Ben No.3

At lest within Germany, the existence of welfare also makes people deny the existence of social classes... kinda in a "downwards classlessness" fashion. One of the things you'll hear often around here is "there is no poverty, we are all middle class". How's that in the Netherlands?

Heh, I need to become a good person? Well at least the girl I touch is my girlfriend and not my employee.

"No, I make them someone not the other way around." Would your factory still run without you? Yes. Take a look at the French firm "FAVI". They're a brass foundry, I believe, and they work without any kind of boss. Your position is entirely expendable. Would your factory still run without your workers? No. Ergo: You workers make someone; you play boss when really your not needed. All in all, your position is useless.

Oh you are completely correct there. I was working a pretty high paying job when we started the project. I left to pursue that opportunity. It was a risk. A big risk because they job would not have been waiting for me if it failed. Plus I was 40 then. I'd been working for 23 years. I did have some money saved up but that was all used to support myself during the first 16 months of the business. We did not see a penny of return for almost that long. I knew what we were getting into. You are an educated man Orogun but you are young still. If you are careful with your money now, stay out of debt as much as possible, don't buy what you don't need, you'll start to save over the long term. That will open up opportunities later on you might not have now. Your life and the success you enjoy in it will be defined by the choices you make all along. That's advice from a rich guy. I started my first business at age 22. I was still living in Ft. Lauderdale back then. I invested in a PMEL & ISO certification for myself then leased equipment and started a test equipment calibration business. I aggressively pursued business, offered services under cost to build up a client base, hell I even worked for free for West Marine in Hollywood & Aventura just so they could see what I could do and maybe consider a contract with me. In three years it was over and I was dead broke. I lost everything including my wife who had no patience for what I was going through. But the lessons I learned form that made my next attempt a success. I chose to save money and invest it in my first business. I chose to save more and invest it in my second. The opportunites did not fall into my lap, I went out and found them. That is how 90% of business are built. Sam Walton started out from nothing. The son of a depression era life insurance salesmen. He started out delivering papers and milking cows for money to go to school on. He worked his way through college doing odd jobs and waiting tables. He served in the army then got a job with JC Penney for $75 a month. All along he saved his money until he opened his first department store in the late 40's with the $5k he'd saved and a loan from his father in law. That store became Wal Mart. He died a billionaire. Stories like that are common in this country like nowhere else. Sure it can happen anywhere but it does happen here all the time and it more the rule than the inherited wealth story. The whole idea of discounting what someone says because they are rich is just closing your mind to potentially wise advice. then again, for every good story there are probably 1000 bad ones at least. I am impressed by your stamina, but I wouldn't take you as a standardised example. This American myth that hard work will get you out of poverty isn't just wrong, it is straight our dangerous. https://www.quora.com/Why-do-liberals-think-that-poor-people-are-hard-workers?share=221ebd9d&srid=3O6OI It's an interesting example as to how far this goes. Another interesting thing is that poor people often deny their poverty and blame "the poor". I recently read a study surrounding this. It was conducted in several poor towns in southern England, and it was mainly done through interviews. England has social welfare. All of the participants received that. Now, there often exists the imagine of the welfare recipient who lives of tax money and does not work. If I recall correctly, there was no such example among participants. Much rather, they worked extremely hard and took great personal sacrifice to afford such things as... clothes from big labels for their children. What? You see, the stigmatisation of "the poor" as these lazy people only living of welfare leads to 1. Poor people denying their poverty 2. Poor people doing a lot to not make them seem poor to the outside world 3. Poor people downplaying their poverty ("many others live like me", "we manage", etc) And, furthermore 4. poor people blaming "the poor" (who only live if welfare) for their own situation. Now this obviously was a rather opinionated work, but interesting anyway, no?

What if I DON'T "advertise and invite the public in" and I only advertise and invite one groups and not the other?What if I have, like now, a production company? It's closed to the public you cannot come in from a street, you need to be an employee, invited client, arranged supplier and such? Can I decide whom do I sell and whom I don't? If I get a call and I here "Salut", "Shalom", "Salam alaikum" etc. can I answer "Sorry, we don't make business with you guys? If no, then your argument is again invalid as the "publicly open" rule does not apply but the laws still do. If yes, then basically this law could be avoided by simply closing the door or putting bouncers/selectors at the entrance. Which again proves how insane this law is. Your business is NOT a private entity. People work for you. Thus, you have severe influence over their lives, the lives of the people who make you someone, let's not forget. And thus, your business IS a public entity in the sense that it affects part of the public directly.

