Well, there would be if they wanted to ease society into anarchy.

You know, start by undoing a few laws, lightening up taxes, cutting some social programs, and keep doing that little by little until there's only a powerless government left over, at which point they simply disband the whole thing in one final "FUCK YOU" to The Man.

Maybe, but that would probably create anarcho-capitalism, and since anarchists are generally anti-capitalist, they'd probably regret that.

On a side note:
Jesus fucking Christ, that's one disturbing avatar!

Well, it would descend into anarcho-capitalism for a while until they abolish currency. Then what good is your beloved free market?

That's why anarchism will never make any meaningful achievements.

That depends, through a violent revolution, they could still have what they desire without no need to associate with a political party at all, as long as they have support from the masses. They just treat reformism as "selling out". Or at least that's the impression I have of most of them.

And the time for violent revolution is far off. Limited reformism is acceptable.

I should've responded to this sooner, but anyway, the time might still come for one. Not that I'm advocating for it, though. I think a better society can be achieve with no need for a change of political system at all (as long as that political system is completely democratic, of course).

I expect it to come, too. But not during my lifetime, at least. Socialism, however, can gradually be achieved by reformism. Anarchy cannot.

*achieved.

I think that's a contradiction

That's why I wanted to know, it would be kind of ironic if there were a few.

I wish I was this funny.

Nigger you went full retarded, just because a party has the word democrat or democratic in it's name doesn't mean anything, The RLDP are pan-slavic imperialists and would probably destroy democracy for shits and giggles.

Not to mention the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Although Un would probably live if there was a vote.

*Un would probably win

I think there are still elections, but with only one political party, that doesn't make much of a difference.

I may be mistaken, but I heard that at the beginning of the year the American government said they were going to raise taxes and cut back spending. Anyways, budget cuts on that scale would have a severely negative impact on the economy.

There are very few things that can be considered wasteful when spending money, as long as it is being spent in America, subsidizing businesses, creating jobs etc. then it's being put back into the economy. Do you really think the poeple who run this country don't know what they are doing? They have top economists work to solve every problem, should they stop spending just because some nobody like you said "they're just wasting money." See this is the problem with a fully capitalist system, they need to keep spending money and resources they don't have for the economy to grow. Do you think the poor are going to spend their money? Do you think the corporations are going to spend their money, they hardly pay taxes and just slap incredibly stupid amounts of money in the bank and let it go, not to mention most of them are spending their money outside of the country for cheap labour and expanded markets. The only people spending now are whats left of the middle class, ever since the recession consumer spending has declined. The government is stuck between a rock and a hard place, they need to spend to keep their economy alive, but they are also spending money they don't have.

The economy doesn't need so much government involvement; it can survive on its own. The transition would be hard but people need to suck it up and to stop relying on the government to help them. Without so much government involvement, private business can grow, those who aren't willing to work don't get anything, and once society takes off its training wheels, then everything will be fine. Minimum wage should also be reduced because there are people who would be willing to do the same job for less; this would increase the quality of labor and benefit the economy.
Also, raising taxes can decrease total tax revenue if it's not done very carefully because people simply won't have the money go out and spend, which is what causes a capitalist economy to flourish.
And when they say they'll cut spending, they NEVER do. They simply don't increase it as much as they would have. Government spending is out of control and it's getting dangerous.

Well the problem here is that during the recession the middle class suffered a huge blow, and most big corporations wanted to keep their money in their pockets because they were afraid to lose it. The problem in short is that consumer spending and investment plummeted, and to fill the gap the government started spending more. Now that we're out of the recession, they'll stop spending and get society off it's training wheels like you said, but you can't just slap a debt cap all of a sudden. A change on that scale has to be done gradually.

Idk about this whole issue here, but why would anyone be against background checks on guns? 94% doesn't seem absurd at all, it seems perfectly normal actually. I would be worried if the majority of people didn't want background checks.

The bill calls for background checks for private person-to-person sale of firearms and offers strict penalties to people who don't do the background check. It is already illegal to transfer a gun to somebody you know is a banned from buying one, straw purchasers don't care anyway so they won't be affected, so the law only affects the transfer by seller person who respects the law and a buy who is secretly banned. The seller has no malice at all. The proposed background check bill would make that transaction a felony which would bar that person from ever having a gun again.

Like I said, over half of us here in North Dakota are gun owners. This bill puts an a heavy burden on law-abiding gun owners while not affecting straw purchases in the slightest. Even if the bill is put in place, felons will simply find another way to get guns. The overall number of felons with guns may be slightly reduced (we barely have any, anyway), but it's not worth that burden to gun owners and the risk of good people loosing access to the means to protect themselves and their families.

