What would you do?

This is kind of cool show. It makes me realize that stereotypes about people are not often true, and people are by and large "good".

It's an incredible show, inevitably brings a tear most of the time, and thankfully only rarely a little anger. There was an episide about discrimination against Mexicans a while back that was pretty powerful.

Eilzel wrote:It's an incredible show, inevitably brings a tear most of the time, and thankfully only rarely a little anger. There was an episide about discrimination against Mexicans a while back that was pretty powerful.

And it shows, that the government really doesn't need to force people to play nice. They will step up and take care of these things on there own. Even in a place like Texas, where It's perfectly legal to deny service to gay people.

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:It's an incredible show, inevitably brings a tear most of the time, and thankfully only rarely a little anger. There was an episide about discrimination against Mexicans a while back that was pretty powerful.

And it shows, that the government really doesn't need to force people to play nice. They will step up and take care of these things on there own. Even in a place like Texas, where It's perfectly legal to deny service to gay people.

What happens when they dont and that gay couple is now left embarressed they wont get served any food?

So you might want to rethink, whether being reliant on people stepping up, is the way forward.

I mean take your view in the most extreme form. Nazi Germany, yes some Germans stepped up and helped Jews out, but many did not and were party to the hate and oppression they received.

Its why the Governement needs to step in and protect the rights of all citizens.

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

And it shows, that the government really doesn't need to force people to play nice. They will step up and take care of these things on there own. Even in a place like Texas, where It's perfectly legal to deny service to gay people.

What happens when they dont and that gay couple is now left embarressed they wont get served any food?

So you might want to rethink, whether being reliant on people stepping up, is the way forward.

I mean take your view in the most extreme form. Nazi Germany, yes some Germans stepped up and helped Jews out, but many did not and were party to the hate and oppression they received.

Its why the Governement needs to step in and protect the rights of all citizens.

They will go some where else.

The Nazi government made discrimination the law. Not forcing people to play nice is FAR different than the government requiring discrimination.

No need for me to rethink my position that government force either requiring people to play nicely or to discriminate is a bad idea. They are both based on force.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:

What happens when they dont and that gay couple is now left embarressed they wont get served any food?

So you might want to rethink, whether being reliant on people stepping up, is the way forward.

I mean take your view in the most extreme form. Nazi Germany, yes some Germans stepped up and helped Jews out, but many did not and were party to the hate and oppression they received.

Its why the Governement needs to step in and protect the rights of all citizens.

They will go some where else.

The Nazi government made discrimination the law. Not forcing people to play nice is FAR different than the government requiring discrimination.

No need for me to rethink my position that government force either requiring people to play nicely or to discriminate is a bad idea. They are both based on force.

And what if the next place is not in town?

How many miles do they need to go, just to be allowed to eat out?

Texas has a law that also discriminates against homosexuals.

It does not have a religious law that discriminates though against those divorced. Those who's chilldren insult the parents etc. Which is odd when its based on religious gibberish the discrimination against gays

So the point is Texas does have discrimination laws and fails to protect all citizens

So yes you need to rethink your position, because your position would see a person have to travel miles, simple in order to be served food.

Hence why the law in Texas is wrong, if fails to protect all citizens

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

They will go some where else.

The Nazi government made discrimination the law. Not forcing people to play nice is FAR different than the government requiring discrimination.

No need for me to rethink my position that government force either requiring people to play nicely or to discriminate is a bad idea. They are both based on force.

And what if the next place is not in town?

How many miles do they need to go, just to be allowed to eat out?

Texas has a law that also discriminates against homosexuals.

It does not have a religious law that discriminates though against those divorced. Those who's chilldren insult the parents etc. Which is odd when its based on religious gibberish the discrimination against gays

So the point is Texas does have discrimination laws and fails to protect all citizens

So yes you need to rethink your position, because your position would see a person have to travel miles, simple in order to be served food.

Hence why the law in Texas is wrong, if fails to protect all citizens

Texas does not require discrimination. The Nazis did.

The citizens are quite capable of figuring this out, without a cop showing up and making them play nice.

Its called the tempestuous seas of liberty vs the calm seas or tyranny.

I guess it depends on what you think is more important.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:

And what if the next place is not in town?

How many miles do they need to go, just to be allowed to eat out?

Texas has a law that also discriminates against homosexuals.

