IrishOutlaw - All Comments

re: What About The Children?

ElimGarak — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 22:02:13 GMT

Wouldn't people being able to "sell" their children be a violation of the child's right to self-ownership?

Not that someone inclined to sell their child would care, but for what possible purpose would you buy a child? Either you want to use it as a slave, as food (literally or metaphorically as fodder for other evil desires), or you genuinely want a child and are unable to create one yourself.

In the latter case, well, who is a child going to be better off with? Those who genuinely want a child to love, care for, educate and nurture, or the callous fool who doesn't think twice about selling them?

In the first case, well, this kind of stuff happens nowadays, and is generally state-supported when it does, as has been mentioned.

In the second case, well, we've all heard stories of live-in boyfriends raping their girlfriend's kids, and parents selling their children to child porn rings. Sickening stuff. And I'm sure it would happen in a stateless society too, to an extent, since there will always be sick, depraved people out there. I'm sure even modern statist police feel a visceral revulsion at that sort of thing and honestly do their best to put a stop to it (whereas I'm also sure the government/media intentionally plays it up in order to keep parents afraid that there's a child-molester lurking just behind the eyes of everyone they meet).

At worst, in a stateless society, everything would be status quo in this regard.

re: Pushing the Button

scottyokim — Thu, 29 May 2008 22:51:35 GMT

Great article - you could go much deeper with the "Our Father" section ... creeds compared to the pledge of allegiance, that sort of thing.

re: The Greatest Trick The Devil Ever Pulled…

Azraelsjudgement — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:05:58 GMT

In the past few months I have finally deprogrammed my mind that government is needed. It is amazing how the world looks when you lose this indoctrination.

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/1732.aspx

TrackBack — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:20:21 GMT

re: Social Contract My Ass

Yahoo Answerer — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 19:20:50 GMT

Great article. This is a myth that must die if we are to be free!

re: Social Contract My Ass

David Bear — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 04:54:09 GMT

See Section 2 of my article: www.law.fsu.edu/.../bear.pdf

re: Social Contract My Ass

Brainpolice — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 14:52:28 GMT

Great article! Basically, explicit consent by all those effected/involved is the proper criterion, and no state "social contract" in history has come anywhere close to being based on explicit consent. Implicit consent is a nonsensical and morally bankrupt notion that people use in the attempt to justify a non-existant social contract.

re: Immigration - Again

Brainpolice — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 22:35:16 GMT

Good observations. I have yet to post my official critique of immigration restriction and border enforcement but I will in due time. It will be the same material from the videos of mine you have posted at your site.

re: Pushing the Button

Ronorama — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 18:17:49 GMT

I'm with you, dude! In fact, I might wear the thing out with all the pushin'. I have no doubt that whatever unknowns we may face in a State-free world would pale in comparison to the KNOWN evils brought about by government.

re: Pushing the Button

Brainpolice — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 00:11:58 GMT

Good article!

re: Time to Bury The Dead

Brainpolice — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 06:00:06 GMT

Excellent analysis of how the modern Marxists are disingenuous and advocate a faulty strategy for revolution.

re: Immigration Smokescreen

zsignal — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 06:32:29 GMT

Awesome.

I read an article once talking about people who say, "I'm not against immigration, just illegal immigration," and how it's a hypocritical stance as immigration laws are meant restrict......immigration.

re: Big Government Libertarians?

IrishOutlaw — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 09:16:11 GMT

For BP: In part from things in that group, but it is by no means isolated to that group or MySpace.

For L: And Boortz too, lol. Hell, even Newt Gingrich has taken to calling himself a Libertarian as of late. As for politics being give and take, I agree, but principles are unshakable. Without libertarian principles the best those people can hope for is to be small government Republicans, no principles needed for that. As far as Paul is concerned, more power to them. Plus, I don't think you can say anything negative about the man on the internet, I am pretty sure you are considered a "freedom hater" if you do.

re: Big Government Libertarians?

Lojikbom — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 03:12:40 GMT

I thought you were going to talk more about people like Glen Beck and Bill Maher, who call themselves libertarian but obviously have no clue what the term means.

Personally I don't have a problem with the Libertarian Reform Caucus (LRC) because I see most Libertarians as too idealistic, which is limiting. Politics is a Machiavellian game and involves some give and take. I'm actually hoping that when Paul takes office, he's not going to go in like a gang buster because it's going to take time to ween ppl off the teet of gov't.

As for the Paul candidacy, I think an LP member can take solace in the fact that he's a lifetime LP member who has never renounced his membership. I was at a talk in which someone asked him about his run in 1988 and he replied that he would prefer to run on both parties tickets (LP and GOP) if the state would allow it (which it should). That and his platform has not changed appreciably since he ran on the LP ticket in 1988, so essentially we would be electing an LP member who's running under a different name. It might not seem like the best alternative, but it's not that bad either.

re: Big Government Libertarians?

Brainpolice — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 01:58:32 GMT

I'm sure you're refering to the constant banter over in the myspace libertarian party group, right? :P