It is definitely not 94%.

Are you saying someone who has been banned should be able to get a gun again?

If they have shown they are not a danger to society, yes. I don't know about other states but here in ND felons can get their rights restored.

Would background checks change this?

A little late, but it felt weird responding to your initial post.

The objection isn't against background checks themselves (as they're already required to purchase firearms from a licensed dealer/gun show), but the potential legal implications of requiring universal background checks on all sales, public and private. While I agree that the NICS system should be made publicly accessible and its use encouraged, enforcing universal background checks is impossible (relying on the honor code) without giving the government a frightening level of power.

That clears plenty of things up lol

Alright, glad that helps.

As far as I know, no, but this law is only for North Dakota; other states could be different. The background check bill applies to the whole country and some states may not allow non-violent felons to restore their rights.

Even so, a year in prison + a fine + parole and stuff for loaning a gun to a neighbor is too harsh and that's what's part of this bill.

It's pretty good so far. I'm at the McDicks part right now, he makes a good point. All the lib hipsters hang out at Starbucks, yet criticize Mcdonald's.

Lel.

Updated as of today.

Strange that in the politicaltest.net version I became more authoritarian, but less so in the politicalcompass.org version.

I took it again just to see if it changed. I'm satisfied with the result.

It still called you a liberal, though.

pacifist commie FTW

>Pacifist
>Communist

Lol. Pick one, comrade.

Yes because we can destroy the bourgeoisie by hurling flowers at them.

a social democratic Cosmopolitan.

It called me a liberal when I took it; I was very offended.

how do i take that test?

www.politicaltest.net/

I forget the name of that specific one but you can google any political party test and find something similar.

What and get a 51 : 49 split?

Well that's only partially true, the price of drugs is based on more factors than supply, and and can sometimes be hard to determine. You have keep in mind that black markets don't work the same way as conventional markets most of the time, and they are harder to track and study, especially since there are different markets for drugs spread across the whole country in separate communities.

Now I wouldn't really know because the answer to your question because I'm not American and I'm not too interested in black market affairs, but my thoughts would be that any negative affect, if any, would probably be very small.

the black market is the freest market; basic economics can be applied

And?

Government involvement is just another variable to consider when studying economics. It's not that different from legal markets. When the street price of a good is high, people will produce more; it's the law of supply. If that good is drugs, then producing it is a crime, but people will still produce it. A law is supply some text in a government building. Penalties may discourage the act but it doesn't go away. Unless the risk of penalties is harsh enough to discourage dealing, the increased price from lack of competition will increase the profit of the dealers who are left. When people see this high potential for profit, they will enter the market, thus increasing crime. And the cycle goes on and on.

If the DEA is only picking of suppliers, the market will just replace them and the total number of people in prison will keep going up. However, if the demand of drugs is messed with instead of supply, there would no longer be any incentive to get involved in the risky business of drug dealing. The people who would've got into the trade could apply their business skills elsewhere in a way that benefits society.

do you study economics?

no

interesting, where did you here this argument from, or were you just speculating?

Well I took high school econ and I understood that pretty easily. I try to have my opinions be as accurate as possible but it is just speculation.

Oh no it's pretty accurate, well, actually I can't say that for certain without actually studying the DEA and the black market for drugs, but your theory is spot on. The thing is though, it's hard to generalize the black market for a whole country. For example, the market for drugs in New York wont be the same for drugs in L.A. And then there's markets for specific drugs at that, and and each market may or may not have different factors affecting it. Again lets take a place like New York which has a high population density and strong police force, and then look at another low population density area. Obviously, it would be harder to enter a black market for drugs in New York, but say in another area it would be easy, but perhaps there isn't as much demand.

So in general, I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying it's hard to generalize the DEA's affect on the black market, because these markets vary across the country.

a law is simply some text*

Well to be honest your first problem is that there's still a demand for these drugs, probably because what the states gone and said is "We'll imprison the dealers and we'll treat the users/abusers" However the latter has mostly been ignored and no state effort has been large scale enough to treat users and abusers of drugs (which in theory would eliminate demand) feel free to correct the last part since I'm going off my own knowledge there.

By drugs I mean illicit drugs / controlled substances.

Right - so if the demand side was dealt with instead of the supply supply side, there would no longer be any profit in dealing drugs and crime would decrease simply because it's no longer worth it.

In theory yes, but there will always be drugs around you can't completely remove them without removing the supply or suppliers as well, in my opinion you should just line them up and shoot them, they do nothing buy destroy and bring others down with them.

