Until my death(unless, I suppose, the truck were part of a trust…which would be a bit odd).
They should have made the exception. Yeah, there is nothing I can do about it. But some of those people deserve prison not a bail out and a new Bentley.
1000% agreed. Hopefully the next time wall street lights the global economy on fire we’ll know to make sure they don’t/can’t do it again.
If they are selling beach front property in Oklahoma, we’ll know to act… Or the world just ended. One of the two.
Other than our natural revulsion to owning people as property, which is right, I don’t totally disagree with everything NickViar has said, perhaps the way he expressed it was less than eloquent, but there are some points worth noting. Mainly, trying to see the issue through the eye’s of 18th and 19th century Americans especially ones that grew up in the south. Not just through the eye’s of whites but the slaves as well. It is true that some slaves didn’t take to kindly to liberation while most of them probably did, some stayed and drew a pay check, a lousy one, but a pay check. It was the life they knew. Especially, older slaves change is hard and massive change is harder. What do you do if you are a 65 year old butler and all the sudden your master says “I am broke, Confederate money is no good, I cannot keep you as a slave and I cannot pay you, so you have to go.” What do you do, when that is all you ever knew?
We have the benefit of hindsight.
The natural observation for us 21st century post-modernists is the picture of the slave getting beaten against a tree, which certainly did happen. But there were layers and nuances also that we don’t totally understand about those relationships and it’s to our benefit to understand it. Not to justify, but to apply to issues we are dealing with even today. Not the least being race, but other things as well. And I don’t have all the answers but as much as there were beaten slaves, there were also family slaves, working slaves, nannies whom Southern children looked up to and took discipline from as much as their own mothers, etc.
We need to know our history accurately, the good, the bad and the ugly. It’s how we move forward instead of moving in a circle.
…
While it’s true Lincoln was never fond of slavery, his hatred of it grew in his presidency. The move to emancipate was a move to collapse the southern economy as much as it was also a good moral argument. Had George McClellan won the 1864 presidential race (which he was closer to doing than people tend to think, he was leading at first) he would have sued for peace and our history would have been very different. The Battle of Atlanta is what turned the tide in favor Lincoln’s election. Northerners saw a light at the end of the tunnel, finally, after hundreds of thousands of sons and fathers lay dead on the battle fields of the Civil war. Northerners lost their stomach for the was when it stalemated. The North won the war against all odds, barely. They lost more battles than they won, but they got the one’s they needed. Grant deserves most of the credit for that. He won the battles nobody else could.
Sort of like a mortal combat finisher where Ronda Rousey has let herself go.
Nobody even taught that lady how to guard or stand. She walked right into that KO. Whatever promoter allowed that fight is a jagoff.
You want to showcase trained vs untrained, pointless but whatever. At least give the poor slob one lesson for safety sake.
2 Likes
Wtf, why?
That last punch while “soccer mom” was on her knees was hard to watch. Even though “legal”, it was still hard to watch. She must have been in a financial bind, and the promoter offered her just enough money for her to throw reason out the window.
1 Like
Agree with Dr. J.
Another thought (and this is NOT meant to stereotype…)
“Soccer Mom” has that “look” of one of those “tough” girls in High School that nobody messed with… and who probably posted some YouTube videos of here kicking another girls ass in the parking lot. (She had that “wild swing” of one of those “Parking Lot” fighters too!)
Ah…just speculating!
1 Like
This had to be some sort of amateur night where all comers are welcome. I can’t see this being a real sponsored fight. Was it?
Lima the Eliminator looks like she feels guilty about kicking that other lady’s ass so thoroughly. It looked like she was checking to see if she was ok…
LOL… I just checked how long the actual fight lasted… 9 seconds.
1 Like
I know Tyson had an amateur fight last 8 seconds. Couldn’t find that one. Found a montage though. Still can’t believe how he destroyed other pro boxers.