No one said it's complicated. You are just a communist ideology believer.You oppose personal liberties and would like to control people and how they live. "Been there done that, got the scars." The commie-straw man doesn't work if I agree with Guard Dog of all people on this issue Secondly, if exclusively communists disagree with your stance here, then the world is an unbreakable union of free republics Great Russia has welded forever to stand.

I will answer more elaborately but let me say that I do oppose gay clubs who only let in gays; but it's totally fine if their target is to attract gays.... it isn't that complicated

Business' are privately owned. A PRIVATE business has every right to dictate who can and cannot receive their services. If you don't like how they do things; you take your business elsewhere or start your own. As a libertarian I'd expect you to know better. It's social engineering (NOT A LEGITIMATE FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT) at the expense of property rights. Val is right; the bill in such respects is an abomination. Privately owned but operate in the public space, serviced by public roads, etc. The Civil Right Act did in fact carve out an exception for private clubs/enterprises. Those being defined as only offering services to members not the public at large. For example, Tiger Woods won his first Masters at Augusta, but he could never join the club whose course he dominated. Well, he could now but not then. If a business operates in the public domain, uses public utilities, is a publicly traded company, if it's open to the public it must be open to all the public. And yes I am a Libertarian because I'm closer to that than anything else. Libertarianisim is not anarchy. Advocating for minimal restraint is not asking for NO restraint on the individual. And I'm not 100% Libertarian. Probably 85% at best. If anyone claims to be 100% in line with any political philosophy I'd advise them to learn how to start thinking on their own before it's too late. Who said that about ppl being dead wrong if I agree with either you or sharp? So what happens in these cases?

In my book, discrimination is the exclusion of a group of people based on a shared characteristic of said people, agreed? If we ask wether an action should be legal, starting it's momentary legal status isn't particularly helpful Answer me this simple questions:1. Do I have the right to NOT allow people in my house based on their race, gender, whatever? Yes/No. Yes, as you have the right to protect your private life from whatever guy conceive as an intrusion. Your space, your matter. because your business is not a private entity, you have severe effects on for example the lives of your employees and, to a lesser extent, to those of your customers. nvm

Or that restaurants and other public business could restrict their customers. If it's open to the public it has to be open to all the public.Business' are privately owned. A PRIVATE business has every right to dictate who can and cannot receive their services. If you don't like how they do things; you take your business elsewhere or start your own. As a libertarian I'd expect you to know better. It's social engineering (NOT A LEGITIMATE FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT) at the expense of property rights. Val is right; the bill in such respects is an abomination. I've said it before and I will say it again: freedom a d equality can only go hand in hand. If I leave one with the ability, or the freedom if you will, to take others freedom through whatever form of, let's be honest, more or less randomly created social hierarchy (race, sex, wealth, inheritance, faith,...), nothing is won. And where is the freedom in forcing a private owner to run their business as government sees fit? There is a simple rule: your freedom ends where others freedom begins. Business owners have the right to choose whom they provide their service to. It's not taking anyone's freedom, because no one have a right to force someone else to serve them. When you opt for businesses to serve someone they don't agree to serve under the threat of penalty you opt for slavery. one might say the same thing about actual slavery: I do indeed take away the slavers freedom to own slaves if I prohibit slavery. But doing that is central to the liberation of the slaves. So, we have a conflict between two kinds of freedom: freedom of oppression and freedom to oppress. In this case, the former should always win. Similarly, the given case is a conflict between the freedom of discrimination and the freedom to discriminate. Because the freedom of discrimination is vital to a persons free life and the freedom to discriminate is not; and because I can choose wether I discriminate, but I can not choose wether I will be discriminated; the former must win.

Or that restaurants and other public business could restrict their customers. If it's open to the public it has to be open to all the public. Business' are privately owned. A PRIVATE business has every right to dictate who can and cannot receive their services. If you don't like how they do things; you take your business elsewhere or start your own. As a libertarian I'd expect you to know better. It's social engineering (NOT A LEGITIMATE FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT) at the expense of property rights. Val is right; the bill in such respects is an abomination. I've said it before and I will say it again: freedom a d equality can only go hand in hand. If I leave one with the ability, or the freedom if you will, to take others freedom through whatever form of, let's be honest, more or less randomly created social hierarchy (race, sex, wealth, inheritance, faith,...), nothing is won.

