Guard Dog

You know I think you're wrong here. I hear a lot of men discussing their computers, smart phones, tablets, apps, etc in much the same tones you or I might have discussed our cars in back in the '80s!

Trust me, I'm very comfortable in my own skin. Let me put it this way. When I want steak for dinner I go the the grocery store. When i want to fix my fence I go the hardware store. When I want a sip of Kentucky's finest I go the liquor store. When I want and entertaining conversation and a little debate with a wide range of different opinions i come here. But you have to bring something to the table. Today I brought a take on a book I'm reading.

Nah. Your suggestion amounts to "if people aren't happy with their lives, they can eat a bullet, see what they prefer". Which, if memory serves, is something you've actually encouraged before. But since you seem to need everything spelled out to you: generally, people have no choice but work for someone else because they lack the capital to set up a business that, owing to how economies of scale work, will allow them to break even, and sustain themselves. Indeed, that's the only difference between an owner and a worker: one has capital, the other does not. Since you seem to need everything spelled out to you: you have a guy with capital, who invest his capital and bears all the risk, gives the tools, materials etc. and handles all the other costs, and you have a guy who bears no risks and only contributes his time and skill. But to Ben and you the former one is a thief. Go figure since you seem to need everything spelled out to you: you have a guy with labour power, who has no choice but to sell this labour power, who tries to provide for a family (food stamps don’t buy diapers), who gives the majority of his wake time and certainly his energy into producing capital with his labour power; and you have a guy who takes said capital. But to Guard Dog and you the latter one isn’t a thief. Go figure Ben, what makes a sales transaction not a robbery? Consent. What makes sex not a rape? Consent. What makes employment not slavery? Consent. If the employee feels he's getting a bad deal from the employer then the employee is free to go sell his labor to someone else. He's also free to organize with the other employees and bargain collectively with the employer. If I can't find enough miners to dig up my coal for the wages I'm offering then I have two choices: offer higher wages or pick up a shovel. Employment is an agreement both sides enter into freely and can leave freely. Buy the way, you were not free to quit or even choose your job or place of employment in the places where real communism was practiced. You’re freedom is not free at all. If I’m poor, I merely have the choice of who I will beg to rob me. If I am rich, I merely have the choice of which tools to use to stay rich. Either way, it is for both a largely pointless endeavour in a quest to lead a life they never had a choice to. Whether you have nothing, little or much, the capitalist system makes you a servant of your material conditions. Essentially, I am fully aware of the shortcomings and disasters caused by the communist regimes of the past. I am sure you are too. But tell me Guard Dog, how much time have you spend exploring the shortcomings and disasters caused by capitalism? Yep. Capitalism is the worst system in the world. Except for all the others. But you know what it does offer? A path to success that allows even the poorest to climb the ladder to success. I know because I see a guy who did it every day in the mirror.

The LP, much like every other political party, is not monolithic. There are many different factions. I can sum it all up fairly well by saying there are two schools of thought: The big L libertarians and the little L libertarians. The big L's are the Harry Browne "burn this b---h down" wing. They want maximum freedom, the complete disassembly of everything the federal and state governments are doing that is immoral and unconstitutional and they want it now! These are the ones you see shouting that Gary Johnson wasn't libertarian enough. They are the ideological purists who insist all other schools of thought are oppressive and must be disregarded. This was the group that had run the party from it's inception in 1972 up until about 2004. Since then the majority (myself included) have favored the little L faction. While we may agree on the ends of the big L we do not agree on the means. The problems of overwhelming debt, insurmountable spending deficits, intrusions by the state into our lives that are neither moral or constitutional did not spring up over night and won't be solved overnight. And there is nothing wrong with making common cause and running candidates that mostly agree with us like Gary Johnson. Yep, he was not perfect. The other alternative was John Macafee who was a whole other mess of big L trouble. It seems we run two kinds of candidates. The good ones no one has ever heard of and the unsuitable ones no one will vote for..

Nah. Your suggestion amounts to "if people aren't happy with their lives, they can eat a bullet, see what they prefer". Which, if memory serves, is something you've actually encouraged before. But since you seem to need everything spelled out to you: generally, people have no choice but work for someone else because they lack the capital to set up a business that, owing to how economies of scale work, will allow them to break even, and sustain themselves. Indeed, that's the only difference between an owner and a worker: one has capital, the other does not. Since you seem to need everything spelled out to you: you have a guy with capital, who invest his capital and bears all the risk, gives the tools, materials etc. and handles all the other costs, and you have a guy who bears no risks and only contributes his time and skill. But to Ben and you the former one is a thief. Go figure since you seem to need everything spelled out to you: you have a guy with labour power, who has no choice but to sell this labour power, who tries to provide for a family (food stamps don’t buy diapers), who gives the majority of his wake time and certainly his energy into producing capital with his labour power; and you have a guy who takes said capital. But to Guard Dog and you the latter one isn’t a thief. Go figure Ben, what makes a sales transaction not a robbery? Consent. What makes sex not a rape? Consent. What makes employment not slavery? Consent. If the employee feels he's getting a bad deal from the employer then the employee is free to go sell his labor to someone else. He's also free to organize with the other employees and bargain collectively with the employer. If I can't find enough miners to dig up my coal for the wages I'm offering then I have two choices: offer higher wages or pick up a shovel. Employment is an agreement both sides enter into freely and can leave freely. Buy the way, you were not free to quit or even choose your job or place of employment in the places where real communism was practiced.