2 Likes
I really wish Tyson hadn’t had such shit management and the legal problems, I think dude could have been the GOAT. Those hands were something else.
2 Likes
Contractor put up wrong signs. I made him put up right signs, he wanted more money from me, I said no. His response? I’ll just put up the right one and you can keep the old ones.
The dumbass’ boss will be receiving a nice friendly letter from me.
4 Likes
I noticed that I missed this post. I assume you were responding to “I do; most do not.” I accept the existence of private property, while most do not.
The existence of private property does not take anything from anyone. Slavery takes liberty. Taxation takes property. I’m not sure what the productivity of property has to do with anything. Property purchases are made with the fruits of one’s labor(If you want to argue that some people inherit money, don’t bother-that inheritance is also the fruit of one’s labor, and has been given to another).
Well… you have to remember NickiVar likes to stir the pot, but there’s an error in your logic. I can avoid the property of others very simply. I cannot avoid being governed, anywhere on earth. There have been hundreds of back and forth posts on this very topic in the libertarian threads and elsewhere.
ED and I traded 75 posts on the consent of the governed if I recall.
The issue isn’t avoidance – it’s the consistent application of the libertarians’ Iron Rule of Consent. If the rule - which says “I am not bound to follow any rule for which I haven’t given consent” - applied across the board, why are you bound to property lines (enforced in law, ultimately at the point of a gun, like hated taxes) that you never consented to?
And avoidance is irrelevant. Even if you accidentally trespass over a property line, you can still get into loads of trouble. All because of a rule and a boundary to which you did not give your consent.
Agree?
You are describing anarchy, not libertarianism.
Well you’ve never heard any such argument from me. I’ve argued that government can’t be based on consent, because consent can’t be irrevocable and cross-generational. Just think about a government truly based on consent:
“Mr. Gainz, this court finds you guilty of first degree murder and sentences you to 30 years in prison”
“I’d like to withdraw my consent to be governed.”
“Well in that case you’re free to go.”
Private property and individual sovereignty is the basis of a limited government model. Free people cannot exchange goods without owning them first. Person A owning an asset gained through free exchange imposes no costs/responsibilities on person B.
You know this. I think your problem with libertarianism is the obsession with consent and coercion and the platitudes like “never ignore the gun in the room.”
I myself am a dystopian libertarian. I acknowledge the need for some government if only to protect us from other countries with governments (large standing armies). Government is a hedge against the worst impulses of mankind, both domestic criminals and foreign invaders. No people has ever survived long without a command structure or state. It is the default setting of human beings to need order and heirarchy.
One of the worst impulses of mankind is oppressing those over whom you have power. Given time and opportunity a given power will be abused by someone (Patriot Act anyone?). Hence the need to limit the power and scope of government to its essential functions and no more.
Government is coercion, that’s the entire point of it. The libertarian point of view is to limit the coercion… a necessary evil. Not to be confused with Anarchy.
That may be so, but I raised the Iron Rule of Consent example because Nick used it in a defense of his point.
No disagreement, but we’re really focused on whether Person C is bound by the public rules that flow from the transaction. But you’re not defending the Consent Rule like Nick was, so that may be moot for our purposes.
Not really. Person A owning an asset imposes the cost and responsibility to not use that asset on Person B. That may seem minor in the abstract, but if Person A and B are neighbors, the fact that you can’t use your neighbor’s land is important. Moreover, even if I don’t want to use my neighbor’s land, what he does with it can have important consequences on my life, the usefulness of my land, and my quality of life. Issues include, noise, pollution (airborne, waterborne, or landborne), water rights, issues around damming rivers and changing the ability of my land to accept runoff, erosion, blocking access, allowing access to undesirables, fire hazards, landslide hazards, shade or the lack thereof, attracting some type of attention, keeping dangerous animals or chemicals, blocking or enabling views, light pollution, and many others. If property rights allow free reign over all of those issues, then they absolutely impose significant cost on others.