Tory MP...The unemployed should have vasectomies.

First topic message reminder :

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/16/ben-bradley-under-fire-for-blogpost-urging-jobless-people-to-have-vasectomies

He has since backtracked...but does he have a point?


"A Conservative MP who has been appointed as a party vice-chairman once suggested that unemployed people should opt for free vasectomies rather than continuing to have children they could not afford to support.


In a blogpost, Ben Bradley claimed that the country would be soon “drowning in a vast sea of unemployed wasters” if workless families had four or five children while others limited themselves to one or two.

Bradley, who unexpectedly defeated Labour’s Alan Meale last year to become the Tory MP for Mansfield, made the comments in 2012 in support of a government policy for a benefit cap.

The 28-year-old, who was promoted to Conservative vice-chair representing young people in Theresa May’s new year reshuffle, apologised for the inappropriate post and said he had since matured. Labour said the comments were evidence that the “nasty party” lived on. "

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


That is not my point being made

There is little any authorities can do to physically stop you doing anything to yourself, if you really want to do something.

There is simple consequences if you get caught.

My point was, that once you start allowing the authorities to make laws based on how self harm and poor choices affect the rest of society, you get fools like the MP, who thinks he needs to make laws about behavior for the good of society, because society is now footing the bill for bad behavior.

It's why many countries still throw people in cages for smoking a non government approved plant. The idea is to protect the citizen from his own poor choices, and therefore protect society.

Again you miss my point

People have the freedom to do what ever they like with their bodies, as its there choice what they do

Its only if caught that there is consequences

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

My point was, that once you start allowing the authorities to make laws based on how self harm and poor choices affect the rest of society, you get fools like the MP, who thinks he needs to make laws about behavior for the good of society, because society is now footing the bill for bad behavior.

It's why many countries still throw people in cages for smoking a non government approved plant. The idea is to protect the citizen from his own poor choices, and therefore protect society.

Again you miss my point

People have the freedom to do what ever they like with their bodies, as its there choice what they do

Its only if caught that there is consequences

It's not freedom if they are punished for doing it.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


Again you miss my point

People have the freedom to do what ever they like with their bodies, as its there choice what they do

Its only if caught that there is consequences

It's not freedom if they are punished for doing it.  

You still have the freedom to do what ever you are going to do

Again and this is the telling point, you are only punished if caught

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It's not freedom if they are punished for doing it.  

You still have the freedom to do what ever you are going to do

Again and this is the telling point, you are only punished if caught

You and I have much different definitions of freedom.

I have the freedom to own an AR-15. Most people would say that you don't, while you are saying you do as long as you don't get caught.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


You still have the freedom to do what ever you are going to do

Again and this is the telling point, you are only punished if caught

You and I have much different definitions of freedom.

I have the freedom to own an AR-15. Most people would say that you don't, while you are saying you do as long as you don't get caught.  

Again anyone has this freedom, you simple do not embrace it.

You only yourseelf haver the freedom to have an AR-15 because of the law, where no doubt if it was illegal, what would stop you?

Only if you were caught

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It's not freedom if they are punished for doing it.  

You still have the freedom to do what ever you are going to do

Again and this is the telling point, you are only punished if caught

You and I have much different definitions of freedom.

I have the freedom to own an AR-15. Most people would say that you don't, while you are saying you do as long as you don't get caught.  

Should I personally have the freedom to have my own private nuclear arsenal? And if not -- why not?

Maddog wrote:

Jules wrote:I think we're comparing apples with oranges here.

I don't care what you think. The fact is, you don't own your body if you cant do what you like to it.  

@ Maddog :

And who do you expect to clean up the mess...

When the unprotected motorcyclist lands on his head..

Or the drug addict o'd's in a public place ?

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You and I have much different definitions of freedom.

I have the freedom to own an AR-15. Most people would say that you don't, while you are saying you do as long as you don't get caught.  

Should I personally have the freedom to have my own private nuclear arsenal? And if not -- why not?

I think we should have some limits. You get to have a tank and a bazooka.

Nuclear arms are dangerous just by their very existence. Your tank would require you to have some malice to really be a threat. It's not going to harm people just sitting there. Nuclear weapons are unstable. A tank needs an unstable person to make it dangerous.

And if you want to get picky, we could use the old 2nd Amendment and limit people to "arms", which are typically considered weapons you can carry around.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I don't care what you think. The fact is, you don't own your body if you cant do what you like to it.  