It does not have a religious law that discriminates though against those divorced. Those who's chilldren insult the parents etc. Which is odd when its based on religious gibberish the discrimination against gays

So the point is Texas does have discrimination laws and fails to protect all citizens

So yes you need to rethink your position, because your position would see a person have to travel miles, simple in order to be served food.

Hence why the law in Texas is wrong, if fails to protect all citizens

Texas does not require discrimination. The Nazis did.

The citizens are quite capable of figuring this out, without a cop showing up and making them play nice.

Its called the tempestuous seas of liberty vs the calm seas or tyranny.

I guess it depends on what you think is more important.

But as seen, your methodology is flawed, as its reliant on human beings, who are also flawed.

The reality is this, the same store would not refuse someone non-Christian, even though people who do not believe are condemned for hell.

So why single out one group of so called sinners according to their beliefs?

In other words its wrong. Where they are basing this on religion, Christianity.

Hence laws are required that protect the well being and equality of everyone.

Simple  

Have to go, so all the best

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Texas does not require discrimination. The Nazis did.

The citizens are quite capable of figuring this out, without a cop showing up and making them play nice.

Its called the tempestuous seas of liberty vs the calm seas or tyranny.

I guess it depends on what you think is more important.

But as seen, your methodology is flawed, as its reliant on human beings, who are also flawed.

The reality is this, the same store would not refuse someone non-Christian, even though people who do not believe are condemned for hell.

So why single out one group of so called sinners according to their beliefs?

In other words its wrong. Where they are basing this on religion, Christianity.

Hence laws are required that protect the well being and equality of everyone.

Simple  

Have to go, so all the best

Sure they would. Some people don't like Muslims or Jews.

My GF, who is a barely practicing Albanian Muslim, wouldn't serve a Serbian, or would do so with a few nasty comments.

She lives in Texas, and owns a restaurant.

And if you had watched the video, you would see that the people defended the gay couple based on Christianity in many cases.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


But as seen, your methodology is flawed, as its reliant on human beings, who are also flawed.

The reality is this, the same store would not refuse someone non-Christian, even though people who do not believe are condemned for hell.

So why single out one group of so called sinners according to their beliefs?

In other words its wrong. Where they are basing this on religion, Christianity.

Hence laws are required that protect the well being and equality of everyone.

Simple  

Have to go, so all the best

Sure they would. Some people don't like Muslims or Jews.

My GF, who is a barely practicing Albanian Muslim, wouldn't serve a Serbian, or would do so with a few nasty comments.

She lives in Texas, and owns a restaurant.  

And if you had watched the video, you would see that the people defended the gay couple based on Christianity in many cases.  

It does not matter whether they like Muslims or Jews, to discriminate against them is wrong, as its singling out people based on belief.

To deny Serbians, is guilt by association, which is even worse.
Should all Jews not serve any Germans, for what happened in the past?

So to cast a Serbian, who had nothing to do with the crimes is massively wrong

I saw people defended, but that does not mean it would happen evertime, as again, humans are flawed. Where many are too afraid to stand up for what is right.

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Sure they would. Some people don't like Muslims or Jews.

My GF, who is a barely practicing Albanian Muslim, wouldn't serve a Serbian, or would do so with a few nasty comments.

She lives in Texas, and owns a restaurant.  

And if you had watched the video, you would see that the people defended the gay couple based on Christianity in many cases.  

It does not matter whether they like Muslims or Jews, to discriminate against them is wrong, as its singling out people based on belief.

To deny Serbians, is guilt by association, which is even worse.
Should all Jews not serve any Germans, for what happened in the past?

So to cast a Serbian, who had nothing to do with the crimes is massively wrong

I saw people defended, but that does not mean it would happen evertime, as again, humans are flawed. Where many are too afraid to stand up for what is right.

I agree that it's wrong and that humans are flawed. But the humans outside of government are no more flawed than those operating inside of it, and have a knack for working it all out. I think in the long run, less damage is done when the government leaves people alone on "association" issues.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


It does not matter whether they like Muslims or Jews, to discriminate against them is wrong, as its singling out people based on belief.

To deny Serbians, is guilt by association, which is even worse.
Should all Jews not serve any Germans, for what happened in the past?

So to cast a Serbian, who had nothing to do with the crimes is massively wrong

I saw people defended, but that does not mean it would happen evertime, as again, humans are flawed. Where many are too afraid to stand up for what is right.

