New Year Brings New Laws

[Associate Justice PiT]

Seatbelts save lives. Who cares? Smoking bans are proven effective ways of improving the health of the community, it's been shown countless times. Trans fats are useless and unhealthy and do little to nothing to improving the taste of any food, so what harm does this do? Texting while driving has been shown to be as dangerous, or moreso, than drunk driving, so it makes sense to pass laws against it.

All irrelevant points.

Some people don't need laws to tell them eating fast food garbage every day is bad for them. How would you like it if the government put you on a diet?

     I pretty much agree with this. In my view, "it doesn't do any harm" is a pretty terrible standard for whether a law is alright or not.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Seatbelts save lives. Who cares? Smoking bans are proven effective ways of improving the health of the community, it's been shown countless times. Trans fats are useless and unhealthy and do little to nothing to improving the taste of any food, so what harm does this do? Texting while driving has been shown to be as dangerous, or moreso, than drunk driving, so it makes sense to pass laws against it.

All irrelevant points.

Some people don't need laws to tell them eating fast food garbage every day is bad for them. How would you like it if the government put you on a diet?

     I pretty much agree with this. In my view, "it doesn't do any harm" is a pretty terrible standard for whether a law is alright or not.

Saving lives doesn't matter to you? You don't care if a law actually does something good or not?

I find the libertarian standard for determining the usefulness of a law downright disturbing and dangerous.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

It's not "irrelevant" to talk about the reasoning and effectiveness of the laws. This is precisely the point I was making with you and what I got a ton of "oh how dare you"s over. You don't CARE if they're good laws or not, because they're just laws, and you hate them for that and that alone.

The use of force against others is unacceptable.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I don't care that you have a clear conflict of interest when it comes to the existence of the state.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Freedom to not be hauled off to be locked in a government cage for violating arbitrary government nanny laws.

[k-onmmunist]

Seatbelts save lives. Who cares? Smoking bans are proven effective ways of improving the health of the community, it's been shown countless times. Trans fats are useless and unhealthy and do little to nothing to improving the taste of any food, so what harm does this do? Texting while driving has been shown to be as dangerous, or moreso, than drunk driving, so it makes sense to pass laws against it.

All irrelevant points.

Some people don't need laws to tell them eating fast food garbage every day is bad for them. How would you like it if the government put you on a diet?

     I pretty much agree with this. In my view, "it doesn't do any harm" is a pretty terrible standard for whether a law is alright or not.

Saving lives doesn't matter to you? You don't care if a law actually does something good or not?

I find the libertarian standard for determining the usefulness of a law downright disturbing and dangerous.

Why do you support coercion? And why do you assume these laws would save lives?

[Associate Justice PiT]

Seatbelts save lives. Who cares? Smoking bans are proven effective ways of improving the health of the community, it's been shown countless times. Trans fats are useless and unhealthy and do little to nothing to improving the taste of any food, so what harm does this do? Texting while driving has been shown to be as dangerous, or moreso, than drunk driving, so it makes sense to pass laws against it.

All irrelevant points.

Some people don't need laws to tell them eating fast food garbage every day is bad for them. How would you like it if the government put you on a diet?

     I pretty much agree with this. In my view, "it doesn't do any harm" is a pretty terrible standard for whether a law is alright or not.

Saving lives doesn't matter to you? You don't care if a law actually does something good or not?

I find the libertarian standard for determining the usefulness of a law downright disturbing and dangerous.

     I don't care about the government banning stuff just because it's dangerous. If someone understands the dangers of eating food with trans-fats or entering an establishment that allows smoking & wants to do so anyway, denying them the ability to do so is inexcusable.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Plenty of people have died in car accidents caused by texting while driving.

[Marokai Backbeat]

It's not "irrelevant" to talk about the reasoning and effectiveness of the laws. This is precisely the point I was making with you and what I got a ton of "oh how dare you"s over. You don't CARE if they're good laws or not, because they're just laws, and you hate them for that and that alone.

The use of force against others is unacceptable.

And if this is your philosophy even in the face of such things, fine. But I think it should be spelled out for all to see, that you don't care about the effectiveness of laws or not, only that they are, in the end, laws.

And this is, by the way, EXACTLY what I said in my first post that ended up getting a bunch of feign outrage.

[k-onmmunist]

It's not "irrelevant" to talk about the reasoning and effectiveness of the laws. This is precisely the point I was making with you and what I got a ton of "oh how dare you"s over. You don't CARE if they're good laws or not, because they're just laws, and you hate them for that and that alone.

The use of force against others is unacceptable.

And if this is your philosophy even in the face of such things, fine. But I think it should be spelled out for all to see, that you don't care about the effectiveness of laws or not, only that they are, in the end, laws.

And this is, by the way, EXACTLY what I said in my first post that ended up getting a bunch of feign outrage.

It isn't feigned. The state is the enemy of individualism, of peace, of liberty and of freedom. We have explained why and you just carry on anyway, so please stop pretending to be so much above us.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

It's not "irrelevant" to talk about the reasoning and effectiveness of the laws. This is precisely the point I was making with you and what I got a ton of "oh how dare you"s over. You don't CARE if they're good laws or not, because they're just laws, and you hate them for that and that alone.

The use of force against others is unacceptable.

And if this is your philosophy even in the face of such things, fine. But I think it should be spelled out for all to see, that you don't care about the effectiveness of laws or not, only that they are, in the end, laws.

And this is, by the way, EXACTLY what I said in my first post that ended up getting a bunch of feign outrage.

I am opposed to using violence against other human beings, yes.

[War on Want]

It's not "irrelevant" to talk about the reasoning and effectiveness of the laws. This is precisely the point I was making with you and what I got a ton of "oh how dare you"s over. You don't CARE if they're good laws or not, because they're just laws, and you hate them for that and that alone.

The use of force against others is unacceptable.

And if this is your philosophy even in the face of such things, fine. But I think it should be spelled out for all to see, that you don't care about the effectiveness of laws or not, only that they are, in the end, laws.

And this is, by the way, EXACTLY what I said in my first post that ended up getting a bunch of feign outrage.

It isn't feigned. The state is the enemy of individualism, of peace, of liberty and of freedom. We have explained why and you just carry on anyway, so please stop pretending to be so much above us.

Please explain to me how the state could be destroyed without individuality, peace, liberty and freedom being eroded and another state arising?

[k-onmmunist]

It's not "irrelevant" to talk about the reasoning and effectiveness of the laws. This is precisely the point I was making with you and what I got a ton of "oh how dare you"s over. You don't CARE if they're good laws or not, because they're just laws, and you hate them for that and that alone.

The use of force against others is unacceptable.

And if this is your philosophy even in the face of such things, fine. But I think it should be spelled out for all to see, that you don't care about the effectiveness of laws or not, only that they are, in the end, laws.

And this is, by the way, EXACTLY what I said in my first post that ended up getting a bunch of feign outrage.

It isn't feigned. The state is the enemy of individualism, of peace, of liberty and of freedom. We have explained why and you just carry on anyway, so please stop pretending to be so much above us.

Please explain to me how the state could be destroyed without individuality, peace, liberty and freedom being eroded and another state arising?

Why would there be any need for another state? Once people realise it's complete uselessness, that will be it.

[Mint]

Well you could argue that unions, co-ops, community associations, private armies, etc. could fill the void. My main problem with anarchism is that I think it's not really viable given our current technological level plus the corporations and other armies already out there. I think it would just lead to de-facto feudalism at this point.

[k-onmmunist]

Well you could argue that unions, co-ops, community associations, private armies, etc. could fill the void. My main problem with anarchism is that I think it's not really viable given our current technological level plus the corporations and other armies already out there. I think it would just lead to de-facto feudalism at this point.

I don't see what technology has to do with it, but otherwise, yes, they could fill the void.

[War on Want]

It's not "irrelevant" to talk about the reasoning and effectiveness of the laws. This is precisely the point I was making with you and what I got a ton of "oh how dare you"s over. You don't CARE if they're good laws or not, because they're just laws, and you hate them for that and that alone.

The use of force against others is unacceptable.

And if this is your philosophy even in the face of such things, fine. But I think it should be spelled out for all to see, that you don't care about the effectiveness of laws or not, only that they are, in the end, laws.

And this is, by the way, EXACTLY what I said in my first post that ended up getting a bunch of feign outrage.

It isn't feigned. The state is the enemy of individualism, of peace, of liberty and of freedom. We have explained why and you just carry on anyway, so please stop pretending to be so much above us.

Please explain to me how the state could be destroyed without individuality, peace, liberty and freedom being eroded and another state arising?

Why would there be any need for another state? Once people realise it's complete uselessness, that will be it.