@ Maddog  :

And who do you expect to clean up the mess...

When the unprotected motorcyclist lands on his head..

Or the drug addict o'd's in a public place  ?

Same people that clean up protected motorcyclists and drunks I guess.

Or the problems with obese people.

I guess the government in some societies or volunteers/charity in another.

The conversation has moved away from government having no say in controlling how few children people have.

Obviously the government has a say in lots of other ways re how we use our bodies.
The most simplistic rule is we have to cover it when out in public, unless in designated areas.  

Rules and laws are made for the good of the society in which we live, most of them are beneficial.
Would anyone like to live in a society where there are no rules?
No...that's because people cant be trusted to act for the good of others.

Perhaps one day government will rule how many children entitle parents to handouts....at the moment that isn't happening.

Syl wrote:The conversation has moved away from government having no say in controlling how few children people have.

Obviously the government has a say in lots of other ways re how we use our bodies.
The most simplistic rule is we have to cover it when out in public, unless in designated areas.  

Rules and laws are made for the good of the society in which we live, most of them are beneficial.
Would anyone like to live in a society where there are no rules?
No...that's because people cant be trusted to act for the good of others.

Perhaps one day government will rule how many children entitle parents to handouts....at the moment that isn't happening.

Depends what society you live in

How do you think you would fair in an Islamic society?

Would you be happy with such religious rules that restrict your life?

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:The conversation has moved away from government having no say in controlling how few children people have.

Obviously the government has a say in lots of other ways re how we use our bodies.
The most simplistic rule is we have to cover it when out in public, unless in designated areas.  

Rules and laws are made for the good of the society in which we live, most of them are beneficial.
Would anyone like to live in a society where there are no rules?
No...that's because people cant be trusted to act for the good of others.

Perhaps one day government will rule how many children entitle parents to handouts....at the moment that isn't happening.

Depends what society you live in

How do you think you would fair in an Islamic society?

Would you be happy with such religious rules that restrict your life?

I would hate to live in an Islamic society because I have a western upbringing and outlook. 
Obviously some countries are not run for the good of the people, but I was talking of here and the US really, because that's where we all come from.
You make a god point though.

Syl wrote:The conversation has moved away from government having no say in controlling how few children people have.

Obviously the government has a say in lots of other ways re how we use our bodies.
The most simplistic rule is we have to cover it when out in public, unless in designated areas.  

Rules and laws are made for the good of the society in which we live, most of them are beneficial.
Would anyone like to live in a society where there are no rules?
No...that's because people cant be trusted to act for the good of others.

Perhaps one day government will rule how many children entitle parents to handouts....at the moment that isn't happening.

There are rules that protect us from each other and rules tjat protect us from us. We need the former. The latter, not so much.

Should we have a rule that says you must wear your coat and mittens when it's a certain temperature outside to prevent illness?

The Devil, You Know wrote:

Jules wrote:

It does not happen here!! European govts never tell people what to do with their own bodies.
Only the US govt does this.
 
IRONICALLY, the only time the US govt tells people what to do with their body - is to force them to have MORE babies.
Conservative US govts are anti-abortion and they force women to have unwanted babies.

has anyone told black folks that as they abort thousands and thousands of babies every year.

No idea. Direct that question at people who are totally obsessed with colour. I have zero obsession with colour, I see people as people, not as colours. Ta.

My original comment still stands - the conservative mindset is very anti-abortion. The current regime was quick to dismantle family planning and abortion programmes and roll back the clock 100 years. 



@Mags - yeah sorry, I meant ww2 of course. Typo!

Jules wrote:My original comment still stands - the conservative mindset is very anti-abortion. The current regime was quick to dismantle family planning and abortion programmes and roll back the clock 100 years. 

Conservatives and liberals like to control people.

Tell me, was the one child policy of the Chinese a right wing idea?

Maddog wrote:

Jules wrote:My original comment still stands - the conservative mindset is very anti-abortion. The current regime was quick to dismantle family planning and abortion programmes and roll back the clock 100 years. 

Conservatives and liberals like to control people.  

Tell me, was the one child policy of the Chinese a right wing idea?

It was an urgent rule they introduced, based on a pressing, practical problem which was getting out of control.  Ideology has nowt to do with it.

Being a communist regime is purely incidental, no? 

Jules wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Conservatives and liberals like to control people.  