I agree that it's wrong and that humans are flawed. But the humans outside of government are no more flawed than those operating inside of it, and have a knack for working it all out. I think in the long run, less damage is done when the government leaves people alone on "association" issues.

I agree that Goverments are flawed also, but to rely on people to solve issues. When many can walk past a homeless person and not give a second thought. Shows to me, such a methodology is always going to be flawed.

Does not look like we will agree on this, and have to get some sleep

Night Maddog

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I agree that it's wrong and that humans are flawed. But the humans outside of government are no more flawed than those operating inside of it, and have a knack for working it all out. I think in the long run, less damage is done when the government leaves people alone on "association" issues.

I agree that Goverments are flawed also, but to rely on people to solve issues. When many can walk past a homeless person and not give a second thought. Shows to me, such a methodology is always going to be flawed.

Does not look like we will agree on this, and have to get some sleep

Night Maddog

Our homeless are treated and fed mostly by volunteers and some government help. There is a significant number of people that help. One would be my crazy Serbian hating GF. She volunteers at the homeless shelter. Maybe it's her way of atoning for her anti Serbian (and anti Communist) beliefs.

Ciao.

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:It's an incredible show, inevitably brings a tear most of the time, and thankfully only rarely a little anger. There was an episide about discrimination against Mexicans a while back that was pretty powerful.

And it shows, that the government really doesn't need to force people to play nice. They will step up and take care of these things on there own. Even in a place like Texas, where It's perfectly legal to deny service to gay people.

I disagree, as that won't always be the case. Your principles work in theory, but like a true communist utopia, wouldn't in practice.

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

And it shows, that the government really doesn't need to force people to play nice. They will step up and take care of these things on there own. Even in a place like Texas, where It's perfectly legal to deny service to gay people.

I disagree, as that won't always be the case. Your principles work in theory, but like a true communist utopia, wouldn't in practice.

I know it won't always work. Even with laws against it, it might still happen too. I mean if you watch the video, the gay couple was still getting served, albeit with some harassment. I don't think you can legislate that.

Would you like being served by someone who says "I hate fags, but the law says I have to serve you, so here's your fucking food. Hope you don't choke"

I would think in that case, we would be right back to where I think we should be. You would be getting up and leaving and we would be letting the market and our fellow man work it out.

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

I disagree, as that won't always be the case. Your principles work in theory, but like a true communist utopia, wouldn't in practice.

I know it won't always work. Even with laws against it, it might still happen too. I mean if you watch the video, the gay couple was still getting served, albeit with some harassment. I don't think you can legislate that.

Would you like being served by someone who says "I hate fags, but the law says I have to serve you, so here's your fucking food. Hope you don't choke"

I would think in that case, we would be right back to where I think we should be. You would be getting up and leaving and we would be letting the market and our fellow man work it out.    

You think words are more harmful than denying someone service for who they are?

At least you could try to reason with that ignorant person over their hate with words.

Denying someone, simple becuase of who they are, opens up a can of worms to this being done to anyone for a multitude of reasons

So why the fuck should he leave, because of some ignorant fuck?

What you are saying is that we should all bow down to such hate.

No, that is not how society has progressed, its because people stood up and made laws to deny ignorant fucks like that not forcing their hate onto others

the biggest problem with Maddog's theory is that UK Australia Canada NZ etc all prove the opposite
With Much More regulation than the USA we have Far less harassment and discrimination.

Also far less homeless. Far less People needing charity because the gov't has failed to provide basic services (like health and education)

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I know it won't always work. Even with laws against it, it might still happen too. I mean if you watch the video, the gay couple was still getting served, albeit with some harassment. I don't think you can legislate that.

Would you like being served by someone who says "I hate fags, but the law says I have to serve you, so here's your fucking food. Hope you don't choke"

I would think in that case, we would be right back to where I think we should be. You would be getting up and leaving and we would be letting the market and our fellow man work it out.    

You think words are more harmful than denying someone service for who they are?

At least you could try to reason with that ignorant person over their hate with words.

Denying someone, simple becuase of who they are, opens up a can of worms to this being done to anyone for a multitude of reasons

So why the fuck should he leave, because of some ignorant fuck?

What you are saying is that we should all bow down to such hate.

No, that is not how society has progressed, its because people stood up and made laws to deny ignorant fucks like that not forcing their hate onto others

I never give my money to people that abuse me. Do you?

