https://www.foxnews.com/tech/crossfit-quits-facebook-instagram-accuses-censorship-utopian-socialists

CrossFit quits Facebook, Instagram, accuses social media giant of censorship, being 'utopian socialists'

IF we're going to have a tax, it should be a single flat rate tax on employers. But if they did it that way, it would be far clearer how much they're REALLY deducting from us to sit in congress and argue about cow-farts.

Most sensible would be a consumption tax, which would remove all of the complexity around taxation of income, investments, corporate taxes, and a million other things.  But to do it you have to simultaneously end the taxes it replaces, and guarantee that they'll never reappear, which is the dangerous part.  Otherwise you end up with both.

This is kind of the same problem we'll have with the recent tax cuts.  My taxes went down, but like many people living in high-tax states like the Communist Socialist Republic of New York, I got hit hard by the cap on the SALT deduction, and ended up taking the standard deduction for the first time in the 24 years I've been a homeowner.  My fear is that the tax rates will go back up the next time the Socialist Communist America-hating demoKKKrats are in power, but the SALT cap will remain in place, leaving me double fucked.

I intend to foster a culture of "mind your own fucking business" so people can mind their own fucking business.

If I build a road I should get to decide who drives on it, and I'd probably set up a card system to lower the tire spikes before you could enter.  If you think people shouldn't have the right to control their own property then you're not small government at all.

I think people should have the right to control their own property, to a reasonable extent. 

What happens if your stream runs through someone else's property upstream and they decide to divert it? 

This is where Libertarian ideals start to fall apart. Is it a violation of the non-aggression principle to dam the stream or divert it? 

But it isn't always so black and white. If you collect rainwater on your property into cisterns instead of allowing it to run off into communal waterways - is that a problem? Maybe not in a place with abundant rains - but in a more arid environment, possibly. 

This is where conflict always arises within humanity - over resources that one group sees as a shared natural resource and that one group wants to control and probably profit from. That conflict leads to war. I've yet to see a libertarian philosophy that really confronts this reality and gives a workable solution to avoiding it. 

I agree with Ig on a flat consumption tax and the concern about ending up double fucked - because, well... that is what always happens. 

Wed May 29 2019 11:42:23 MST from ParanoidDelusions

I think people should have the right to control their own property, to a reasonable extent. 

What happens if your stream runs through someone else's property upstream and they decide to divert it? 

This is where Libertarian ideals start to fall apart. Is it a violation of the non-aggression principle to dam the stream or divert it? 

But it isn't always so black and white. If you collect rainwater on your property into cisterns instead of allowing it to run off into communal waterways - is that a problem? Maybe not in a place with abundant rains - but in a more arid environment, possibly. 

This is where conflict always arises within humanity - over resources that one group sees as a shared natural resource and that one group wants to control and probably profit from. That conflict leads to war. I've yet to see a libertarian philosophy that really confronts this reality and gives a workable solution to avoiding it. 

I agree with Ig on a flat consumption tax and the concern about ending up double fucked - because, well... that is what always happens. 

Yeah, no system prevents all problems.  The current system still has massive wrangling over water rights.  It's just one of those things where people get to argue until someone agrees or someone dies.

Less worried about rain collection.  I've yet to see a system of rainfall collection that is large enough to significantly diminish the available water for anyone else downstream.

I'm more in the "no taxes at all" camp, government can set up a GoFundMe if people value them all that much.

Well, arguably, Government is the original "Gofundme" campaign. 

People making promises of goods or services if you pay up front who under-deliver and are never on time. 

You know what else is terrible? People who have sex with animals. That's just disgusting man.

There is a major world religion (not saying which, but it's obvious) that tells its adherents that they may not eat the flesh of animals they've had sex with ... but that it's perfectly ok to sell the meat of those animals to people of other religions.

Mon Jun 17 2019 12:50:52 MST from IGnatius T Foobar

 

There is a major world religion (not saying which, but it's obvious) that tells its adherents that they may not eat the flesh of animals they've had sex with ... but that it's perfectly ok to sell the meat of those animals to people of other religions.

I'm betting that isn't Satanists. Not these new radical gay atheist Satanists - but the real Anton LeVey Church of Satan goth ones. The atheist Satanists are somewhat aligned with this other religion, I think. 

The new satanists have a better sense of humour but a worse sense of logic.