Tell me, was the one child policy of the Chinese a right wing idea?

It was an urgent rule they introduced, based on a pressing, practical problem which was getting out of control.  Ideology has nowt to do with it.

Being a communist regime is purely incidental, no? 

Can you answer my question?

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:The conversation has moved away from government having no say in controlling how few children people have.

Obviously the government has a say in lots of other ways re how we use our bodies.
The most simplistic rule is we have to cover it when out in public, unless in designated areas.  

Rules and laws are made for the good of the society in which we live, most of them are beneficial.
Would anyone like to live in a society where there are no rules?
No...that's because people cant be trusted to act for the good of others.

Perhaps one day government will rule how many children entitle parents to handouts....at the moment that isn't happening.

There are rules that protect us from each other and rules tjat protect us from us.  We need the former. The latter, not so much.  

Should we have a rule that says you must wear your coat and mittens when it's a certain temperature outside to prevent illness?  

I hate the idea of a nanny state as much as you do, but laws are generally made for the good of society in civilised countries.
Obviously we need laws to protect us from others, murder, theft, rape and so on.

Laws that protect us from ourselves??...well our actions affect others don't they, and some people need more guidance than others...so laws like wearing crash helmets, seat belts, smoking laws, all compound on other people, so yes, we also need laws that protect us from us.

Jules wrote:My original comment still stands - the conservative mindset is very anti-abortion. The current regime was quick to dismantle family planning and abortion programmes and roll back the clock 100 years. 



@Mags - yeah sorry, I meant ww2 of course. Typo!

Lol I thought that's what you meant

Jules wrote:My original comment still stands - the conservative mindset is very anti-abortion. The current regime was quick to dismantle family planning and abortion programmes and roll back the clock 100 years. 



@Mags - yeah sorry, I meant ww2 of course. Typo!

Lol I thought that's what you meant I pressed on the wrong button and gave you a greeny hun, I'm sure you don't mind lol

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

There are rules that protect us from each other and rules tjat protect us from us.  We need the former. The latter, not so much.  

Should we have a rule that says you must wear your coat and mittens when it's a certain temperature outside to prevent illness?  

I hate the idea of a nanny state as much as you do, but laws are generally made for the good of society in civilised countries.
Obviously we need laws to protect us from others, murder, theft, rape and so on.

Laws that protect us from ourselves??...well our actions affect others don't they, and some people need more guidance than others...so laws like wearing crash helmets, seat belts, smoking laws, all compound on other people, so yes, we also  need laws that protect us from us.

They only affect other's when repairing people is a forced responsibility. That's why I mentioned that that is the problem with the redistribution if wealth.

Once you go down that road, you give the government the right to use force in terms of behavior that doesn't impact others.

I suggest not going down that road and letting people be.

Scary isn't?

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:

I hate the idea of a nanny state as much as you do, but laws are generally made for the good of society in civilised countries.
Obviously we need laws to protect us from others, murder, theft, rape and so on.

Laws that protect us from ourselves??...well our actions affect others don't they, and some people need more guidance than others...so laws like wearing crash helmets, seat belts, smoking laws, all compound on other people, so yes, we also  need laws that protect us from us.

They only affect other's when repairing people is a forced responsibility. That's why I mentioned that that is the problem with the redistribution if wealth.

Once you go down that road, you give the government the right to use force in terms of behavior that doesn't impact others.

I suggest not going down that road and letting people be.

Scary isn't?  

Well that would work if everyone acted like you do, or I do, but sadly they don't.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

They only affect other's when repairing people is a forced responsibility. That's why I mentioned that that is the problem with the redistribution if wealth.

Once you go down that road, you give the government the right to use force in terms of behavior that doesn't impact others.

I suggest not going down that road and letting people be.

Scary isn't?  

Well that would work if everyone acted like you do, or I do, but sadly they don't.

It would work, if government's allowed people to help others as they deemed fit, instead of standing on their throat saying they signed a "social contract".

@maddog

If you didn't sign the social contract you are an enemy of society and thus as an enemy of the tribe should be removed from the tribes territory by force if necessary, that is the natural order for communal animals be it wolves, chimps or man.

your imaginary Individuality is the unnatural state for Homo Sapiens
and Lone men fair even worse than Lone wolves

veya_victaous wrote:@maddog

If you didn't sign the social contract you are an enemy of society and thus as an enemy of the tribe should be removed from the tribes territory by force if necessary, that is the natural order for communal animals be it wolves, chimps or man.

your imaginary Individuality is the unnatural state for Homo Sapiens  
and Lone men fair even worse than Lone wolves

Blah, blah, blah.