I would say staying would be bowing down.

veya_victaous wrote:the biggest problem with Maddog's theory is that UK Australia Canada NZ etc all prove the opposite
With Much More regulation than the USA we have Far less harassment and discrimination.

Also far less homeless. Far less People needing charity because the gov't has failed to provide basic services (like health and education)  

The people of Yugoslavia got along better than they did after the break up too. No doubt people behave when faced with oppression.

If the government is providing basic services, that is charity. The government is spending someone else's money to help another.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


You think words are more harmful than denying someone service for who they are?

At least you could try to reason with that ignorant person over their hate with words.

Denying someone, simple becuase of who they are, opens up a can of worms to this being done to anyone for a multitude of reasons

So why the fuck should he leave, because of some ignorant fuck?

What you are saying is that we should all bow down to such hate.

No, that is not how society has progressed, its because people stood up and made laws to deny ignorant fucks like that not forcing their hate onto others

I never give my money to people that abuse me. Do you?

I would say staying would be bowing down.

I think you do, by giving taxes

The reality is this. You think hate should succeed, based on some poor percvieved viewed on liberty.

No, it does not, as you are part of a nation, that provides you with those same rights.

Rights that have stopped hateful people discriminating against who they are selective over.

You would not be able to live your life without the collective funds of people within that nation.

That means, your rights are no more than anyone else. It does not mean you get to push your views onto others based on some hate. You would not have had an education without others collectivelly giving.

So to argue as badly as you do for others to be allowed to discriminate. Shows you have learnt nothing of the past and what you were born lucky into.

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I never give my money to people that abuse me. Do you?

I would say staying would be bowing down.

I think you do, by giving taxes

The reality is this. You think hate should succeed, based on some poor percvieved viewed on liberty.

No, it does not, as you are part of a nation, that provides you with those same rights.

Rights that have stopped hateful people discriminating against who they are selective over.

You would not be able to live your life without the collective funds of people within that nation.

That means, your rights are no more than anyone else. It does not mean you get to push your views onto others based on some hate. You would not have had an education without others collectivelly giving.

So to argue as badly as you do for others to be allowed to discriminate. Shows you have learnt nothing of the past and what you were born lucky into.

Taxes are not voluntary.

I argue badly for freedom in your eyes. You're a statist, and far too impressed with the power of government.

I don't want hate to succeed and I don't think it will if people don't want it to. I also know it will, regardless of what government does.

See, I think it is my role, your role and the role of everyone to make their country better, without relying on the force of the government to make it happen.

You're never going to be able to understand me. Your indoctrination is too intense. You have been trained to believe that government is the solution every complex societal problem from unfair wages to discrimination. I realize that it's intervention causes a whole new set of problems.

Maddog wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:the biggest problem with Maddog's theory is that UK Australia Canada NZ etc all prove the opposite
With Much More regulation than the USA we have Far less harassment and discrimination.

Also far less homeless. Far less People needing charity because the gov't has failed to provide basic services (like health and education)  

The people of Yugoslavia got along better than they did after the break up too. No doubt people behave when faced with oppression.  

If the government is providing basic services, that is charity. The government is spending someone else's money to help another.

Yeah, if you Look at the world and your fellow citizens in a Completely Self centred way
And gov't expenditure on services is Far more efficient use of funds than privately operated charities.

If the gov't is NOT Providing services why should it exist? Just to protect Your Property? if the only service is protecting the property of the rich than better to have no government at all... (Only Americans think that is the purpose of gov't because they have never experience an Actual Civilized society; instead of their dog eat dog, profit from your neighbours misfortune economy.)

And ALL money is property of the gov't, you are just holding it. a US dollar is simply the fraction of faith an International Currency trader has in the US gov't not to go bankrupt.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


I think you do, by giving taxes

The reality is this. You think hate should succeed, based on some poor percvieved viewed on liberty.

No, it does not, as you are part of a nation, that provides you with those same rights.

Rights that have stopped hateful people discriminating against who they are selective over.

You would not be able to live your life without the collective funds of people within that nation.

That means, your rights are no more than anyone else. It does not mean you get to push your views onto others based on some hate. You would not have had an education without others collectivelly giving.

So to argue as badly as you do for others to be allowed to discriminate. Shows you have learnt nothing of the past and what you were born lucky into.

Taxes are not voluntary.