I agree, you can't completely reduce crime but it would help. IMO it's better to try to make people not want to buy drugs and not want to sell them instead of punishing those who do. Fear of the penalties does play a part but I think more could be done, like education or helping the poor who often turn to crime in desperation.
Shooting drug dealers is a waste of people; I'd bet a lot of those people would do well in the business sector since they already have experience in commerce. I doubt most of them deal out of malice; it's just good business.

Perhaps it's a bit extreme but in my experience with drug dealers they range from poor people with very few options who are selling to maintain their own habit (To me these fall more into the users catagory probably could be solved with trying to remove socio-economic factors involved that pushed them to drugs to begin with) The middle class people who just want more money and the guy who's making an entire buisness out of it, last one is normally beyond hope no matter where you put them they'll set up links again, the average joe normally means no harm but doesn't actually see the affects his actions are having on people probably salvagble if you're feeling generous.

there were some ding dong the witch is dead posts.

Who was that?

me and a couple anons

i was one of them

why anon?

I didn't want to debate on why she was good or not (I have no idea), I just wanted to stir up shit

ahh i see.

she was a massive cunt. even half of the conservatives hated her.

Still better than Tony Blair.

tony blair was bearable, better than that fucking cunt David Cameron and his pet dog Nick Clegg

I must assume you're kidding.

That cunt Blair and His Bagpuss Gordon Brown Fucked up this Country.
Those two are easily better.

ehh my rage isnt really on cameron. its more on Michael Gove and George Osborne

I can't argue with that.

About Thatcher though, I wasn't alive when she was in charge of the country, don't have a personal opinion of her really, however my family generally benefited under her, so I guess she was alright for me.

Neither was i, but my dad was, he used to tell me stories of her. ugh hated her.
and where do you live?

Just inside London, very close to Kent though. What about you.

Downham, like right next to kent/bromley

Shit son, I live In Bexleyheath, not too far from Kent.

holy shit on a mackerel your like 17 mins away from me :0

Right next to welling too.

swifty did one, a few anons did that.

Socialism is very risky because it gives a lot of power to the government. There is too much potential for abuse for it to be beneficial in the long run.

Socialism doesn't necessarily mean dictatorship.

Yugoslavia seemed to be doing alright until Tito's death. Freedom, worker's councils, etc.

If the UN doesn't do anything about it then I'll be mad

NK is waving their dick and media constantly tries to say they're commies. US may or may not go to war again, but what does it matter? They won't be better off either way. Both the N Koreans and everyone else.

mi taquito

pure capitalism turns sour quickly, monopolies form and such.
There has to be some regulations to prevent this, and to give fair chances to everyone to move everyones living standards up, not just the very rich.

I don't mean just welfare, I'm talking about educational systems and things like that, thought welfare does help some as well. Obviously it is going to be abused, there is no perfects system, we just have to deal with it.

First, where did Communism fail? Being sabotaged does not mean it failed.

Capitalism is exploitative and dysfunctional. That's what we hate it, in a nutshell.

how bout I exploit my foot up your ass, commi

I've got more time to explain.

Capitalism will die because of its inherent contradiction. When every third world country has enacted fair and modern labour laws, the capitalists will have no where else to buy cheap labour to make their profits.

IE economic determanism

IE the proletariat will understand that its solidarity lies with workers in other countries and not with their governing and corporate elite

IE global revolution



IE fuck stalin

I won't deny that communism wasn't given a 'fair shot', but institutionally it was doomed to fail. Logically it isn't a way to run your economy that can encourage innovation or increase living standards like capitalism can. Why is the existence of capitalism contingent upon the status of the worst actors in it we see? We can have a great world of capitalism with those same fair labor laws, and many other regulations designed to prevent the practices of dicks. It seems like these criticisms of capitalism can be defeated by very common sense applications that would address them and solve them. You will always have corrupt Republicans insisting on the behalf of our corporate overlords, but with education and natural organic progress they can't win. And we have that coming, gradually.

Oh, and why is there no incentive for innovation?

To refer to what Stalin advised the German Demoratic Republic: a wage ratio of 1:1.7 (aprox.) for manual labourers and engineers is ridiculous. An engineer is a brain worker, and should be rewarded for the additional contributions he makes to society.

Innovation is /more/ valued by communists and socialists than by capitalists.

Social democracy simply results in the transferring of the bulk of the MOP to another country. For example, China. Social democracy may very well make capitalism tolerable, but its still exploitative and doomed to collapse because production for pprofit for all eternity is unsustainable.

