Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Gobstomper

  • Rank
  • Birthday 10/10/1984

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Real Name
  • School or University
    My computer
  • Occupation
    Failed penny stock investor who was lied to and cheated out of tens of thousands

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo

Profile Information

  • Interests
    I would like to write a treatise on liberty!
  1. I have advocated seccession, but do any of you agree?
  2. There I deleted those sentences. They were rants leading to the idea of "no government" which I never came to.
  3. Conservatives and Republicans are not supporters of the free market society. Like many of the Left, Bush and his minions have supported legislation that has had socialist undertones. While one socialist advocates for a "balance budget" through raising taxes (Kerry), the other socialist has placed a tariff on steel and lumber, supported federal funding of school vouchers, gave federal money to churches, substantially increased military spending, increased the military bureaucracy and all other government agencies. Such economic policies (fallacies) have ran the largest deficit in a president's tenure (http://www.ctj.org/html/debt0603.htm). While those of the left are secular in their beliefs (e.g. favor freedom of association, support gay marriages and abortion) the costs of this secularism is ill economic policy with little regard for property rights. Accordingly Leftist and Democrats have had a tendency to demand higher taxes. However, in its promotion of secularism, the Left is seen as affirming liberty. Conservative leaning Republicans on the other hand, have advocated a limit to liberty. The cost at protecting your property rights is at your liberty. To them you have no choice on whether to marry someone of the same sex or whether you could have an abortion. But when one's right to liberty or property is compromised, government subsumes that one does not have a right to control their own life. Be it through the abuse of my property or my liberty, each side continues to have a perverted sense of statism that will never end. They are supporters of extensive governance. We are not ends-in-ourselves but the means to the ends of those with power and influence that hijack government. We are to live at their expense. To be demanding of the things that take away my life, liberty and property and make them nil, why should anyone support either political spectrums? We do not need and should not trust more government. Henry David Thoreau put it best when he said, “Government is best which governs not at all.” Government should not know what is best for me or for others. The real purpose of government is equality before the law. It is to protect ones right to his life, liberty and property; not establish inequality of condition through racist/discriminatory policies like reparations and Affirmative Action. The law was created to protect individuals, not to make people live at the expense of others. 19th Century Austrian Economist Frederic Bastiat put it wisely, "The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else." That is why we have interest groups, lobbies, political action commities, and businessmen that give money to political campaigns. These various groups want to use the government as a means to collect at your expense. Through government decree they create unlawful laws that only benefit themselves. They create laws whose legitimacy rest only so far that it is law, despite the pretense of such laws being unjust.
  4. Are you saying the discovery caused "untold suffering, death and exploitation" and not the disease itself? ~ Betsy YES! ....if it can even be said to be a discovery at all. How and where is the government "coercing its citizens?" ~ Betsy There are people in this country that are prescribed toxic AIDS medication against their will, especially children whose parents were HIV positive and couldn’t take care of them. There is a place called the Incarnation Children’s Center (ICC) ran by a division of the National Institute of Health. There children are forcedly medicated drugs to “help fight" their HIV. The area instead serves as a place to experiment on and kill children. The drugs that are introduced into these children vary from AZT to Nevirapine, all of which are toxic and do nothing to “treat” the disease. In an editorial by Liam Scheff, he interviews a woman name Mona whose nephew Sean is being “treated” at the ICC. He is grossly sick from medication and sensing that she takes him under her care. For a year she didn’t give him the drugs. He became healthy and gained weight. Once the center learned she wasn’t prescribing the medicines the Agency for Child Services threatened to take him away. They did and he was put on the medication once again. He became sick and almost died but in the end Mona succeeded in getting him out of there. Unfortunately she was helpless to save any other child in that center. The article can be found here: http://www.altheal.org/toxicity/house.htm
  5. Care to cite such evidence? Despite popular opinion, absense of evidence does not make the "HIV causes AIDS" hypothesis any more valid. HIV is the only known "disease", a so-called retrovirus that doesn't actually harm its carrier, up until of course that the "disease" develops into AIDS. Then again the symptons associated with AIDS are produced when toxic immunosuppressants are introduced into the body. The "disease" also defies Koch's third postulate that states that a disease/virus/bacteria must be replicated on a petri dish and be treated, disposed, and erradicated accordingly. The fact that it has never been isolated is enough to be skeptical of what we are told to believe. Ever since the "discovery" of this retro-virus their is untold suffering, death and exploitation. Even if this "disease" is proven to be true what right do governments have in coercing its citizens to wear condoms and take AIDS medications?