I argue badly for freedom in your eyes. You're a statist, and far too impressed with the power of government.

I don't want hate to succeed and I don't think it will if people don't want it to. I also know it will, regardless of what government does.

See, I think it is my role, your role and the role of everyone to make their country better, without relying on the force of the government to make it happen.

You're never going to be able to understand me. Your indoctrination is too intense. You have been trained to believe that government is the solution every complex societal problem from unfair wages to discrimination. I realize that it's intervention causes a whole new set of problems.

Well done, so you have to give taxes, which go towards many people, including people you do not like, the point you glaringly miss.

Well hate succeeded when people have been constantly allowed to discriminate. How many examples of this in history do you need me to provide?

What do you think people vote for to bring about laws to change things? By making it better? Now women, ethnic groups, homosexuals etc have more rights, because people voted and brought about change? When that change happened, people first moaned, but within a short time, views dramatically changed for the better. 

The whole issue with the US, is that some still harness themselves to archaic beliefs like Christiainity and think they can force these beliefs onto everyone else

You lose all credibility, when you claim I am indoctrinated and claim, you are some wonder pants.

Facts are facts, you would never have had an education or the chances in life without the nation providing this for you. 

You are simple ungrateful

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The people of Yugoslavia got along better than they did after the break up too. No doubt people behave when faced with oppression.  

If the government is providing basic services, that is charity. The government is spending someone else's money to help another.

Yeah, if you Look at the world and your fellow citizens in a Completely Self centred way
And gov't expenditure on services is Far more efficient use of funds than privately operated charities.

If the gov't is NOT Providing services why should it exist? Just to protect Your Property? if the only service is protecting the property of the rich than better to have no government at all... (Only Americans think that is the purpose of gov't because they have never experience an Actual Civilized society; instead of their dog eat dog, profit from your neighbours misfortune economy.)

And ALL money is property of the gov't, you are just holding it. a US dollar is simply the fraction of faith an International Currency trader has in the US gov't not to go bankrupt.

I think my signature says what the role of government should be. In mine and Mr Jefferson's opinion.

Maddog wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:


Yeah, if you Look at the world and your fellow citizens in a Completely Self centred way
And gov't expenditure on services is Far more efficient use of funds than privately operated charities.

If the gov't is NOT Providing services why should it exist? Just to protect Your Property? if the only service is protecting the property of the rich than better to have no government at all... (Only Americans think that is the purpose of gov't because they have never experience an Actual Civilized society; instead of their dog eat dog, profit from your neighbours misfortune economy.)

And ALL money is property of the gov't, you are just holding it. a US dollar is simply the fraction of faith an International Currency trader has in the US gov't not to go bankrupt.

I think my signature says what the role of government should be. In mine and Mr Jefferson's opinion.

Then go find and create your own country.

You will find you will end up creating all the same problems over again

That is what you fail to grasp

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Taxes are not voluntary.

I argue badly for freedom in your eyes. You're a statist, and far too impressed with the power of government.

I don't want hate to succeed and I don't think it will if people don't want it to. I also know it will, regardless of what government does.

See, I think it is my role, your role and the role of everyone to make their country better, without relying on the force of the government to make it happen.

You're never going to be able to understand me. Your indoctrination is too intense. You have been trained to believe that government is the solution every complex societal problem from unfair wages to discrimination. I realize that it's intervention causes a whole new set of problems.

Well done, so you have to give taxes, which go towards many people, including people you do not like, the point you glaringly miss.

Well hate succeeded when people have been constantly allowed to discriminate. How many examples of this in history do you need me to provide?

What do you think people vote for to bring about laws to change things? By making it better? Now women, ethnic groups, homosexuals etc have more rights, because people voted and brought about change? When that change happened, people first moaned, but within a short time, views dramatically changed for the better. 

The whole issue with the US, is that some still harness themselves to archaic beliefs like Christiainity and think they can force these beliefs onto everyone else

You lose all credibility, when you claim I am indoctrinated and claim, you are some wonder pants.

Facts are facts, you would never have had an education or the chances in life without the nation providing this for you. 

You are simple ungrateful

You think government is a leading indicator in these changes. I say it's a lagging indicator. People change first, and the government follows. If the government doesn't legislate this change, the people will still change.

I don't need your credibility, and I would expect you to say I have lost it.

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I think my signature says what the role of government should be. In mine and Mr Jefferson's opinion.

