Hi Innersmiff. How are you this evening?
I thank you for your lengthy and detailed reply. I appreciate the time and effort you invested. There is no need to belabor your position.
First, I would like to acknowledge that I understand and respect your preference to live under anarchy rather than reasonable social order established by the broad consensus of the governed. However, I must also point out that an over whelming majority of citizens do not wish to live in the world you advocate. This is a choice they make based on life experiences plus good judgement and hardy the result of ignorance as your posts so arrogantly claim. In the US, for example, a large majority of citizens have rejected the libertarian notion that businesses have the right to enforce separate lunch counters and water fountains. With that I wholeheartedly agree!
I asked you, "Does libertarianism tolerate businesses intentionally lying to the public as a form of free speech?" and you replied… Obviously, you condone the lying and rely on market-regulation. It is all right to lie because one day, some day in the future, you might, maybe, possibly loose a few customers, if you are caught. I should remind you here that freedom of speech does not relieve the speaker of responsibility for what was said. Raising prices due to rising costs, taxes included, is not the issue in your article. Using the carbon tax as a ploy to mislead current and potential clients is the issue. Your straw man reply, as usual, is a series of unanswered questions instead of statements of fact. One of them is “Where is the proof that they are lying?” Within the Australian News article titled “Gym fined over carbon tax lies” is this admission, “The chief executive of the company which manages the franchise wrote to all affected members on behalf of GFC Berwick offering them the opportunity to withdraw from the contract extensions at no cost.” {1} The franchise managers must have known the renewal claims were untrue when they offered to void the new contracts.
Your remarks about PM Gillard’s promises are another straw man for another thread.
Thank you for confirming your belief that budget increases over a decade are proof of a “police state.” You chose to ignore changes in crime rates, growth of population, expansion of jurisdictions, development of new technologies, and every other factor, for that matter, that would naturally explain budgetary increases. “400% naturally means that there's a lot more police involvement in public affairs” equals “police state” in your mind. I find that conclusion lacks some rational balance.
Your logic is evident and inexplicable. Given that providers may provide data to domestic agencies and the AFP, you reach the extraordinary conclusion “the United States security agencies can search pretty much any Australian's data at their " leisure. My friend, “at their leisure” is an illogical leap of faulty reasoning unsupported by any facts you have presented here.Anti-cannabis measures, innersmiff, do not indicate a police state. Any regulation you personally disagree with seems indicative of a “police state.” Pot users do not confine their consumption to private property. They smoke in the presence of others, drive cars, and operate dangerous machinery while still under the long-range influence of the drug. This becomes a gray social issue that would be more tolerated but for the fact that pot has been connected to more serious drug abuse. “Cannabis is psychologically addictive and may become physically addictive with regular use.” {2} BTW, those “thousands of non-violent offenders…in prison because of this tyranny” are NOT in prison because of tyranny. They consciously and intentionally violated the law and that is why they were prosecuted. Citizens are free to violate any law they choose but they must also be responsible and accept the consequences.
In the final analysis, innersmiff, I do not question your reasons for preferring anarchy to democracy. My only goal is to explain why so many intelligent and independent citizens disagree with your conclusions. This doesn’t make you right or wrong, just one of a small minority that is no more savvy, no more intelligent, and no more infallible than the rest of us.
Q.
{1} http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/na…6440285879
{2} http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/cannabis/index.htm