  6. HIV/AIDS is a "disease" that does not exist. We are perpetuating an idea that such a disease should be treated, even if it is through costly, harmful and toxic chemicals. I am disgusted by the statist paradigm some Objectivist advocate by believing in such myth and advocating its demise through wasted tax dollars. Where is the skepticism so dominant in Objectivist ranks? Do we now hold hands with statists and murderers like the United Nations? They threatened sanctions against those who do not comply in accepting AIDS dogma. They wish to kill by embargo and kill by coercing populations to take toxic immunosuppressants. These bureaucrats kill while lining their coffers with blood money and somehow it is a personal and public good? "HIV" is a convenient term used for over 30 diseases and conditions which includes malnutrition, malaria, shingles (where such diseases are prevalent in Africa), Kaposi Sarcoma and PCP (diseases afflicting gay communities due to excessive drug abuse). The symptoms of "AIDS" manifests when those diagnosed as "HIV" are given a toxic drug like AZT, as virologist Peter Duesberg claims. Have you ever wondered why in South Africa, Botswana and Angola "AIDS" cases are skyrocketing? African people are tested differently than in the US or Europe. The Elisa and Blot tests are sufficient in establishing HIV, but aren’t necessarily available in Africa. Some of the "test kits" available merely test a person for a T-cell count below 200 which is enough to be diagnosed as HIV positive. Registering such a low T-cell count is not indicative of "HIV" but of other conditions or diseases (listed above). Instead of treating the actual diseases one is given toxic chemicals. South African doctors have also treated malnourished patients, not by feeding them but injecting them with toxic medicines, thus producing AIDS symptoms! Join me and South African President Mbeki to stop the tests, treatment, the philanthropy, the funding, that is the "AIDS myth." Go to www.virusmyth.com for more information and sign the petition. We believe and support regimes that have blood on their hands. Why further the blood shed? I guess I need to explain myself more…… I will respond with more details later.
  7. "I am curious about something related here. I fly alot and I have to admit I am not comfortable with flying on the same plane as Middle Easterners. If the airlines were free to do so, do you think it would be sensible to have seperate flights for Middle Easterners, at least as a temporary expedient? All the terrorists have been Muslim men b/w the ages of 17-50, or they have been black or hispanic Americans brainwashed by Islam. I'm not comfortable with such measures but if I were an airline head and I had the freedom (which I wouldn't and wont in the forseeable future), I would strongly consider it." ~ argive99 An airline has every right to target any persons, ethnic, sexuality and religious group and bar them from flying on their airline. Then again they wouldn't be successful businesses now would they? There would be boycotts that taint the airlines image and shareholders who would be displease as the business deprives itself a source of capital from Arab flyers. Then again a closet racist like you does bring a good idea. If Arabs or Arab looking peoples are barred from a certain airline, it would be worthwhile for another airline to bring Arab flyers in and offer them a discount. Now there are separatists militia movements right here in America. These are formed by white supremacist groups who have large weapons caches and explosives. They have every right to defend themselves but then again such groups popularize violent insurgency, as noted in the Turner Diaries of which inspired Tim McVeigh to blow up that building in Oklahoma City. Not to mention that there are Neo-Nazi groups like the National Alliance which the Anti-defamation League states as perpetuating, “Dozens of violent crimes, including murders, bombings and robberies.” Be afraid of the Arabs but be afraid of whites even more! Arabs constitute less than 1 % of the States while whites continue to be 70 % of this population! For every Arab terrorist there are more red-blooded American terrorists. Be very very afraid my friend...
  8. It surprises me that Bush and his minions want to further "protect" us. Bureaucracies are expanded and there are ones newly created. We involve ourselves in two wars as well. The costs to tax payers are then excessive and severe. The socialist Bush lies when he tells of "tax breaks." Perhaps the income of his partners in crime are alleviated, but the innocent remain punished through ever higher tariffs and excise taxes. If the meddling of politicians didn't ban pilots to having a 25 dollar hand gun, we could have saved ourselves and our posterity from further plunder.... To think that a 25 dollar hand gun could have saved trillions of dollars is a delightful yet unfortunate thought. Not only are we plundered but our civil liberties are threatened. Why further trust such scoundrels with your life, liberty and property?
  9. Using the time-perferance model of anarcho-capitalist Hans-Hermann Hoppe in comparing monarchy to democracy, monarchy wins. A monarch has a personal stake in leaving his property and kingdom in good condition for his heirs. His respective properties are valued according to the value his constituents view it. He must keep them intact, protect it from theft, and increase their value. Therefor his regime seeks to be fair and won't incite destruction to his own wealth and those of his children. In it not unusual for monarchs to have low tax rates, or have taxes that didn't involve most citizens (taxing came in the form of excise and tariff). Monarchs became abusive when they descented into absolutism, however the monarch regimes like that of Frederick the Great and the Glorious Revolution are a testament to Hoppe's thesis. Democratic rulers on the otherhand hold power only briefly. They have an incentive to plunder the rest of us while they can. There is then little concern for what can happen once they leave. The monarch's outlook extends generations but politicians seek immediate gratification. In democracies it is not unusual for person A and B be tax exempt and vote on taxing (looting) from person C. Though the majority of citizens consent to that taxation, even if taxation can exceed levels of 50 % of earned income like in Sweden and Norway, it is always met with contempt and even violence. Democracies does lead to socialism and even voted in totalitarian regimes that commited democide, i.e. Russia, Germany and Chile. While monarchies prosecuted real crimes like assault, theft, fraud, and murder; democracies concerned themselves with legislating morality. Victimless crimes became illegal; up until last year in Texas, sodomy was an offense tantamount to rape denying to employment, licenses, and being identified as a sex offender. Ever since Lincoln, our democracy perverted into big government, there is an income tax, re-imergence of the draft, etc. So why not monarchy? Either that or the big "A", then again Rand doesn't offer a real alternative............ Do you?
