Donald Trump running for president

CJNator said:
How equal opportunity comes about is having a equal playing field not handing out privileges by forcing private businesses to accommodate to certain people no matter what even if it seems like the right thing to do.
Click to expand...

Who the fvkc in here is talking about handouts or preferential treatment to even any playing field? Geesus H Christ
 
CJNator said:
I didn't read that anywhere.



Do you have an educated rebuttal? It's only logical to deter drunk driving with free market solutions instead of criminalizing a non violent act.
Click to expand...

An educated rebuttal? Let me "prax" this out for you.

Drunk driving is a non-violent act how? By driving impaired you are putting other people at undue risk because of your choice. These laws are put in place to hopefully deter individuals from making that choice.

EDIT: The Supreme Court apparently classifies it as a non-violent offense, so there's that. I disagree, but meh.

Free market solutions? Really? What do you call Uber and taxis? Still have drunk driving accidents don't we?

This is probably the last post in here for the day, as arguing with CJNator is like talking to a brick wall. I should have known better than to start into this ridiculous Mises Institute sh1te, LOL. It's just so ludicrous that I couldn't resist.
 
I lied ;)

Here are some questions for CJNator:

(1) Are you (a) a small state Classical liberal Misesian or (b) an anarcho-capitalist in the tradition of Rothbard and Hoppe?

(2) If (a) what functions do you think the state should have?

(3) What is your view of ethics? Do you support natural rights/natural law theory or some form of utilitarianism/consequentialism? If neither, then what theory?

(4) Are you (a) a moderate subjectivist in the tradition of Kirzner/ O’Driscoll and Rizzo or (b) a radical subjectivist in the tradition of Lachmann?

(5) Do you think expectations are subjective, as Lachmann contends?

(6) Do you think (a) Mises’s praxeology is the proper methodology for Austrian economics or (b) follow Hayek or O’Driscoll and Rizzo in rejecting pure praxeology and apriorism and wanting a greater role for empirical evidence?
 
From what I understand of praxeology, empirical or experiential data cannot refute their claims. It's all based on theoretical deduction and ignores observation, experience and empirical evidence. In other words, a crock of sh1te ;)

Hence why it's brain numbingly pointless to argue with CJNator :frustrate
 
Misfit28 said:
An educated rebuttal? Let me "prax" this out for you.

Drunk driving is a non-violent act how? By driving impaired you are putting other people at undue risk because of your choice. These laws are put in place to hopefully deter individuals from making that choice.

EDIT: The Supreme Court apparently classifies it as a non-violent offense, so there's that. I disagree, but meh.

Free market solutions? Really? What do you call Uber and taxis? Still have drunk driving accidents don't we?

This is probably the last post in here for the day, as arguing with CJNator is like talking to a brick wall. I should have known better than to start into this ridiculous Mises Institute sh1te, LOL. It's just so ludicrous that I couldn't resist.
Click to expand...

For me it's hard arguing with someone that disagrees with reality so I feel you, plus taxis services are considered public transportation so they don't count as the free market. Sorry I can go one forever since cultural Marxism is a irrational ideology that has plagued progressivism and liberalism, plus it will be the downfall of the traditionalist/conservative American culture.
 
Misfit28 said:
I lied ;)

Here are some questions for CJNator:

(1) Are you (a) a small state Classical liberal Misesian or (b) an anarcho-capitalist in the tradition of Rothbard and Hoppe?

(2) If (a) what functions do you think the state should have?

(3) What is your view of ethics? Do you support natural rights/natural law theory or some form of utilitarianism/consequentialism? If neither, then what theory?

(4) Are you (a) a moderate subjectivist in the tradition of Kirzner/ O’Driscoll and Rizzo or (b) a radical subjectivist in the tradition of Lachmann?

(5) Do you think expectations are subjective, as Lachmann contends?

(6) Do you think (a) Mises’s praxeology is the proper methodology for Austrian economics or (b) follow Hayek or O’Driscoll and Rizzo in rejecting pure praxeology and apriorism and wanting a greater role for empirical evidence?
Click to expand...

1) Anarcho capitalists
2) None
3) Natural law
4) Still learning so I have no opinion on that
5) same as 4
6) Still learning

There's a lot of learning to do and all of what I know is fresh on my mind.
 
Gutterpump said:
Race, ethnicity, religious beliefs, social status, wealth. We as humans segregate & judge people in every way possible. Doesn't mean it's right though.
Click to expand...

We also judge people on education level, motivation, work ethic, individual character which there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. People aren't equal.
 
Gutterpump said:
LOL nobody in here is saying give everyone a trophy, or anything like this... I'm pretty sure it's common sense that when we speak about equality, we're talking about equal opportunity here. Fvkc sake...
Click to expand...

