Tree Frog

I'd live there. To me this culture is very anarcho-capitalistic. Like many of us they believe in currency competition. Little to no government interference. Plus, its a paradise (I like the rain forest). Anyways onto A, debt in this society is a completely different concept. Firstly, these people don't have cars... they build their own homes... And can appropriate most of their needed resources for survival by themselves. Really there is not much room for debt. Not because of the economic system. But because of the Neolithic Life style. However, if the growing season has come on hard times, I am sure that villagers could go to a neighbor or an adjacent village for a loan to pay off school and healthcare. After all, school and healthcare ain't "free" here. Question B, of course pig tusks can inflate! If 10 years ago there were only 250 pig tusks are circulating within my community, pig tusks will be worth more because there are so few. Now say today, there are more pigs in my region and now 20,000 tusks are circulating.... Its all supply and demand at this point. I would say a college professor should know this but, she's a socialist after all. Question C, I'm sorry lady but globalization has arrived! Notice how all of these villagers go into developing towns to purchase goods such as kerosene, salt, soap, and modern clothing for themselves and their children. Plus, The island offers modern resorts, telecommunication companies and restaurants. Just question her, that's why she is there. Plus, you pay her salary! Your in control. Show her and your classmates the truth.

That would be nice if that was indeed the situation. The problem is "The Scots" want a larger government with greater taxing, welfare, and spending powers. Sure, its freedom from the "Crown" but at this point it is not freedom from the state. The "Aye Vote" is not a vote of "More Freedom vs. Less Freedom", its a vote of "Poison vs. Poison".

Or you could just work hard at your "dead end" McDonalds job for a year or so... Become a store manager... And make as much as a school teacher. Not to mention, no $100,000 student loan!

I don't have those particular sources but I do have one when debating minimum wage. https://www.princeton.edu/~tleonard/papers/retrospectives.pdf “Better that the state should support the inefficient wholly and prevent the multiplication of the breed than subsidize incompetence and unthrift, enabling them to bring forth more of their kind.” This has to be one of the most striking quotes in this document.

Hasn't the agenda shifted from global warming to the polar vortex or something?

I think the best way to answer this question is take a specific Asian country and do research on its history. Asia has been a stronghold for Marxist ideology for the past century. It makes sense that years of mass starvation, genocide and central planning do not create wealth or infrastructure. However, nations such as Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea have great infrastructure and a high quality of life. Why? Because they have maintained mostly free market economies. To put this in perspective, the small island of Taiwan, home of the "Chinese Nationalists", have built the 19th Largest Economy and have a higher standard of living than their Chinese counterparts, on the principles of the free market.

In 1870 about 80% of the US population was employed in agriculture. Today, because of mechanized farming only about 2% of Americans are employed in agriculture. Over a span of only 144 years free market fueled innovation has destroyed 78% of our jobs. Thanks Capitalism... HA HA The thing about this is, all of these jobs have been replaced by safer, higher paying, and less labor intensive jobs. An uneducated 18 year old no longer has to spend 16 hours a day in coal mines, they can now get service jobs that didn't exist 70 years ago. If you even look back at the past 10 years jobs such as a mobile app developer were unimaginable to the consumer or future employee. Humans will always continue to produce. We will just take on more highly skilled means of production and leave the grunt work for the robots. The global communism in a mechanized world argument is extremely thought destroying and impossible. A world in which humans only consume and produce no value would be a purposeless existence. Lots of time on your hands does not equal using your time to pursue self knowledge. Like I stated earlier, jobs have become less intensive and allow a shorter work day. In modern times we have more recreation time then ever and have practically all of human knowledge at our finger tips. How do we (for the exception of FDR listeners) spend our recreation time and utilize these resources? With Social media, Selfies, Cat videos, Twerking, Planking, Harlem Shake, Sports and other pointless applications.

"Base Ball Arbitration" sounds like Voluntarist Security Companies. Very interesting video.

In High school (Ages 16-17), we took this political spectrum test. We were required to answer about 15 questions regarding; Policy, Economic, and Social. After we completed the test we were scored on a Nolan Chart which I will add below. About 10 minutes before the test, the teacher spouted off about how Centrism is the most popular political group among a majority of people (Bull Shit). The questions on the test were surprisingly fair. Of course the Nolan Chart is set up in such a way to make Socialism look "Free", and that Left and Right are separate from Statism. After the test was complete we saw our placement on the Chart and gave our results to our teacher who recorded them on the board. Out of 30 students: Statist= 0 Left = 3 (All girls) Right = 10 Centrist = 1 (I think it would be very hard to score this) Libertarian = 16 Of course there is variation, but they were mostly all clustered on the upper right of the Chart. A day later after all scores had been recorded we compared all of the other classes results. The four other classes had also tested majority libertarian. This might just be a product of where I live. However, kids don't really talk much about politics, and the millennial generation is typically associated with Leftism. So I still found it surprising.The problem is this is a small sample space of only 120. This trend may not be reflected nationally. It would be wonderful though.

I'm going to leave this here... Enjoy!

Don't you remember you signed a social contract!

I have been following this, apparently the press is not allowed into the riot zone. A Huffpo journalist was arrested trying to enter.

"There is a problem with the phrase 'give back.' It implies that people with money have taken something from others." Thanks Andrew79, this was indeed my arguement.