  10. Studying economics is not necessarily a study into a "scientific field" of "complex econometric calculations." If you actually read anything more from Hazlitt it is obvious he comes from a school of thought not scientific in their premises. That school is the Austrian School of Economics. They lend subjective analysis to economics. To them it is the study in which there are rational economic actors (where people seek benefit or the least disatisfication through action), in which Ludwig Von Mises termed as praxeology. In the case of Hazlitt he showed the error when governments interfered in the economy causing cycles of booms and busts and the Great Depression. It was the very economic scientism that Keynes advocated that lead to such things. On his advice the Federal Reserve artificially manipulated interest rates to meet 'supply and demand' and re-aligned investment capital, all-in-all trying to use statist means to reach market equilibrium.
  11. Being married does have its tax benefits. Do you remember Georgy's tax cuts in 2001? Primary beneficiaries were married couples. But here are some more words taken from the General Accounting Office explaining the various tax advantages of marriage: "Marital status also plays a key role in the estate and gift tax laws and in the part of the tax code dealing with taxation on the sale of property. For estate tax purposes, property transferred to one spouse as the result of the death of another is deductible for purposes of determining the value of the decedent's estate. Gifts from one spouse to another are deductible for purposes of the gift tax. Gifts from one spouse to a third party are deemed to be from both spouses equally. The law permits transfers of property from one spouse to another (or to a former spouse if the transfer is incident to a divorce) without any recognition of gain or loss for tax purposes. These provisions permit married couples to transfer substantial sums to one another, and to third parties, without tax liability in circumstances in which single people would not enjoy the same privilege." "The only way I could get a break is if my wife starts pumping out puppies and that isn't going to happen. Even the combining of assets is more for the skimming." ~ Thoyd Loki When you get married and have puppies, your wife and children are considered partners in this corporation. When you get divorce you must divide the monies derived during this corporation and all future monies to all the persons involved. Even if you make the majority of the income you are legally liable to "reimburse" the respected persons be it through allimony and/or child support. Even in cases that there is a pre-nuptual agreement providing limited liability to the respected spouse, some state courts have not respected them. "And the combining of credit is a good thing and reasonable since it is the outgrowth of combined income." ~ Thoyd Loki If you have bad credit and your wife has good credit and you guys combine credit, your bad credit is reflected on hers as well. In such cases it would be harder to get credit. Then again you could always use your wife's social security number and neglect to use your own. The fact that your credit is somehow base on a government assigned number which is both illegal and immoral as the purpose of such number was ONLY tax identification and to benefit from Social Security and other kinds of governmental assistance.
  12. If Rand restricted proper government to that of a police force (to protect citizens), national army (to defend against invasion) and a court system (to enforce contracts, solve disputes, and punish offenders) of which was all voluntarily paid for, then what government should we most preferably live in? If we assume minarchist governance do we concede to taxation then? If I don't pay for a certain government service like policing, then what right should I demand it? The state must exist if we expect it to protect ALL its citizens, so ALL citizens must then be taxed. Such is the necessary evil if we view all men equal before the law. When Rand advocates lottery to pay for government (Playboy interview), she advocates unequal access to the law. If I pay for a service I expect preferential access than those who don't. Even then how moral am I if I chose not to pay and leech off of such services? Another question: If Rand didn't believe in taxation why didn't she side with the likes of Rothbard in their claim to anarcho-capitalism? There is no precedent for her concept of the state and yet there is much documentation of successful stateless societies like Ancient Ireland (Rothbard), Medieval Iceland (Friedman) and efficient privatize law enforcement and courts that Bruce Benson brings to light.
  13. Those who support "gay marriage" or advocate against it are operating on flawed premises. Civil marriage is a state entitlement similiar to a corporate entity where the parties are given a certain status of priviledges, tax advantages, who then combine assets, credit and income. Unless one advocates that there exists persons of special standing in soceity, we should abolish such an institution and leave it in private hands.
  14. Although the Libertarian Party may lack the Objectivist premise for political philosophy however "evil" they have been purported to be by the Ayn Rand Institute, they are the most congruent in our belief of limited governance. I am closely coming to terms with anarcho-capitalism but lets give this limited government a try and vote Libertarian.
  15. It is immoral to vote! Why retain or vote in another socialist? These "politicians" only differ in their degree and kind of socialism. One advocates looting through welfare while the other protectionism. Why admire or support those who seek to plunder us?
  • Create New...