Zavoi:Vigorish - a percentage (of winnings or loot or profit) taken by an operator or gangster [definition from TheFreeDictionary]
I think unless you are a criminal, that is a mostly unknown word... We (my former associates now) called it "The Vig" more recently.....
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
And not to be outdone:
The Messiah looks like a Teletubbie in that video preview image.
I must say, I've always found this image extremely ironic, and to be one hell of a case of psychological projection. So, glad someone turned it on it's head:
http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/capitalism.gif
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
Anarchist Cain: The Soviet Pink Slip: Now you see him Now you don't. Work harder or face utter extinction...
Conza88...lol so funny!
"I used to see a mountain as a mountain.. Thereafter.. when I saw a mountain; lo! it was not a mountain.. yet now of final tranquillity: I see a mountain just as a mountain as I used to.." - Master Yuan; molon labe
Haha you didn't know about Stalin's photo purging. An interesting sector of propaganda. People have their faces scratched out and blobbed out. The unspeakables who dared fail or question his rule. Stalin's cult of personality is really fascinating...apparantly he created the radio Of course according to Soviet propagandaists.
'It is difficult to imagine any normal person wishing to meet Marx for a third time.' - Alexander Gray, The Socialist Tradition
Props to Banned.
Great thread.
I submitted it to digg as follows:
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Best_Libertarian_Pictures
I think this fits:
"Yo dawg we heard you don’t like communism, so we put a propaganda poster inside your propaganda poster so you can be re-educated while being re-educated"
Nielsio: A political spectrum: Negative rightsIf I take your stuff, I'm invoking that I have more rights than you. That you do not have the right to the stuff but that I do. Negative rights rejects this. It is egalitarian regarding actions. If something is bad for one (to do), it is bad for all.Positive rightsI have a right to something. Society owes me. This implies that there is a right to supply this, and also a right to take from others to supply this. Implied is also that it is the state that can take and supply this. If everybody has a right to things and has the right to decide what, and has the right to take it, then you're at pure chaos and might makes right. Suggesting universality to people who believe in positive rights, namely that if it's good to coercively provide X then it should be good for anyone to coercively provide X, is usually quickly rejected. They don't reject the proposition that it's good to coercively provide X but that it should be good for anyone. So they believe in public law different from private law. If I steal from my neighbor and give it to my parents it's theft. If a police man steals from my neighbor and gives it to my parents then it's social welfare.
A political spectrum:
Negative rightsIf I take your stuff, I'm invoking that I have more rights than you. That you do not have the right to the stuff but that I do. Negative rights rejects this. It is egalitarian regarding actions. If something is bad for one (to do), it is bad for all.Positive rightsI have a right to something. Society owes me. This implies that there is a right to supply this, and also a right to take from others to supply this. Implied is also that it is the state that can take and supply this. If everybody has a right to things and has the right to decide what, and has the right to take it, then you're at pure chaos and might makes right. Suggesting universality to people who believe in positive rights, namely that if it's good to coercively provide X then it should be good for anyone to coercively provide X, is usually quickly rejected. They don't reject the proposition that it's good to coercively provide X but that it should be good for anyone. So they believe in public law different from private law. If I steal from my neighbor and give it to my parents it's theft. If a police man steals from my neighbor and gives it to my parents then it's social welfare.
Useful.
Oh my god. Matthew, if you made that into a shirt, you would be a millionaire.
This thread is legendary.
Conza88: A political spectrum: Negative rightsIf I take your stuff, I'm invoking that I have more rights than you. That you do not have the right to the stuff but that I do. Negative rights rejects this. It is egalitarian regarding actions. If something is bad for one (to do), it is bad for all.Positive rights I have a right to something. Society owes me. This implies that there is a right to supply this, and also a right to take from others to supply this. Implied is also that it is the state that can take and supply this. If everybody has a right to things and has the right to decide what, and has the right to take it, then you're at pure chaos and might makes right. Suggesting universality to people who believe in positive rights, namely that if it's good to coercively provide X then it should be good for anyone to coercively provide X, is usually quickly rejected. They don't reject the proposition that it's good to coercively provide X but that it should be good for anyone. So they believe in public law different from private law. If I steal from my neighbor and give it to my parents it's theft. If a police man steals from my neighbor and gives it to my parents then it's social welfare.
Negative rightsIf I take your stuff, I'm invoking that I have more rights than you. That you do not have the right to the stuff but that I do. Negative rights rejects this. It is egalitarian regarding actions. If something is bad for one (to do), it is bad for all.Positive rights
I have a right to something. Society owes me. This implies that there is a right to supply this, and also a right to take from others to supply this. Implied is also that it is the state that can take and supply this. If everybody has a right to things and has the right to decide what, and has the right to take it, then you're at pure chaos and might makes right. Suggesting universality to people who believe in positive rights, namely that if it's good to coercively provide X then it should be good for anyone to coercively provide X, is usually quickly rejected. They don't reject the proposition that it's good to coercively provide X but that it should be good for anyone. So they believe in public law different from private law. If I steal from my neighbor and give it to my parents it's theft. If a police man steals from my neighbor and gives it to my parents then it's social welfare.
Minarchism should be closer to Anarcho-Capitalism; much closer. BTW: Can someone please explain why Anarcho-Communism has niether positive OR negative rights? O.o
Conza88:
You know, it's bad enough Libertarians have to take crap from most everyone else on the political spectrum and now from the Anarchists.
I'm personally tired of it being treated like a dichotomy who seem to think that "Well, he's a minarchist, therefore he's just as bad as the statists", while ignoring that this is a spectrum.
My annoyances aside: An oldie, but a good one. :)
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap