[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] You should probably buy me a rocket launcher with an under-slung chainsaw then. Its my right to defend myself you say, not pay to have access to it. The government should be giving us guns. Also healthcare if they respect our right to live. You are correct when you say that rights are not derived from a piece of paper. The ones you think are rights were derived by a bunch of dead guys who then wrote their ideas down on a piece of paper which grants you rights now. Had the founding fathers written down that you had a constitutional right to waffles on Sundays and Obama happened to prefer pancakes you would be on here defending waffles rather than the right to bear arms. [QUOTE="dercoo"]Obama has done things, but those things failed to bear fruit.Laihendi

That book is just one large peice of wrong. Maybe you should read Platos "Rebublic" a book of much greater intellectual value written by an incredable visionary. From this book not "Atlas Shrugged" is the ideal society described.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="da_illest101"]

Can someone please explain to me what is it with americans and their guns? It seems has important to some of them as eating

Ninja-Hippo

Because there is no reason to not have them.

So if a small minority decides to do that i can't have guns? Most of that seems like a regulatory problem no reasons to ban.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="percech"]Introducing WW3 Brought to you by: Israel and MurricaDarkman2007

how is it a world war? that implies the WHOLE world, not a few backwater middle eastern countries.

Did i ever say all middle eastern countries are backwater? The answer is no i did not, if you have kept up with this thread you would know how much i support Israel. but the ones that guy implied would be involved on the enemy side of "ww3" are.

Can someone please explain to me what is it with americans and their guns? It seems has important to some of them as eating

da_illest101

Because there is no reason to not have them.

Introducing WW3 Brought to you by: Israel and Murricapercech

how is it a world war? that implies the WHOLE world, not a few backwater middle eastern countries.

If only all drones were used for that...

nooblet69

as opposed to...?

using evil for good, i like itMrPraline

Whats evil about them?

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

You are gravely mistaken if you are under the impression that moving away from scarcity-based economics/the price system - and removing a substantial (not all, mind you) portion of the labor makes it costless. Moreover, you haven't addressed how eliminating it removes the power from those in control of it. Finally, the price system is pretty god damned stable. Your entire thought process here stands a bit shy of coherent.

coolbeans90

For your first point: For a government with absolute control of it's geographical resources and an infrastructure already in place yes production is cost free it's all a matter of transportation and deciding who gets what.

For your second point: If a government has full control of production and gives the fruits of production free to its citizens based on merit and worth how will the oligarchy maintain its self?

As for the stability of the price system, look around you it should be obvious that the world economy is anything but stable. it's been less then 100 years since the last economic crash and this current one is even more persistent then the last. it's clear that at the rate it's going the price system will kill itself given enough time, if this will happen anywhere in the near future is to be seen.

What you are describing is moving from a regulated, market-based system to a top-down managed economy which have historically been notoriously inefficient by comparison.

To your second point because, ultimately, meritocracy would give way to politics. That happens in bureaucratic, hierarchical, authoritarian systems of government. The well-being of the citizenry would become a pretty insignificant concern when powerless.

The economic hiccups of the past century have been child's play in contrast to wars and famines left unattended to by regimes not all too dissimilar to what would become of what you propose. Even in what we consider to be a horrendous recession in this day and age, living standards remain near the peak of human history, and due to improvements in market regulation, was far less of a problem than The Great Depression. Long-term trends point towards gradual improvement.

Yes historically top downs have not worked, but that is because of the oligarchy and the pyramid structured governments they create. They are inefficient because a few individuals benefit from it being inefficient, in a technocracy this is not the case.

Yes an unregulated meritocracy does descend into popular politics. However i don't support meritocracies, i support technocracies with meritocratic elements.

yes while your living conditions may seem good they are not what they should be. A government that fully and efficiently utilizes it's geographic resources could provide much better for the citizen.

[QUOTE="Murderstyle75"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]Liberty is a necessity of man's life qua man. If the government does not recognize your unconditional right to defend yourself - from anything/anyone - then the government does not respect your right to live. Such a government is a violent and oppressive institution and is anti-life. Obama has made it clear again and again that he does not recognize the right that his constituencies have to live. This failure does not just manifest itself in his opposition to the 2nd amendment, but also in his pro-welfare, pro-inflation, pro-regulation, and pro-surveillance policies - in addition to his restriction protests of habeus corpus. A person is either fundamentally and unconditionally for or against freedom, and for or against life. Obama is the most violent and oppressive president since FDR and he is firmly anti-freedom and anti-life.Laihendi

It's official drones are the best things ever.