The **** you aren't. Equal opportunity means that everybody has a chance, not making it harder or easier for anybody to get there.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
Amen! I believe in giving everybody an equal opportunity, but every single person born equal doesn't make sense no matter how many times you say it or wish it. The everybody gets a trophy approach doesn't help anyone.
Click to expand...
For me, what bothers me the most is when the push for "equality," which is a great thing, and a noble cause, goes too far. For example, if you have to run a mile in 12 minutes and do 3 pull-ups (random numbers) to become a firefighter, equality is allowing ANYONE, man, woman, transgender, etc, who meets these requirements to become a firefighter. How is equality lowering the standards for a woman to 15 minutes and 1 pull-up (again, random numbers)? Unless the standards are being tampered with to keep women out (i.e. they're much higher than necessary to perform the expected and regular job duties or are increased if women are passing them), then the standards should apply to everyone, no? Is the better alternative saying "screw it, its more important that we have more women firefighters than that the firefighters are able to adequately perform the physical tasks of their job?" Inequality is saying that women CAN'T be firefighters, police officers, soldiers, etc, or creating unfairly and uselessly difficult requirements to keep them out. If the entrance tests for physical capability are what's deemed necessary to perform the job, then ANYONE who gets the job should meet them, no?
 
CJNator said:
For me it's hard arguing with someone that disagrees with reality so I feel you, plus taxis services are considered public transportation so they don't count as the free market. Sorry I can go one forever since cultural Marxism is a irrational ideology that has plagued progressivism and liberalism, plus it will be the downfall of the traditionalist/conservative American culture.
Click to expand...
I live reality, man. I talk to, observe and interview real people for a living. Can't get much more real than that.
 
Gutterpump said:
They, they, you keep saying 'they'... who the f is 'they'? Anyhow, what WE are talking about in here is the opposite of preferential treatment.
Click to expand...

This is every damn one of your posts. You of all people are asking somebody to clarify or define who their vague term is referring to? Did they steal your M.O.?
 
Misfit28 said:
From what I understand of praxeology, empirical or experiential data cannot refute their claims. It's all based on theoretical deduction and ignores observation, experience and empirical evidence. In other words, a crock of sh1te ;)

Hence why it's brain numbingly pointless to argue with CJNator :frustrate
Click to expand...

You seem knowledgeable on the subject so do you know what an analytic priori and synthetic posteriori is?
 
Misfit28 said:
So, what some are saying here are that some humans aren't humans? I don't get this thinking.
Click to expand...

Well there are dumb humans and smart humans, there are those who are lazy and those that have a massive work ethic. There are those who are disgusting characters and those of great kindness.

People aren't equal, there is no reason to equate above ideas to racism and sexism.
 
Misfit28 said:
So, what some are saying here are that some humans aren't humans? I don't get this thinking.
Click to expand...
no! Some of us are more human!

Do any of you actually engage yourselves intellectually with the far spectrums of the intelligence curve? Serious question.

Do you have conversation with illiterate 40yo men who have been hiding their illiteracy?

Have you engaged in intelligent conversation with 30 and 40 yo HS drop outs with a 4th grade reading and writing comprehension?

I'm not talking about polls or surveys or studies. I'm asking do you experience the difference in people first hand for your self!
 
Misfit28 said:
I live reality, man. I talk to, observe and interview real people for a living. Can't get much more real than that.
Click to expand...

How can it not? There is more to life the point blank observations. People are animals and animals mostly base their perspective emotionally. Emotions distort the truth generally speaking.
 
A quick look into subjectivism and it seems stupid, the idea that there is no truth is stupid because that claim states that is the ultimate truth.
 
I also know that there are people I could not come close to their level. They make me look the ignorant iterate. There are certainly levels and we're not all equal.
 
David Dunn said:
no! Some of us are more human!

Do any of you actually engage yourselves intellectually with the far spectrums of the intelligence curve? Serious question.

Do you have conversation with illiterate 40yo men who have been hiding their illiteracy?

Have you engaged in intelligent conversation with 30 and 40 yo HS drop outs with a 4th grade reading and writing comprehension?

I'm not talking about polls or surveys or studies. I'm asking do you experience the difference in people first hand for your self!
Click to expand...
I'll say it again. I TALK to people for a living!!!
 
CJNator said:
How can it not? There is more to life the point blank observations. People are animals and animals mostly base their perspective emotionally. Emotions distort the truth generally speaking.
Click to expand...
If you think your own opinions and beliefs aren't shaped by your own experiences, I feel sorry for you.
 
Aleksandar37 said:
The **** you aren't. Equal opportunity means that everybody has a chance, not making it harder or easier for anybody to get there.
Click to expand...

Dude serious, the fvkc are you talking about? You're arguing with yourself because I completely agreed with you here. Nobody in this thread is saying anyone should be receiving preferential treatment. In fact, it's the opposite, and I already stated this. Continue to argue with yourself though if it pleases you lol
 
Misfit28 said:
If you think your own opinions and beliefs aren't shaped by your own experiences, I feel sorry for you.
Click to expand...