I'm not so passionate about erradicating capitalism as most of my commierades are, and I still believe it might become more benevolent and humanistic in some cases.

About innovation being encouraged under communism, it can still happen, people might receive praise by the society itself and gain reputation for their work. And for many people, innovating isn't about becoming rich (or even famous in some cases) through it, but as a matter of personal achievement.

(You'll have to excuse my shitty english It's late for me)

I'm pretty sure communism can be innovative on the same level as capitalism when you were a child did you ever want to change to world well take that add a dash of "nationalism" (I don't know a better word for it but love of fellow man) and boom you've got a motivated innovative researcher right there (I mean seriously the USSR won most the laps of the space race, not to mention nuclear physics regular physics and chemisty, let me tell you a cool story, right now there's a pharm comapny (I want to say glaxosmitsihdadsa) who hold a patent to a drug which is cheap to produce and is effective now there's a reason this drug isn't being produced, because it's more profitable for them to sell you paracetamol a million times, staying on medical line and how capitalism is being shaped further by profit, you see American healthcare system you have an artificial scarcity of doctors right now in other words you have people capable of being doctors who are kept out to keep profits up, welcome to capitalism enjoy your stay.

Well not even just that, in extreme capitalist states like America we can already see how the economy has taking a huge beating, they keeping using money they don't have, and many of the corporations that have the biggest impact on the economy just keep most of what they earn and don't put it back into the economy, and the government insists on keeping low tax rates for them. they are most definitely going to run into more problems even before most 3rd world nations do develop.

Listen, Israel are dicks. But the ship was Turkish, not American. I don't quite know the circumstances of the incident because the media muddied the waters so much. But I do know that Netenyahoo (or howeverthefuck his name goes) did apologize to Turkey.

USS Liberty

There are already faraday cages all over power plants and whatnot; not as protection from outside interference, but because the electric fields interfere with other equipment. High tech factories are also very protected from outside interference. Major electrical wiring has a faraday cage built into it. Protecting your personal stuff is pretty pointless because you can just go out and buy new stuff. EMPs are not a serious threat like what hollywood portrays them to be. They're more of an inconvenience.

Tell that to Canada.

Hell, even our own government agencies issued warnings about the dangers of EMPS to our infrastructure. Argue with them, I am just relaying information.

What do we have to do with anything? Leave us out of this prepper crap.

You make it sound like it is bad to prep. It isn't. 2 weeks supply of food, water, gas and a generator. Basic supplies that every household should have (and is even recommended by FEMA). If you don't have it, you are playing with fire. If you think you won't see a disaster of some sort in your lifetime, guess again.

I guess. And prep stuff we have is at our property in the 'farmland'. Some dried food and a gun. All ya really need.

That works too. Which reminds me, I need a gun. 1 more year and I can purchase a pistol.

You're American right? The 'prep' rifle I have is the Henry AR-7. Easily concealable, easy maintenance, and, although there isn't a lot right now (at least where I am), you shouldn't have a problem finding .22LR.

Yeah, American. I have a shotgun currently (not much good it will do), I am planning on getting an LR after I get a decent pistol. I kind of want a 1911, but I'm going to have to save up more. Luckily I got time.

i could care less for japan

I kinda feel bad for Japan... They're the only country that ever gets nuked...

Anyway, both Japan and S. Korea are capable of intercepting any missiles. If NK launches, it will only spark massive retaliation which would wipe them out. NK may be aggressive but they're not stupid.

Yes they stated that, but the Korean war never really ended. There was an armistice which is basically a ceasefire.

"If I gave this to you, would you kill somebody?"

Winner.

Well, if someone's going to try to make gun owners seem crazy for appreciating their firearms, then they should be faced with the uncomfortable thought that they're a murderer deep down inside. You shouldn't demonize somebody without facing your demons yourself. And if you have no demons inside, then why should you assume that somebody else does unless they've proved otherwise?

I could not agree more. You even worded it much better than I could.

Now is the time to buy

THIS SHOULDN'T BE HAPPENING

My friends, we will make a double profit tonight.

inb4 it crashes again

You need to accept the fact that it's stable currency. It will be stuck in the 120 USD range, for sometime, before our Jewish friends put it back at 200 USD via market manipulation so that we can all sell expediently.

HOLD ONTO YOUR BUTTCOINS FRIENDS.

This is called the ol' kike noose. Right before it will fluctuate into the 200s, it will dive down a little, to get the goyim out of profit. But you and I know better.

All those who gamble a sell will be committing suicide tonight.

Big dipper, but a trampoline will propel the value.

Stagnated value. It's over.