Then go find and create your own country.

You will find you will end up creating all the same problems over again

That is what you fail to grasp

Or we could just run ours like it was designed.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


Well done, so you have to give taxes, which go towards many people, including people you do not like, the point you glaringly miss.

Well hate succeeded when people have been constantly allowed to discriminate. How many examples of this in history do you need me to provide?

What do you think people vote for to bring about laws to change things? By making it better? Now women, ethnic groups, homosexuals etc have more rights, because people voted and brought about change? When that change happened, people first moaned, but within a short time, views dramatically changed for the better. 

The whole issue with the US, is that some still harness themselves to archaic beliefs like Christiainity and think they can force these beliefs onto everyone else

You lose all credibility, when you claim I am indoctrinated and claim, you are some wonder pants.

Facts are facts, you would never have had an education or the chances in life without the nation providing this for you. 

You are simple ungrateful

You think government is a leading indicator in these changes. I say it's a lagging indicator. People change first, and the government follows. If the government doesn't legislate this change, the people will still change.

I don't need your credibility, and I would expect you to say I have lost it.

Well history shows you clearly have no idea that Goverments have brought these changes.

So how was it slavery ended as a minority view?

It took a bold Governement to bring about change

So people like you think you hold the key, and i we took your view, then many societies would stay stagnated, as we see in the east. People do change and then their views are surpressed, hence why it takes leadership, to bring about change

The reality and as seen, your views are inherantly flawed

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


Then go find and create your own country.

You will find you will end up creating all the same problems over again

That is what you fail to grasp

Or we could just run ours like it was designed.  

Nothing is ever constant, that is where you are going wrong

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You think government is a leading indicator in these changes. I say it's a lagging indicator. People change first, and the government follows. If the government doesn't legislate this change, the people will still change.

I don't need your credibility, and I would expect you to say I have lost it.

Well history shows you clearly have no idea that Goverments have brought these changes.

So how was it slavery ended as a minority view?

It took a bold Governement to bring about change

So people like you think you hold the key, and i we took your view, then many societies would stay stagnated, as we see in the east. People do change and then their views are surpressed, hence why it takes leadership, to bring about change

The reality and as seen, your views are inherantly flawed

No, people brought about these changes based on society evolving. That's why we can't just go into Afghanistan and use government to make that place look like Sweden. The people there have no desire to change it, and more laws won't change it. It will change if the people there voluntarily see a better way to treat each other.

Maddog wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:the biggest problem with Maddog's theory is that UK Australia Canada NZ etc all prove the opposite
With Much More regulation than the USA we have Far less harassment and discrimination.

Also far less homeless. Far less People needing charity because the gov't has failed to provide basic services (like health and education)  

The people of Yugoslavia got along better than they did after the break up too. No doubt people behave when faced with oppression.  

If the government is providing basic services, that is charity. The government is spending someone else's money to help another.

Providing basic services is not "charity"...

It is providing the basics that keep societies together, and communities operating -- not only having a military, police forces and a central courts system -- but also a monetary exchange system, roads and transport infrastructure, 'base' power generation and distributiion, central communications, fresh water, pollution controls, education, basic sanitation and waste disposal, basic health services, fostering scientific & industrial research.

One of the basic areas where "Libertarianism" differs from most other politico-economic systems, is where the Libertarians selfishly and stupidly claim that the prime responsibility of a minimalist government should be "the protection of private property" -- and from this standpoint they then claim that most government services should be privatised on a "user pays" basis (bad luck for those who couldn't afford to pay..), and that government should not be involved in any form of "welfare" (damn you commies !) or foreign aid, whatsover..

"Charity" is the Libertarian solution to filling in the gaps... Unfortunately that doesn't work too well -- leaving a large minority poor, starving and unemployable, and elitist classes cornering the jobs markets.. Much like where most of the world was up until the late 19th century.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


Well history shows you clearly have no idea that Goverments have brought these changes.

So how was it slavery ended as a minority view?

It took a bold Governement to bring about change

So people like you think you hold the key, and i we took your view, then many societies would stay stagnated, as we see in the east. People do change and then their views are surpressed, hence why it takes leadership, to bring about change

The reality and as seen, your views are inherantly flawed

No, people brought about these changes based on society evolving. That's why we can't just go into Afghanistan and use government to make that place look like Sweden. The people there have no desire to change it, and more laws won't change it. It will change if the people there voluntarily see a better way to treat each other.