How do you even type with your lips firmly suckling on a giant fucking teat?

Maddog wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:@maddog

If you didn't sign the social contract you are an enemy of society and thus as an enemy of the tribe should be removed from the tribes territory by force if necessary, that is the natural order for communal animals be it wolves, chimps or man.

your imaginary Individuality is the unnatural state for Homo Sapiens  
and Lone men fair even worse than Lone wolves

Blah, blah, blah.

How do you even type with your lips firmly suckling on a giant fucking teat?

Just cause you're Sulking around the edges of Camp Trying to reap the advantages of a Society/tribe without putting in the contributions to make it functional

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:


Blah, blah, blah.

How do you even type with your lips firmly suckling on a giant fucking teat?

Just cause you're Sulking around the edges of Camp Trying to reap the advantages of a Society/tribe without putting in the contributions to make it functional

What advantages?

Being treated like an infant?

Everything.
Do You make your own clothes, get all your own food. let alone All the infrastructure such as roads etc, protection since If you aren't part of the tribe you don't deserve the protection of the tribe essentially an outlaw.

All that homo sapiens has achieved is by People working together and
Despite your misconception that gov't is separate it isn't, the Gov't is the manifestation of Human cooperation. The fact you Rally against Nature and evolution through some snowflake imagining that you are independent and that you society should continue to support you regardless of your selfishness is just an unrealistic daydream.

veya_victaous wrote:Everything.
Do You make your own clothes, get all your own food. let alone All the infrastructure such as roads etc, protection since If you aren't part of the tribe you don't deserve the protection of the tribe essentially an outlaw.

All that homo sapiens has achieved is by People working together and
Despite your misconception that gov't is separate it isn't, the Gov't is the manifestation of Human cooperation. The fact you Rally against Nature and evolution through some snowflake imagining that you are independent and that you society should continue to support you regardless of your selfishness is just an unrealistic daydream.

Capitalism provides everything you mentioned, and its voluntary.

You sound like one of those confused souls that wants to know "who will make the roads"?

Maddog wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:Everything.
Do You make your own clothes, get all your own food. let alone All the infrastructure such as roads etc, protection since If you aren't part of the tribe you don't deserve the protection of the tribe essentially an outlaw.

All that homo sapiens has achieved is by People working together and
Despite your misconception that gov't is separate it isn't, the Gov't is the manifestation of Human cooperation. The fact you Rally against Nature and evolution through some snowflake imagining that you are independent and that you society should continue to support you regardless of your selfishness is just an unrealistic daydream.

Capitalism provides everything you mentioned, and its voluntary.

You sound like one of those confused souls that wants to know "who will make the roads"?

Capitalism provides nothing until it's forced to...

Big business wouldn't even pay a decent wage, when they can get away with it..

Then you keep on falsely claiming that "charity" will look after the sick, the crippled and the unemployed --   when thousands of years of human history has repeatedly proven otherwise.

Then there's your constant opposition to environmental protections, workplace safety, and the need for a minimum wage..

No doubt you would also support a persons "right" to own slaves, if yor beloved "Liberationists" added it to their core policies ???

Maddog wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:Everything.
Do You make your own clothes, get all your own food. let alone All the infrastructure such as roads etc, protection since If you aren't part of the tribe you don't deserve the protection of the tribe essentially an outlaw.

All that homo sapiens has achieved is by People working together and
Despite your misconception that gov't is separate it isn't, the Gov't is the manifestation of Human cooperation. The fact you Rally against Nature and evolution through some snowflake imagining that you are independent and that you society should continue to support you regardless of your selfishness is just an unrealistic daydream.

Capitalism provides everything you mentioned, and its voluntary.

You sound like one of those confused souls that wants to know "who will make the roads"?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLL
And How the fuck do you think we got to the point where every one agreed to use these little paper makers to signify value?

Capitalism Doesn't work without a gov't geared towards allowing capitalism to function.. it is by no means the default state.. Without the gov't NO CAPITALISM, you can't just Go I like this bit but want to ignore all the bits that build the foundation for the bit I like to exist.  

And Like Wolf Said
No capitalism does NOT provide all those things, and when it is forced to it provides them poorly and at great expense or through great suffering exploiting those belonging to weaker gov't/societies.