My own opinions and beliefs have been shaped by a psychedelic experience I had a long time ago so I guess you're right in a way lol anyways without that one experience I would not be the person I am today. Everything else I've experience won't change who I am.
 
CJNator said:
My own opinions and beliefs have been shaped by a psychedelic experience I had a long time ago so I guess you're right in a way lol anyways without that one experience I would not be the person I am today. Everything else I've experience won't change who I am.
Click to expand...

Did you go to Peru with Paul Ryan and do ayahuasca?
 
Gutterpump said:
Dude serious, the fvkc are you talking about? You're arguing with yourself because I completely agreed with you here. Nobody in this thread is saying anyone should be receiving preferential treatment. In fact, it's the opposite, and I already stated this. Continue to argue with yourself though if it pleases you lol
Click to expand...

I should mention, I do believe in social safety nets and aid for those truly in need, but that has nothing to do with equality or this discussion.
 
Misfit28 said:
An educated rebuttal? Let me "prax" this out for you.

Drunk driving is a non-violent act how? By driving impaired you are putting other people at undue risk because of your choice. These laws are put in place to hopefully deter individuals from making that choice.

EDIT: The Supreme Court apparently classifies it as a non-violent offense, so there's that. I disagree, but meh.

Free market solutions? Really? What do you call Uber and taxis? Still have drunk driving accidents don't we?

This is probably the last post in here for the day, as arguing with CJNator is like talking to a brick wall. I should have known better than to start into this ridiculous Mises Institute sh1te, LOL. It's just so ludicrous that I couldn't resist.
Click to expand...

Im the tiny little government guy, but some laws I just never take the time to defend against such as drunk driving!
 
David Dunn said:
Talking to people (clients, subjects clinically) and working and living and coming and going and conflicting and engaging and negotiating is not the same IMHO
Click to expand...

No, I walk around in a hermetically sealed bubble and don't talk to anyone except for the people I interview.
 
CJNator said:
1) Anarcho capitalists
2) None
3) Natural law
4) Still learning so I have no opinion on that
5) same as 4
6) Still learning

There's a lot of learning to do and all of what I know is fresh on my mind.
Click to expand...

I'll try to address this later. Busy day today. All I know is that the Rothbardian system would be a recipe for disaster, and would most likely result in a de facto state, which is the very thing it argues against. It would basically be a return to medieval feudalism.
 
Misfit28 said:
No, I walk around in a hermetically sealed bubble and don't talk to anyone except for the people I interview.
Click to expand...
Over the years I've spoken with groups of 50 or more men. I've spiken with groups 10 men. I've spoken with individual men. I've spent weekends with the same. Some I see weekly for years on end.

It's not until you've know and walked along side a man through significant periods of events and circumstances, trials and tribulation over time do you "know" a man and his true makeup.

My point is that you don't learn that from just talking. That is all.

Regarding matters of character, integrity, morality, accountability, honesty and hypocricy we are not all equals.
 
David Dunn said:
Over the years I've spoken with groups of 50 or more men. I've spiken with groups 10 men. I've spoken with individual men. I've spent weekends with the same. Some I see weekly for years on end.

It's not until you've know and walked along side a man through significant periods of events and circumstances, trials and tribulation over time do you "know" a man and his true makeup.

My point is that you don't learn that from just talking. That is all.

Regarding matters of character, integrity, morality, accountability, honesty and hypocricy we are not all equals.
Click to expand...
I can agree with that :)
 
Misfit28 said:
I'll try to address this later. Busy day today. All I know is that the Rothbardian system would be a recipe for disaster, and would most likely result in a de facto state, which is the very thing it argues against. It would basically be a return to medieval feudalism.
Click to expand...

If so why not try just try it? What's there to lose? Yes it's never been tried but all other "isms" have been tried and failed repeatedly. People(in the US)are so worried about it turning into something else they forget our own governments is turning into a socialistic state right now. I just don't understand how people generally will argue to hell and back against a theoretical ideology while defending a (once again) failing ideology.
 
CJNator said:
If so why not try just try it? What's there to lose? Yes it's never been tried but all other "isms" have been tried and failed repeatedly. People(in the US)are so worried about it turning into something else they forget our own governments is turning into a socialistic state right now. I just don't understand how people generally will argue to hell and back against a theoretical ideology while defending a (once again) failing ideology.
Click to expand...

Failing in your opinion. What's there to lose? A LOT.

Feudalism didn't work either, you know.
 
Misfit28 said:
Failing in your opinion. What's there to lose? A LOT.

Feudalism didn't work either, you know.
Click to expand...

No, government is failing. Government is so pose to work for the people not the majority of people, not the minority of people, not for a certain class of people, not for a certain race of people, for ALL people yet it's continuously fails throughout history, revolution after revolution; there is no denying it unless you choose to just to be opinionated. No one knows what kind of government is ruling now and I won't even name the names that can fit the government ruling.

Theoretically it can become feudalism but in reality our government is becoming a socialistic state and no socialistic state has succeeded to work for the people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top