Oh I don't know because when there are power vaccuums generally others try to take control of things in their own local areas/regions. Let's say the American government falls and all state governments are totally destroyed too. There are unlimited freedoms and the government has no power. How would local groups like gangs, militias, wealthy individuals hiring forces etc not take control of their own regions and establish their own government within a matter of weeks?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Would Winston prefer to live in the Fallout world?

[Marokai Backbeat]

Would Winston prefer to live in the Fallout world?

I was thinking more of the Bioshock environment.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

For the most part, I agree with the laws in the article.

[k-onmmunist]

It's not "irrelevant" to talk about the reasoning and effectiveness of the laws. This is precisely the point I was making with you and what I got a ton of "oh how dare you"s over. You don't CARE if they're good laws or not, because they're just laws, and you hate them for that and that alone.

The use of force against others is unacceptable.

And if this is your philosophy even in the face of such things, fine. But I think it should be spelled out for all to see, that you don't care about the effectiveness of laws or not, only that they are, in the end, laws.

And this is, by the way, EXACTLY what I said in my first post that ended up getting a bunch of feign outrage.

It isn't feigned. The state is the enemy of individualism, of peace, of liberty and of freedom. We have explained why and you just carry on anyway, so please stop pretending to be so much above us.

Please explain to me how the state could be destroyed without individuality, peace, liberty and freedom being eroded and another state arising?

Why would there be any need for another state? Once people realise it's complete uselessness, that will be it.

Oh I don't know because when there are power vaccuums generally others try to take control of things in their own local areas/regions. Let's say the American government falls and all state governments are totally destroyed too. There are unlimited freedoms and the government has no power. How would local groups like gangs, militias, wealthy individuals hiring forces etc not take control of their own regions and establish their own government within a matter of weeks?

Because corporations/unions/communes/zoos could keep them in order.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Man Somalia is such a paradise free of tyranny.

[Mint]

Man Somalia is such a paradise free of tyranny.

Somalia has islamist governments.

[War on Want]

It's not "irrelevant" to talk about the reasoning and effectiveness of the laws. This is precisely the point I was making with you and what I got a ton of "oh how dare you"s over. You don't CARE if they're good laws or not, because they're just laws, and you hate them for that and that alone.

The use of force against others is unacceptable.

And if this is your philosophy even in the face of such things, fine. But I think it should be spelled out for all to see, that you don't care about the effectiveness of laws or not, only that they are, in the end, laws.

And this is, by the way, EXACTLY what I said in my first post that ended up getting a bunch of feign outrage.

It isn't feigned. The state is the enemy of individualism, of peace, of liberty and of freedom. We have explained why and you just carry on anyway, so please stop pretending to be so much above us.

Please explain to me how the state could be destroyed without individuality, peace, liberty and freedom being eroded and another state arising?

Why would there be any need for another state? Once people realise it's complete uselessness, that will be it.

Oh I don't know because when there are power vaccuums generally others try to take control of things in their own local areas/regions. Let's say the American government falls and all state governments are totally destroyed too. There are unlimited freedoms and the government has no power. How would local groups like gangs, militias, wealthy individuals hiring forces etc not take control of their own regions and establish their own government within a matter of weeks?

Because corporations/unions/communes/zoos could keep them in order.

Really? This is your whole entire argument? It's the same fucking point that I was making. Private groups and associations would take control and form their own society and government in time.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Somalia has no official government. It collapsed and the Islamists took over, not this government-free utopia Winston is expecting.

[k-onmmunist]

If Somalia were secular humanist, that wouldn't be happening.

Try again.

[War on Want]

If Somalia were secular humanist, that wouldn't be happening.

Try again.

This has been your argument every single time this issue comes up. It is a terrible one. Anytime there is a total collapse of government, local strongmen, corporations, and religious groups will take control in certain regions and fight amongst themselves. Anytime there is a total collapse of government there will be a huge drop in living standards and incomes for the vast majority of the populace.

[k-onmmunist]

If Somalia were secular humanist, that wouldn't be happening.

Try again.

This has been your argument every single time this issue comes up. It is a terrible one. Anytime there is a total collapse of government, local strongmen, corporations, and religious groups will take control in certain regions and fight amongst themselves. Anytime there is a total collapse of government there will be a huge drop in living standards and incomes for the vast majority of the populace.

How is it worse than the argument that a third world Islamist country can be used to generalise about anarchism in general? It can't.