Gibberish, it takes leadership to bring about change. Where that leadership brings people together. I can give you countless examples, even including your own independence. 

Afghanistan, used to look like Sweden, where girls once wore miniskirts. It took people of hate to control others through poor ideologies. So if Afghanistan once change, it can change back, through good leadership.

Any other nonsense you wish to give me?

Maddog wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

The people of Yugoslavia got along better than they did after the break up too. No doubt people behave when faced with oppression.  

If the government is providing basic services, that is charity. The government is spending someone else's money to help another.

Yeah, if you Look at the world and your fellow citizens in a Completely Self centred way
And gov't expenditure on services is Far more efficient use of funds than privately operated charities.

If the gov't is NOT Providing services why should it exist? Just to protect Your Property? if the only service is protecting the property of the rich than better to have no government at all... (Only Americans think that is the purpose of gov't because they have never experience an Actual Civilized society; instead of their dog eat dog, profit from your neighbours misfortune economy.)

And ALL money is property of the gov't, you are just holding it. a US dollar is simply the fraction of faith an International Currency trader has in the US gov't not to go bankrupt.

I think my signature says what the role of government should be. In mine and Mr Jefferson's opinion.

a Slave owner talking about freedoms.....

Yeah He is Not a great reference for the civility of man, plus universally renowned as an IP thief because his ideas of freedom where solely concerned with 'his freedoms' to profit even while stealing others designs and ideas.

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

No, people brought about these changes based on society evolving. That's why we can't just go into Afghanistan and use government to make that place look like Sweden. The people there have no desire to change it, and more laws won't change it. It will change if the people there voluntarily see a better way to treat each other.

Gibberish, it takes leadership to bring about change. Where that leadership brings people together. I can give you countless examples, even including your own independence. 

Afghanistan, used to look like Sweden, where girls once wore miniskirts. It took people of hate to control others through poor ideologies. So if Afghanistan once change, it can change back, through good leadership.

Any other nonsense you wish to give me?

Kabul was civilized. The rest of the country never made it much out of the Stone Age.

Afghanistan will change, when a majority of the people want it to change. Same for every other shit hole on this planet. Not when their governments shove something they don't want, down their throats.

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I think my signature says what the role of government should be. In mine and Mr Jefferson's opinion.

a Slave owner talking about freedoms.....

Yeah He is Not a great reference for the civility of man, plus universally renowned as an IP thief because his ideas of freedom where solely concerned with 'his freedoms' to profit even while stealing others designs and ideas.

Jefferson was a man of the 18th century, like Washington he owned a perfect legal product sanctioned by the government.

Would you like a quote from Adams instead, who did not support the idea of slavery even though it was a common practice throughout most of the world?

The original title of the thread was "what would you do". It's very obvious what I would do, and what many other's on here would do.

I guess some folks are just more inclined to voluntarily serve their fellow man, while other's wait for the government to do something.

Maddog wrote:The original title of the thread was "what would you do". It's very obvious what I would do, and what many other's on here would do.

I guess some folks are just more inclined to voluntarily serve their fellow man, while other's wait for the government to do something.

yeah, those of us in civilized nations would actually go and VOTE for someone to stop it occurring in the first place, you know actually address the root of the problem.
Most of us wouldn't be so 'simple' as to pat ourselves on the back for confronting one homophob in one interaction, like that will achieve anything.

what would I do? live in a civilized society which doesn't tolerate such prejudice.

Is this one of those set up scenarios to see how other people react??

smelly-bandit wrote:Is this one of those set up scenarios to see how other people react??

Yeah, it's set up to see how people handle seeing others being mistreated or put in harm's way.

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:The original title of the thread was "what would you do". It's very obvious what I would do, and what many other's on here would do.

I guess some folks are just more inclined to voluntarily serve their fellow man, while other's wait for the government to do something.

yeah, those of us in civilized nations would actually go and VOTE for someone to stop it occurring in the first place, you know actually address the root of the problem.
Most of us wouldn't be so 'simple' as to pat ourselves on the back for confronting one homophob in one interaction, like that will achieve anything.  

what would I do? live in a civilized society which doesn't tolerate such prejudice.

A civilized society doesn't need force to be civilized. It's civilized because the vast majority think it should be that way, not because you may get thrown in a cage if you don't behave.

