#bmrgthoughts

[bmrgould]

@comments about removing welfare and things like "get a job if you need money"

There are some things I find people tend to forget about when considering Libertarian arguments concerning wealth and less fortunate people. As long as the ruling class, such as corporations that largely benefit by government enforced monopolies and protections, or simply market manipulation in general, are creating unfair advantages that keep the less fortunate stuck at the bottom, those people at the bottom need help. Government enforced monopolies and government beneficiaries on the large scale need to be dealt with before anything should be done along the bottom tier of people just trying to stay in there. Is there major problems in the current system that could be improved to reduce the dependency factor and other such issues? Yes of course, but removing the system completely, before addressing the top tier issues is just making peoples lives miserable when the government is artificially manufacturing the inequality.

TL&DR; This isn't a free market, there are already issues creating the inequality that need to be dealt with first. Completely removing help for the bottom while ignoring the monoplies and manipluation at large/top teirs is ignorant.

[bmrgould]

When I die, I never want to be buried in a casket. Why would anyone want that, I don't understand. I'd rather be buried somewhere my body will decompose to help something else thrive. 

The thought of my body sitting in a casket, slowly rotting itself into goo, does not sound pleasant. Denying my body to be put back into the system, that's selfish and honestly wrong in the saddest way. 

Everything non living or alive, since the start of time, has been made of the same materials, just transferred, altered, and interacting. It's how it works.

[bmrgould]

Hi. I know this may be listed on your blog somewhere but how would taxes, and foreign affairs like trading work without government?

How would taxes work without government? They wouldn't. Tax is theft. A monopoly of services would not be enforced through violence (which is what public goods payed through taxes are)

The exact way it's done would depend on the communities involved, community being whatever number of people that voluntarily decided to interact as a group.

In my opinion I think a lot of public goods will end up being provided at the cost of company profits. For the example of long distance roads, highways, who benefits most from their existence? Companies who have their goods/services transported to other places. If you, as a consumer of a product, have the choice to buy similar products from multiple companies, who would you buy from? The one who uses it's profits to help fund public goods that benefit your community, or the one that doesn't? 

Or due to the lowered cost of entry to a market, due to government interference being removed, the market may have no profits from selling products. Just enough to pay for cost of running with employee wages, and whatever else. So the cost of other things would go down, leaving people enough to pay for the public goods in their community themselves. 

It all really depends on the individual communities through, how they decided to organize themselves, their through direct choices, or spontaneous order or w/e

[bmrgould]

My opinions on Intellectual Property, from a legal point of view are that it doesn't exist. From a social point of view, it exists to an point determined by individuals, so subjective. I think creative things should be credited to the creator, and any form of payment or compensation is voluntary based on subjective variables.

[bmrgould]

United States has a population of 311 million. The number of guns per capita for united states is 88.8 per 100 people.

Just think about how a gun ban would work... it wouldn't. Especially if you consider the cultural foundation surrounding the US population, well specific areas/groups within the united states. 

Then, if you ever did get the guns banned, and start to remove them in large numbers, who is going to lose their guns first? Most likely people who are not a danger. What does that do? Well short term example of what happened in Australia, gun crime spiked. Short term it increased drastically. Compare the culture difference, the number of gun difference, ect ect ect. That spike isn't going to go away for a long time compared to Australia. If it goes away.

The long term? Australia gun homicide went down. Meanwhile the overall homicide rate continued to drop at the SAME level it was already decreasing BEFORE. Meaning it did nothing to the murder rate. People. Will. Use. Substitutes. 

Also, things like home invasions, and other violent crimes, increased in Australia. Think about the culture and gun number difference. How much worse would it be in the United States?

Now lets look within the united states, which cities have high gun restrictions? Washington, District of Columbia.... yet they have a high murder rate, like 7th highest for the big cities... the other examples are the same results. Gun restrictions don't work.

Just think about that~

[bmrgould]

Why is weheartit illegitimate?

It's not a photography site. Almost nothing on it is posted by original owners, if anything at all. Nor is the large majority of it sourced properly. 

Example: I just went to weheartit and clicked a random photo

Sourced to imgfave? Not even an account from imgfave, just the popular tag. That gives 0 credit to the owner. 

From what I've seen a lot of weheartit photos are either not sourced, or they're sourced to sites like tumblr and imgfave. Sourcing them is like playing ring around the rosy.  If you want and can find the original by following the horrible trail of sources, by all means find and credit the original. For practical purposes however, it's easier to say it's illegitimate, rather than 99% illegitimate. 

[bmrgould]

Person: Campaign to get jackets for homeless people, through the hijacking of competition. Like, give us your rival teams jacket to give to a homeless person, so when people see the homeless person they put that team related to homeless people.

People: You're objectifying homeless people! Stop helping them!

Me: If you aren't doing something better, and non objectifying of a group of people, than the people objectifying them for mutual benefit of both parties involved, then you have no right to complain. Simple. You don't like how someone is helping? Do it better.

[bmrgould]

She replied again then deleted it, but I feel like saying this,  so here

Honestly, that just says something about you.

When I start to like someone, even if I didn't find them attractive before, they start to become attractive. It's seriously that simple.

Also, "But still you want to be able to show your partner off and be like yep, he/she is fucking perfect huh" hahahaha I didn't realize relationships required other people's opinions.

If you really like someone, they start to appear as perfect, and then they become perfect. If you only talk to people who are attractive, and being initially attractive is a requirement, that just says more about you.

Maybe you should rethink the idea of yourself not being shallow.