And Voluntary? yeah that's why the USA has had to wage decades of wars and political coercion forcing other nations to follow it  
can't have people working together, sharing and not devoted to greed.
let alone when left to it's own devices capitalists just put people in shackles and use as slave labour.

veya wrote:And Like Wolf Said
No capitalism does NOT provide all those things, and when it is forced to it provides them poorly and at great expense or through great suffering exploiting those belonging to weaker gov't/societies.

Capitalism is just another mouth to feed.  There are three necessary elements of production: land, labor and initiative.  Capitalism and profit are bloodsuckers in the chain of production.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Capitalism provides everything you mentioned, and its voluntary.

You sound like one of those confused souls that wants to know "who will make the roads"?

Capitalism provides nothing until it's forced to...

Big business wouldn't even pay a decent wage, when they can get away with it..

Then you keep on falsely claiming that "charity" will look after the sick, the crippled and the unemployed --   when thousands of years of human history has repeatedly proven otherwise.

Then there's your constant opposition to environmental protections, workplace safety, and the need for a minimum wage..

No doubt you would also support a persons "right" to own slaves, if yor beloved "Liberationists" added it to their core policies  ???

How does a business make money? Pick it off of a fucking tree?

Slavery would violate the NAP.

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Capitalism provides everything you mentioned, and its voluntary.

You sound like one of those confused souls that wants to know "who will make the roads"?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLL
And How the fuck do you think we got to the point where every one agreed to use these little paper makers to signify value?

Capitalism Doesn't work without a gov't geared towards allowing capitalism to function.. it is by no means the default state.. Without the gov't NO CAPITALISM, you can't just Go I like this bit but want to ignore all the bits that build the foundation for the bit I like to exist.  

And Like Wolf Said
No capitalism does NOT provide all those things, and when it is forced to it provides them poorly and at great expense or through great suffering exploiting those belonging to weaker gov't/societies.

And Voluntary? yeah that's why the USA has had to wage decades of wars and political coercion forcing other nations to follow it  
can't have people working together, sharing and not devoted to greed.
let alone when left to it's own devices capitalists just put people in shackles and use as slave labour.

Google anarcho capitalism and read up. I don't have time to educate every kangaroo fucker on the planet.

Maddog wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Capitalism provides everything you mentioned, and its voluntary.

You sound like one of those confused souls that wants to know "who will make the roads"?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLL
And How the fuck do you think we got to the point where every one agreed to use these little paper makers to signify value?

Capitalism Doesn't work without a gov't geared towards allowing capitalism to function.. it is by no means the default state.. Without the gov't NO CAPITALISM, you can't just Go I like this bit but want to ignore all the bits that build the foundation for the bit I like to exist.  

And Like Wolf Said
No capitalism does NOT provide all those things, and when it is forced to it provides them poorly and at great expense or through great suffering exploiting those belonging to weaker gov't/societies.

And Voluntary? yeah that's why the USA has had to wage decades of wars and political coercion forcing other nations to follow it  
can't have people working together, sharing and not devoted to greed.
let alone when left to it's own devices capitalists just put people in shackles and use as slave labour.

Google anarcho capitalism and read up.  I don't have time to educate every kangaroo fucker on the planet.  

I know what Anarcho Capitalism is, Complete make believe Not possible bullshit that appeals to pea brained rednecks that don't realise humans economies have existed for Millennia longer than the USA and we Fucking KNOW WHAT HAPPENS when Dumb asses think like that, it doesn't work it ends in Slavery and warfare.
the whole notion that Charities will magically look after all the bits you want to cheapskate out of is BULLSHIT proven by The ENTIRE HISTORY OF MANKIND.

Maybe if you Had some Gov't services you'd have enough education to understand how fucking Stupid even saying 'look up anarcho capitalism' is.. who would want that? Only someone that has Never lived in a civilized country with ACTUAL services.
Your nothing by Slaves to the Corpocracy but they Keep telling you Your free (if you can afford it) and Dumb asses believe it.

Your not telling anyone anything that hasn't been tried and failed before, it doesn't work we all know it doesn't work Only Brain washed slaves of the Corpocracy even suggest it.

Maddog wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Capitalism provides everything you mentioned, and its voluntary.

You sound like one of those confused souls that wants to know "who will make the roads"?

Capitalism provides nothing until it's forced to...

Big business wouldn't even pay a decent wage, when they can get away with it..

Then you keep on falsely claiming that "charity" will look after the sick, the crippled and the unemployed --   when thousands of years of human history has repeatedly proven otherwise.

Then there's your constant opposition to environmental protections, workplace safety, and the need for a minimum wage..

No doubt you would also support a persons "right" to own slaves, if yor beloved "Liberationists" added it to their core policies  ???

How does a business make money?  Pick it off of a fucking tree?

Slavery would violate the NAP.  

They don't make money
they make goods and services.
the Gov't makes money and supplies it to society to facilitate trade.


and We're ignoring the NAP if we don't have a social contract we have NO SOCIAL CONTRACTS, as is the case everytime some dumbass try this stupid shit

Maddog wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


Capitalism provides nothing until it's forced to...

Big business wouldn't even pay a decent wage, when they can get away with it..

Then you keep on falsely claiming that "charity" will look after the sick, the crippled and the unemployed --   when thousands of years of human history has repeatedly proven otherwise.

Then there's your constant opposition to environmental protections, workplace safety, and the need for a minimum wage..

No doubt you would also support a persons "right" to own slaves, if yor beloved "Liberationists" added it to their core policies  ???

How does a business make money?  Pick it off of a fucking tree?

Slavery would violate the NAP.  

You like to brag about your knowledge of banking and market economics, Maddog  ?!?

Then, you should be aware then, that  --

*  Big business ahas been destroying jobs faster than they create them over the last four decades,  so that the "big business" now employs fewer people in total than they did during the 1980s;

*  The largest employment sector these days is with "small busineses', largely sole traders, self-employed workers, and small contracting firms;

*   While more jobs have been created in most western economies over the last couple of years,  most of those jobs are casual and part-time, with no security and lower pay rates, so that fewer hours are being worked than a year or two ago, while wages are staying flat though the cost of living keeps rising..

*  And "housing affordability" in many western countries is now,the worst it's been in more than half a century.

You might like this brave new world,  Maddog,  but that doesn't mean that others have to.

I would like to go back to the OP topic, as listed in the title.

So far from giving vasectomies to the unemployed--who, after all, might become employed any day--I have long been of the opinion that vasectomies should be given to trust babies.

The person who inherits a fortune is the most useless shit on earth.  He is given a distorted view of the world as a result of all the wealth around him. He becomes an imbecile, and probably a narcissistic ego-maniac.  Yet, he stands to inherit this huge fortune, and all it's power...he's a danger to society!  At least his father worked for a living.  He has done nothing, probably will do nothing, and during his lifetime will cause nothing but trouble.  Cases in point: Donald Trump, Charles Koch; but that's another matter.

At least make a (prepubescent) vasectomy a condition precedent to inheritance.  If he declines, that is his choice.  Then, at least, such a person is able to do no more damage.

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Google anarcho capitalism and read up.  I don't have time to educate every kangaroo fucker on the planet.  

I know what Anarcho Capitalism is, Complete make believe Not possible bullshit that appeals to pea brained rednecks that don't realise humans economies have existed for Millennia longer than the USA and we Fucking KNOW WHAT HAPPENS when Dumb asses think like that, it doesn't work it ends in Slavery and warfare.
the whole notion that Charities will magically look after all the bits you want to cheapskate out of is BULLSHIT proven by The ENTIRE HISTORY OF MANKIND.

Maybe if you Had some Gov't services you'd have enough education to understand how fucking Stupid even saying 'look up anarcho capitalism' is.. who would want that? Only someone that has Never lived in a civilized country with ACTUAL services.
Your nothing by Slaves to the Corpocracy but they Keep telling you Your free (if you can afford it) and Dumb asses believe it.

Your not telling anyone anything that hasn't been tried and failed before, it doesn't work we all know it doesn't work Only Brain washed slaves of the Corpocracy even suggest it.

We have to government services coming out of our ass. How do you think we got 20 trillion in debt?

Original Quill wrote:I would like to go back to the OP topic, as listed in the title.

So far from giving vasectomies to the unemployed--who, after all, might become employed any day--I have long been of the opinion that vasectomies should be given to trust babies.

The person who inherits a fortune is the most useless shit around.  He is given a distorted view of the world, as a result of all the wealth around him.  Yet, he stands to inherit this huge fortune, and all it's power.  At least his father worked for a living.  He has done nothing, probably will do nothing, and during his lifetime will cause nothing but trouble.  Case in point: Donald Trump; but that's another matter.