I am sure the information that the hunt helps the species won't be bought.I have a real personal problem with hunting for reasons other than consumption. But that's me. These hunts take place in other countries in accordance with their laws. It is not the US governments business to tell citizens they can't go to a place they are welcome to do an activity that is legal. And this ban was yet another example of an intrusive nanny state sticking it's nose where it does not belong. If you want the hunts banned you really should be talking to the governments that not only allow but encourage them.As distasteful as I find the activity, free people should be left alone to pursue their interests as long as they are legal where they pursue them. Well it is part of a global effort to prevent needless killing of animals. You pressure the governments that allow this nonsense that way. What other countries do is no business of ours. A sentiment I believe I have heard you champion a time or two. Until it happens to affect things that just happen to be in the interests of the US or are things that interest the libertarian politician. I think the libertarian politician would understand the interests of the United States, except for treaties and agreements were are currently in, end at the edge of the water or Canadian border. A significant difference between the LP and two major parties. You know this is now the second comment you have made that makes me thing you have no clue just what the LP is or the philosophy is all about. Perhaps you should read into it a bit. And I say that in a completely non-hostile way.

I am sure the information that the hunt helps the species won't be bought.I have a real personal problem with hunting for reasons other than consumption. But that's me. These hunts take place in other countries in accordance with their laws. It is not the US governments business to tell citizens they can't go to a place they are welcome to do an activity that is legal. And this ban was yet another example of an intrusive nanny state sticking it's nose where it does not belong. If you want the hunts banned you really should be talking to the governments that not only allow but encourage them. As distasteful as I find the activity, free people should be left alone to pursue their interests as long as they are legal where they pursue them. Well it is part of a global effort to prevent needless killing of animals. You pressure the governments that allow this nonsense that way. What other countries do is no business of ours. A sentiment I believe I have heard you champion a time or two.

Gizmo a five minute search on google will turn up more articles on how masculinity is bad, a negative influence on boys, men, society, etc than you can read in a day.

I am sure the information that the hunt helps the species won't be bought. I have a real personal problem with hunting for reasons other than consumption. But that's me. These hunts take place in other countries in accordance with their laws. It is not the US governments business to tell citizens they can't go to a place they are welcome to do an activity that is legal. And this ban was yet another example of an intrusive nanny state sticking it's nose where it does not belong. If you want the hunts banned you really should be talking to the governments that not only allow but encourage them. As distasteful as I find the activity, free people should be left alone to pursue their interests as long as they are legal where they pursue them.

For my part the key words for what a man should be is self sufficient. I don't mean in the frontier kind of way. A man should earn his own living, care for and provide for his family, and keep his commitments. If I look you in the eye and tell you I'll do something it's very important to me that I follow through on that. To me that is not to say those are not admirable traits in women as well. Certainly they are. But in my own opinion for a male, that is the price of admission That is the minimum bar you have to meet. You don't need to be the strongest, best fighter, best shot, run faster, farther, longer etc. Just pull your weight and take care of your own.

I'm reading a book about John Wayne and John Ford: It's not really what I was expecting when I bought it. It does recount how their friendship began and what came of it. Much of it I already knew. John Ford was a real a-----e to everyone, especially Wayne despite the latter's career long admiration of him. And it was pretty much commonly known the real John Wayne was nothing like any of his movie roles. Rumors have persisted he was secretly homosexual. Now? No one cares. Back then it was a big deal. I seriously doubt it was true but it would not change anything about him or his legacy if it were. Anyway, I'm getting off track here. The gist of the book is actually a criticism of what their relationship created. John Ford wanted to create an icon. An enduring example of American machismo for men to aspire to and of course pay money to watch their movies. He was creating the ideal American male. And he used Wayne to do it. Based on my father's attitude towards Wayne I'd say for that generation they were successful. Now of course we are told masculinity it toxic. It's hurting us. Stuff like that. The Atlantic Magazine wrote a review of this book that was particularly spiteful (well it is the Atlantic after all) saying: "From the bulk of the evidence here, masculinity (like the Western) is a by-product of nostalgia, a maudlin elegy for something that never existed—or worse, a masquerade that allows no man, not even John Wayne, to be comfortable in his own skin." I'm curious. What do you folks think is the "ideal" male. What should a man aspire to be? What traits should a man have? And is masculinity really toxic?

So libertarians are all about interventionism and state interference. Gotcha. Couldn't say. None of us ever get elected. I'd love to find out though.