Granted there needs to law enforcement for those that truly harm others, but public opinion can handle the small number of cases where people don't want to serve others.

Maddog wrote:The original title of the thread was "what would you do". It's very obvious what I would do, and what many other's on here would do.

I guess some folks are just more inclined to voluntarily serve their fellow man, while other's wait for the government to do something.

I would intervene ...I have in the past and if needed I will again, its instinctive.

It says a lot though that in the state where its still legal to refuse a gay person service (which is unbelievable to me) many more people intervened that in a more civilised state like New York.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:The original title of the thread was "what would you do". It's very obvious what I would do, and what many other's on here would do.

I guess some folks are just more inclined to voluntarily serve their fellow man, while other's wait for the government to do something.

I would intervene ...I have in the past and if needed I will again, its instinctive.

It says a lot though that in the state where its still legal to refuse a gay person service (which is unbelievable to me) many more people intervened that in a more civilised state like New York.

Texans are far more civilized that New Yorkers.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:

I would intervene ...I have in the past and if needed I will again, its instinctive.

It says a lot though that in the state where its still legal to refuse a gay person service (which is unbelievable to me) many more people intervened that in a more civilised state like New York.

Texans are far more civilized that New Yorkers.  

Well it seemed like it from watching that video, and others of the same ilk.

I actually cried when I watched the video, the man who wrote the gay lady a note...it was so touching,

I would intervene. Have done before but only if I can make sure it’s a safe environment.

Here in the US, a lot of people wouldn’t because of the gun situation. Seriously.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


I think you do, by giving taxes

The reality is this. You think hate should succeed, based on some poor percvieved viewed on liberty.

No, it does not, as you are part of a nation, that provides you with those same rights.

Rights that have stopped hateful people discriminating against who they are selective over.

You would not be able to live your life without the collective funds of people within that nation.

That means, your rights are no more than anyone else. It does not mean you get to push your views onto others based on some hate. You would not have had an education without others collectivelly giving.

So to argue as badly as you do for others to be allowed to discriminate. Shows you have learnt nothing of the past and what you were born lucky into.

Taxes are not voluntary.

I argue badly for freedom in your eyes. You're a statist, and far too impressed with the power of government.

I don't want hate to succeed and I don't think it will if people don't want it to. I also know it will, regardless of what government does.

See, I think it is my role, your role and the role of everyone to make their country better, without relying on the force of the government to make it happen.

You're never going to be able to understand me. Your indoctrination is too intense. You have been trained to believe that government is the solution every complex societal problem from unfair wages to discrimination. I realize that it's intervention causes a whole new set of problems.

So very true!


We had 13 years of lefty labour govt meddling in exactly that way...!

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:The original title of the thread was "what would you do". It's very obvious what I would do, and what many other's on here would do.

I guess some folks are just more inclined to voluntarily serve their fellow man, while other's wait for the government to do something.

I would intervene ...I have in the past and if needed I will again, its instinctive.

exactly the same for me

i love how most of them are quite calm though but still get their point across and still stand up for whoever is being treated badly at the time

it's very warming. i totally agree with maddog, in general people are willing to stand up and do the right thing and say something about it. i cant stand constant government intervention

Cass wrote:I would intervene. Have done before but only if I can make sure it’s a safe environment.

Here in the US, a lot of people wouldn’t because of the gun situation. Seriously.

Get a gun.

I really never even think about that in these situations.

Of course, some might say thinking isn't my long suit.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Texans are far more civilized that New Yorkers.  

Well it seemed like it from watching that video, and others of the same ilk.

I actually cried when I watched the video, the man who wrote the gay lady a note...it was so touching,

Were an odd lot, no doubt. But if you need some help, we often trip over ourselves trying.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Texans are far more civilized that New Yorkers.  

Well it seemed like it from watching that video, and others of the same ilk.

I actually cried when I watched the video, the man who wrote the gay lady a note...it was so touching,

Were an odd lot, no doubt. But if you need some help, we often trip over ourselves trying.  

Seriously. One of the friendliest places I've ever visited.

Maddog wrote:

Cass wrote:I would intervene. Have done before but only if I can make sure it’s a safe environment.

Here in the US, a lot of people wouldn’t because of the gun situation. Seriously.

Get a gun.  

I really never even think about that in these situations.

Of course, some might say thinking isn't my long suit.

Yeah no thanks.