When I compete In LD debate we have to prepare both a Aff and Neg for the resolution. I used to have little problem with this until the topics started conflicting with my beliefs. What I mean by this is, the topics have become the question of Pro-state or Anti-State. The most recent resolution I had uphold was, "Oppressive government is more desirable then no government." It was extremely difficult for a Voluntaryist to write an Affirmative stance on Oppressive government. I kept negating my own arguments before I could even get them down on paper. Thankfully I was chosen to take the Negative stance for this debate. I understand intellectual value of writing both cases, and I have actually learned a lot from comparing conflicting ideas... However, debating topics such as my previous one are very difficult because of my stance. Does anyone have any helpful case writing techniques for taking statist stances?

It sounds like we have an agreement Mr. Anarcho- Socialism! I am not a fan of State Capitalism either. If you notice all of his arguments consist of Corporations + Government = Tyranny.

What the hell did I take??? The statement " giving back to the community" is used by many in our society (very prominent in public school). If we break down the statement: Giving back- Insinuates I have taken something. Community is defined as : Community- "the people of a district or country considered collectively, especially in the context of social values and responsibilities; society." To me this statement means that I have taken resources from the people therefore I am socially obligated to return those resources in someway. Sure, I am forced to use public services, but those services are in returned payed for by taxes. So I am still unclear what I have taken, since the community takes from us. This statement could be compared to the social Marxism (if it isn't already) because I steal from the little guy (insert some guilt here) and must return the resources to them that I have stolen. I believe in charity, I think that if someone once to voluntarily help another human out is great. However once force or an idea that "I have stolen from people therefore I must redistribute wealth" gets involved I strongly oppose. Has anyone else come across this statement? And found it surprisingly Marxist?

Actually we do own a Glock 17. I really enjoy shooting it. My AR is just the standard XM-15 Bushmaster with Magpul folding sights, no tactical attachments or advanced sights. I think the iron sight on the rifle is what is hard for me because I do a lot of bench rest shooting and hunting with scoped fire arms. Its just a new learning curve I suppose. Do you do any clay shooting?

My parents actually don't, they listen to things like "The Blaze" or Mark Levin. They are Libertarians but still believe that the state should exist in some way. I have taken a self defense course at our gun club for handguns. They just built a CQ range for tactical training with AR-15 and handgun. I want to try that out soon. I have been trying to train myself with the AR but its been very difficult. Its not an easy gun to shoot like the media says.

Cops have killed over 5,000 citizens in the US since 9/11. The civilian death rate is about equal to the number of soldiers killed in Iraq. It is actually 8 times more likely to get killed by cops then terrorists. Funny Right? The Police state legislation passed to protect the citizens after 9/11 has actually done nothing more than take our freedoms, invade our privacy and leave us is a body bag. I'm gonna leave this quote here: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~ Benjamin Franklin

Hello fellow DFW, Texan! What part of the metro are you from?

2 kinds of Fascism. One wears jackboots and totes assault rifles. The other wears a suit and carries a pen. However, Both equally destructive.

These robots are actually pretty cool. Shame they are all designed to be blown up one way or the other. War... the best way to halt innovation and destroy wealth.

Oh, I have a list! JK! I think my urgency comes in enthusiasm. ENTHUSIASM!!!!! Do you ever have those thoughts that keep you up at night and you just need to satisfy your "Hungry Hungry Hippo" which is your brain? I have been trying hard to answer this question by reading texts... Maybe I'm just not looking in the right place. So, what better place to ask a question then on the biggest philosophy conversation in the world? With my experience with verbal abusiveness I have found that a return in verbal abuse perpetuates the situation. From violence comes more violence.

Man, I'm just 16. I have some time to think. The whole doctors office gig is to make some money this summer. The bureaucracy of health care is something I do not wish to pursue. In the future however I do plan to take more trips across the world with my own family. But not as tourists. The best way to experience a country in my opinion is stay close to where the people live and eat what the people eat. Travel is a wonderful thing.

Lately I have been wondering how to further implement the NAP in my life... When most Libertarians talk about the NAP they usually refer to the initiation of force by the government primarily for taxation. This force would include arrest, more theft and in some extremes death. These forces all more or less exist in the physical world (the tangible world). So... I have been wondering can the initiation of force exist in the physiological world (World of Thought/Consciousness) as well? This idea came to me when I over heard a conversation about someone getting defensive. Defensive in this context can be defined as: excessively concerned with guarding against the real or imagined threat of criticism, injury to one's ego, or exposure of one's shortcomings. As we all know, as Newton Theorized; for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Therefore, if there is a defensive action then their must first be an offensive action. This said, if I where to initiate my offensive thoughts on another person, and they become "injured" it is justifiable by the NAP for them to retaliate in defense, but not a return in offense. What I am trying to say is, If I were to call someone a "Lying sack of Shit", they can either offer me an intelligent rebuttal or flip me the bird. To each his own... As long as they don't come up to me the next day and call me a "Lying sack of Shit". That would violate the NAP. Right???? And if someone did in fact initiate physiological force on me, is it justifiable to defend my self with physical force? i.e. Punch them in the face. I am all new to this and just scratching the top of these subjects. Could someone please help me answer this question? Or perhaps elaborate on an idea? This could be a complete shot in the dark. BUT I MUST KNOW!!!!!