At least make a (prepubescent) vasectomy a condition precedent to inheritance.  If he declines, that is his choice.  Then, at least, such a person is able to do no more damage.

I have better idea. Leave people the fuck alone and stop acting like you know what's best for them.

Maddog wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

I know what Anarcho Capitalism is, Complete make believe Not possible bullshit that appeals to pea brained rednecks that don't realise humans economies have existed for Millennia longer than the USA and we Fucking KNOW WHAT HAPPENS when Dumb asses think like that, it doesn't work it ends in Slavery and warfare.
the whole notion that Charities will magically look after all the bits you want to cheapskate out of is BULLSHIT proven by The ENTIRE HISTORY OF MANKIND.

Maybe if you Had some Gov't services you'd have enough education to understand how fucking Stupid even saying 'look up anarcho capitalism' is.. who would want that? Only someone that has Never lived in a civilized country with ACTUAL services.
Your nothing by Slaves to the Corpocracy but they Keep telling you Your free (if you can afford it) and Dumb asses believe it.

Your not telling anyone anything that hasn't been tried and failed before, it doesn't work we all know it doesn't work Only Brain washed slaves of the Corpocracy even suggest it.

We have to government services coming out of our ass. How do you think we got 20 trillion in debt?

A useless Department of Defense, and an endless stream of unnecessary wars.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:I would like to go back to the OP topic, as listed in the title.

So far from giving vasectomies to the unemployed--who, after all, might become employed any day--I have long been of the opinion that vasectomies should be given to trust babies.

The person who inherits a fortune is the most useless shit around.  He is given a distorted view of the world, as a result of all the wealth around him.  Yet, he stands to inherit this huge fortune, and all it's power.  At least his father worked for a living.  He has done nothing, probably will do nothing, and during his lifetime will cause nothing but trouble.  Case in point: Donald Trump; but that's another matter.

At least make a (prepubescent) vasectomy a condition precedent to inheritance.  If he declines, that is his choice.  Then, at least, such a person is able to do no more damage.

I have better idea.  Leave people the fuck alone and stop acting like you know what's best for them.  

Hey brother, we can do anything we want. Your laissez-faire ideology is based on a fictitious state of nature. Put it behind you. Government is here to stay.

If we don't have government, we just have an endless string of thieves and murderers. It appears history has outvoted you. Suck it!

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

We have to government services coming out of our ass. How do you think we got 20 trillion in debt?

A useless Department of Defense, and an endless stream of unnecessary wars.

That's part of it, but we have a very bloated non defense portion of our government.

One thing we have plenty of, and that's government.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I have better idea.  Leave people the fuck alone and stop acting like you know what's best for them.  

Hey brother, we can do anything we want.  Your laissez-faire ideology is based on a fictitious state of nature.  Put it behind you.  Government is here to stay.

If we don't have government, we just have an endless string of thieves and murderers.  It appears history has outvoted you.  Suck it!

As children we are taught to keep our hands to ourselves. Too bad many adults forget that very important lesson.

And I'm not an anarchist you dip shit.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

A useless Department of Defense, and an endless stream of unnecessary wars.

That's part of it, but we have a very bloated non defense portion of our government.  

One thing we have plenty of, and that's government.

No. The Department of Defense is responsible for around 70% of spending. Everything pales in comparison.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

That's part of it, but we have a very bloated non defense portion of our government.  

One thing we have plenty of, and that's government.

No.  The Department of Defense is responsible for around 70% of spending.  Everything pales in comparison.

I already proved you wrong once on this topic. The DoD. Is not even half.

How soon you forget how inept you are with numbers and facts.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No.  The Department of Defense is responsible for around 70% of spending.  Everything pales in comparison.

I already proved you wrong once on this topic.  The DoD. Is not even half.  

How soon you forget how inept you are with numbers and facts.  

Wrong again.



We are in-between wars right now. In recent past years, the defense portion has been much greater.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I already proved you wrong once on this topic.  The DoD. Is not even half.  

How soon you forget how inept you are with numbers and facts.  

Wrong again.  



We are in-between wars right now.  In recent past years, the defense portion has been much greater.

Use all spending.

Quill wrote:No. The Department of Defense is responsible for around 70% of spending. Everything pales in comparison.

I expect a correction will be coming, in the spirit if the rules around here.