like the government education system is all that great anyway, most people probably learn their trade by working on the job, even for people who go to uni first! So I say that the myriad of laws restricting teens should be abolished (along with the govt obv).
So in conclusion:
- teens should stop being the whipping boy for society
- voting should be voluntary
- scrap anti gun laws
- let's not have a police state
I wasn't suggesting "we" (do you mean we as in, you and i, or are you referring to the government here?) give guns to 3 year olds, I was suggesting that there's no need for government legislation about it, and communities will work things out themselves. I'm talking about moving more towards private law as opposed to government law. Lex mercatoria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is an example of something that approximated what I'm talking about.You're right. We should give guns to three year olds.
You know in the past we've had communities work things out themselves. They established these things called "Laws" to codify their values, and "Courts" to arbitrate such disputes.I wasn't suggesting "we" (do you mean we as in, you and i, or are you referring to the government here?) give guns to 3 year olds, I was suggesting that there's no need for government legislation about it, and communities will work things out themselves. I'm talking about moving more towards private law as opposed to government law. Lex mercatoria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is an example of something that approximated what I'm talking about.
If think you'll find that in the past kids were given guns, look at cadets for eg. Those kids would have been like 14 or 15 and they each had a gun to carry home and look after.
Yes, and I'm pointing out the fact that there is a difference between "laws" and "govt laws". You can have laws and courts in a free market system, the system now has courts but they aren't legitimate in the same way that a free market system's courts would be. Because the only thing they derive their authority from is "might makes right" and 51% have the right to kill the other 49%, which you clearly already disagree with.You know in the past we've had communities work things out themselves. They established these things called "Laws" to codify their values, and "Courts" to arbitrate such disputes.
Statism + private property - as you seem to propose, is a contradiction. Free market anarchism is the only way to truly allow for private property, otherwise it's just "we'll violate your private property rights to tax you, but then protect you using that money" - which is a clear contradiction. It's like when George Bush said he had to "give up his capitalist values to save capitalism".Anarchism is an interesting intellectual wank.
I find it ironic that you think you deserve the right to vote over other people the same age. I find the HSC year one of great maturity, I don't know if those that enter the workforce or go through tafe go throughthe same sort of growth but I would assume they would. 18 I think is the right age for our current social structure, of course if there was some change to the fundamentals then maybe we could look at changing it.Yes, and I'm pointing out the fact that there is a difference between "laws" and "govt laws". You can have laws and courts in a free market system, the system now has courts but they aren't legitimate in the same way that a free market system's courts would be. Because the only thing they derive their authority from is "might makes right" and 51% have the right to kill the other 49%, which you clearly already disagree with.
What we have now, is nothing close to a free market. The core elements of most country's legal systems (don't steal, don't kill) didn't need governments to tell the population these things, they were already the 'standard' within the marketplace.
In anarchy what stops me building a wall on your land and claiming it for my own?If anything, statism is an intellectual wank, because it's always talking about how the market or people can be controlled and enslaved to make certain things happen. You of all people should know that the gubermint fails at controlling markets, because there are certain immutable laws of economics that no matter what the government does, it cannot solve them. Look at price controls for example.
I promote using non-political solutions, such as non-voting. (this doesn't mean I support violent revolution either)Lex152 said:I find it ironic that you think you deserve the right to vote over other people the same age.
what I'm proposing is a change in the fundamentals18 I think is the right age for our current social structure, of course if there was some change to the fundamentals then maybe we could look at changing it.
You're going to need to explain this again, it's not all too clear what you're saying.I support Rule of law, anyone who doesn't just wants to further exploit people using the price mechanism (supporting rule of law incldues discussing whether or not rules are right or wrong). No guns for three year olds, don't even try to use examples like that...
Well there are a few things:In anarchy what stops me building a wall on your land and claiming it for my own?
.wank wank wank wank wank