Atheist Satanism is really a front for radical LGBT+ activism. Look into it. It kind of makes sense. They don't believe in Satan, but they've got a huge chip on their shoulder about Christianity. 

Nope, it isn't atheists.  I'm talking about the most oppressive religion in the world, not the second most oppressive religion.

Tue Jun 18 2019 20:32:41 MST from IGnatius T Foobar

Nope, it isn't atheists.  I'm talking about the most oppressive religion in the world, not the second most oppressive religion.

The most oppressive religion is Government.  People fervently believing that they have a right to tell other people what to do, in spite of all logic or ethics.  If you're not being harmed, mind your own business.  If you're being harmed, work it out like an adult, or whatever.

Taking another road works all the time. You already do it literally all the time. Of course it's going to work: it already works. The Waze app will tell you right now if there's a dickless porker shooting radar at people. In this scenario it would tell you there's a daddy-issues road regulator with a boner for tire damage strips. 

The most oppressive religion is Government.  People fervently believing that they have a right to tell other people what to do, in spite of all logic or ethics.  If you're not being harmed, mind your own business.  If you're being harmed, work it out like an adult, or whatever.

And when an oppressive religion *is* the government (and I'm talking about islamic theocracies like Iran ... there ARE NO Christian theocracies, regardless of what those ultra-cunts on The View claim) it gets really bad.

By the way, we've got some real radical Libertarians on here, Ig. I personally ignore them on issues I disagree with them about - and agree with them on the stuff we see eye to eye... because, you know... they tend to see Government as a religion but fail to see how devoted they are to the dogmas and doctrines of their own belief system. ;) 

*match* + *gasoline*. 

:) 

Johnny Jones - your response is immaterial. What I said was,

"If someone is a threat to the point of having their 2nd amendment rights suspended - they shouldn't be walking free."

And that is true.

Red Flag Laws make an end-run around constitutional protections and due process. If you meet the criteria to have your 2nd amendment rights suspended - then you are enough of a threat to have your liberty suspended - a process that there is a mountain of case law, precedent and jurisprudence supporting. If the authorities are reasonably concerned that you are a threat to yourself or the public and should be removed from access to firearms - and they can get a clinical process to certify their concern is warranted - then really - that individual should be institutionalized. The safest way to protect society is not by removing their access to firearms - it is by removing their access to *society*.

That can certainly be abused - but it is the standard by which this should proceed. If you are not clinically diagnosed as a danger - there is no reason to suspend your 2nd amendment rights - and there is no reason to suspend your personal liberty. If you *are* - then applying the second process achieves the 1st process without any new laws.

This is simple Conservative Values 101. Don't make new laws to make it easier to do something. Enforce the existing laws.
What a Red Flag law is the ability to go, "This guy is a LITTLE crazy, but not so crazy we're going to institutionalize him, or take away his ability to buy a chainsaw or rent a box truck. We don't want to take the time to meet that burden of proof. Instead, we want a less strict burden of proof, and all we're going to do is take away his guns."

But it is also likely to be applied this way.

"You're not a threat to society, but your CHILD is a threat to society. They've said things that violate Red Flag laws - and YOU own firearms. So, he isn't REAL crazy. We're still going to let him go to school, let him hang out on radical Internet websites, and we're not going to insist on counseling or therapy. But - we're going to confiscate YOUR firearms and violate your 2nd amendment rights as long as your child lives in your house with you. Because while it isn't important to protect society from your kid by institutionalizing him, ensuring he does not not have easy access to firearms is worth violating your constitutional rights over."

See how stupid that sounds? It is a clear invitation to start dragging anyone you don't like into court, labeling them unfit to own firearms (not INSANE - but unbalanced and troubled,) and then suspending one of their most important constitutional rights.

Are you reading this, Ben Shapiro? Because this cuts to the essence of why Red Flag laws don't make sense. Any conservative with a law degree should be able to see the dangers of Red Flag law proposals.

They're simply a knee-jerk, feel good, emotional response by making a law that requires less burden of proof to deny liberty to a citizen. We already have those processes in place - and they require a high standard of evidence for a *reason*. 
But if you can meet that standard of evidence - then the person deserves not just to have their 2nd amendment rights suspended, but their actual liberty suspended.

Everyone should have access to all armaments -- from a .22 to a nuclear warhead.

But ... proposing laws that restrict the 2nd Amendment should be punishable by summary execution.