I have already completely forsworn any association with the Republican Party. Unless Rand Paul gets nominated in 2020, then I'll vote for him. But this whole Roy Moore debacle in Alabama is really distasteful. For those who don't know he's the "Christian" right Senate candidate who it seems has a thing for underage girls. All these girls coming out might be a little suspicious because he's been in public service for 30 years. Why come forward now? But there are so many of them. Even if a few are fake (one definitely is) with that much smoke there is a fire in there somewhere. It's ironic isn't it? The Democrats are the ones who rail against big business, dirty money in politics, and voter rights. But their people are the ones caught taking bribes, influence pedaling, and voter and campaign fraud. The Republicans are supposed to be the 'moral" party of Judaeo-Christian values and Pro-Family stuff, railing against gay & trans folks. But they are ones caught hunting underage girls and boys, or trying to pick up men in airport restrooms. If you really want to know what a politician is up to listen to what they are against. The louder the are opposed to something the more likely they are doing it.

Right so the solution is to take away the things people have worked for all their lives because not everyone enjoyed the same success. That will really incentivize me to work hard. Ah who am I fooling. Whenever communists take over people like me are the first ones to be lined up and shot. But on the extremely remote chance that didn't happen you'd better believe I'll be the one picking apples. Let the carpenter bust his butt! I’m gonna need your full name, address and any important relatives I'll get right on that!

Now this is funny. Cops from two separate precincts in Detroit decide to set up a drug bust without knowledge or coordination with each other. The cops from one precinct are posing as dealers, the other as customers. Guess who tried to buy drugs from who! Hilarity, gun fire and injuries ensue: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5076517/Drug-bust-ends-fight-undercover-cops-Detroit.html Great job serving and protecting there fellas.

Right so the solution is to take away the things people have worked for all their lives because not everyone enjoyed the same success. That will really incentivize me to work hard. Ah who am I fooling. Whenever communists take over people like me are the first ones to be lined up and shot. But on the extremely remote chance that didn't happen you'd better believe I'll be the one picking apples. Let the carpenter bust his butt!

Ufff... the turn this conversation has taken. If you will all excuse me I'm going to go watch the sun set from the porch of the home I built and sip a glass of fine nine year old bourbon and contemplate the wonderful life I get to lead because I live and work in a relatively free and mostly capitalist country

"Government, even in it's best state is but a necessary evil. In it's worst state an intolerable one."

Just to repeat, the story was not about HOA hubris. It was about a city making what is essentially landscape decoration decisions on a private residence what was not in poor repair, behind on it's taxes, or in any violation of building code. In short there was absolutely no reason for the city to intrude on that private residence and tell them how to decorate the yard they pay for. The court to say that a great deal of deference must be given to an elected government should terrify us. What can't they do then? Hell will freeze solid before I ever live within a city limit again.

To all of you folks who are worry about the idiots President (insert any name here) is putting into positions of power should consider something. If we took away all of the governments power and left it just enough to fulfill it's basic functions you would not have to lie awake at night worrying what those idiots are up to. Just sayin'

When my dog passed away a few months ago I was very depressed. But, although it is tempting, I would never consider this: http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2017/11/13/texas-company-cloning-pets/ The cloned dog will look exactly like the one you remember. But it won't be him/her. The things that made the original dog special was time you spent together. The history and experiences and training and fun times. The new dog won't have any of that and since we are all the sum of those experiences the new dog may be totally different. I think that would make it even harder. There are so many homeless dogs that need what your old dog had that if you are going to have a fresh start no matter what, it should be completely fresh. But it would be tempting. Or you could go a different way:http://mashable.com/2017/11/13/boston-dynamics-unveils-spotmini-robot-dog/#dt3k2OhLXPqE

That actually wasn't a homeowner's association. It was the city of Miami Shores. Of course, from personal experience I think even less of homeowner's associations. Now there is petty tyranny for you. My fist house was in a suburb of Fort Lauderdale called Margate. It was, like most south Florida developments under the rule of a particularly nazi-esque association. The vice president of this thing was a 70 year old moral busybody who got his exercise every morning by walking around the community with a clip board and a camera looking for violations to cite people for. I was driving to work late one morning when I saw that fat, bald SOB on his knees in someone's yard measuring the height of grass with a ruler. I seriously considered running him over. I'm quite sure no one would have seen anything. But for all that a homeowners association is something you freely join when you buy property in the community. You know going in that buying that house means joining the agreement of homeowners to live by a certain set of rules. The city on the other hand exerting such heavy handed control over a private residence in which the public has no ownership interest should be alarming. I've said it before the five justices who sided with the City of New London in the Kelo case should have been dragged from the courthouse at the end of a rope and hanged in the street. That decision changed forever the relationship between private property and municipal authority.

Think liberty is not dying in the land of the "free"? Your private property is no longer private, nor even really yours: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-shores/article97915197.html

am recalling a few years ago we were seeing a job posting in oregon... or washington. am always getting the hippy states confused. listing were for psychiatrist applicants for state hospital(s). mongst preferred skills were the traditional multilingual aspect, but with one odd addition: klingon. 'ccording to an article we read in the months after seeing the job posing, a not insignificant number o' mental distressed patients communicated in klingon, and only in klingon. am not certain why, but we felt unexpected pity for rachel dolezal. not sympathy, but pity. so utter pathetic. And don't forget Elizabeth Warren.