The various European nations would have found other reasons to fight their wars. The Industrial Revolution would still proceed, inevitably leading to mass warfare. And also leading to the rise of socialism. There would've still likely been the Russian revolution (the tsar had it coming, and especially without the rise of western democracy as a prominent alternative there would be few competing ideologies); and with no united America the entire western power would seize to exist after Europe is done beating itself up, for a few decades at least... no American aid means a slow recovery, if at all. Without a strong west, there might have also no strong imperial power to support the whites in Russia, and thus no big or no civil war at all. The RSFSR would've likely come into existence, probably also the USSR, yet it is difficult to say how it would be structured. On one side there would've been far less need for the authoritarian regime since there is no enemy of the same strength as America would've been, on the other side the idea f democracy wouldn't have been as strong at the time. Furthermore, some sort of nationalism similar to fascism would've likely still come into existence in Europe (as it fed of the diminishing national pride in Germany, Spain, Italy; something similar would be likely to happen), or perhaps communism (looking at pre-Hitler's Germany's elections not all too unlikely). Which means we could've either seen some sort of communist alliance over Europe in a sort of "CEU" fashion, or there would've likely been a war between fascist Europe and communist Russia. Japan's development would also be interesting, though I don't know enough to say that.

Not an official alliance with, but notches towards.

I heard ppl say that the civil rights movement was hugely thrown back during the beginning of the Cold War due to many members flatterance with the (far)left, is there any truth to this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMQkV5cTuoY Stumbled across this in my like-list. Good one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZc8tBtIDhI This ones good too. Edit: videos contain some profanity so they have been hidden behind links. Clicking the links leads to NSFW language, including presidential quotes, so beware.

That is too simple. What about people, can I posses that? What about land? If buy land, that land was (in all likelihood) at some point in history taken by force; so can I own land? And what is even "mine"? Is "mine" whatever I put work into? So if I make a shoe it's automatically mine? Then why would a boss be able to own what their workers produce; wouldn't that mean capitalism should be outlawed in your country? Furthermore, what about public property? If I irreversibly damage a river through pollution, I made the river unusable. But the river was never mine; so did I steal from the public?

Just within the last years of his life

Simplifies? You don't read many conspiracy theories. Some of them are very sophisticated and complicated. BTW. The most ridiculous conspiracy theory I've heard is the one that there are no conspiracies and all conspiracy theories are crazy talk. They are simplified; not in the sense that there make events easier to understand, but rather that they paint a clearer picture of good and bad.

I thought it was because of 420. also, Hitler was very anti drugs. Emphasised health a lot.

And who are these mysterious masters? Bilderberg? Nazis? Wall Street? Zionists? Aliens? Lizards? Sesame Street? Scrooge McDuck?He means the joos, probably reffered to vaguely as "the elites". Or maybe the COMMUNIST COMPUTER GANGSTER GOD. In either case expect to be told to wallow in your ignorance or linked to a youtube video if you don't think either controls the world.I personally think that all this "they control the world" theories come frome the deep psychological desire for someone to be in control of this. The biggest fear of those people is not that "they" are in control but that no one is in control. You certainly are correct that there are people who think this way. Many if not most people actually, need answers. It's natural to want them. A lot of people can't handle unknown, so they make things up, believe crap that they're fed, or trust in some others to think for them. They do this in their personal life, and they do it when looking at the world at large. However, I never said 'they control the world', I simply said some folks have masters (in other words, they are puppets), some knowingly and some not. Not even a very controversial thing to say, as most people will acknowledge that politicians are bought and paid for peoples. It's a cliché even. Unfortunately a great many of the same people somehow think their politician isn't (very rarely is this actually the case at a national level, and the four I named most certainly do not qualify as exceptions to the rule). Also, few of these same people take the logic further or follow the money trail as far as it goes. Answers are there if one bothers to look, ugly ones. Ben No. 3 did what he so often does, and thoroughly misinterprets what someone wrote, imagining things are said they are not said. Unfortunately, and sadly not surprisingly, others went with it. Do I think there are people who control everything in the world? Nope. Do I think there are people who want to? Yup. Do I think there are people who wield a great deal more influence than many here would think? Yup. Do I think there are politicians that are perceived to be very powerful that are in actuality not due to being bought and paid for? Yup. None of this is controversial to any truly thinking person, or is in the realm of aliens or other retardisms. 'The man behind the throne' is an age old expression, and more often than not an apt one. One of the main subjects of this last election was: Was politician X compromised by Y? Hell... the main stream media is still relentlessly pushing a 'conspiracy theory' about the current U.S. President being bought and paid for. One that some here are actually buying. I'd like to think you're sharp enough (no pun intended) to realize this, you usually seem to be. the problem lies with your choice of words. "Master and puppets" implies total control of the master, which then again leads to some sort of conspiracy theory. Furthermore, words like "puppets", "masters", "strings" especially in connection with politics simply have a very high frequency within conspiracy theories. So the misunderstanding is understandable. And if i misunderstand something, tell me, what use does this otherwise have?

Then why's Alcohol okay?

And who are these mysterious masters? Bilderberg? Nazis? Wall Street? Zionists? Aliens? Lizards? Sesame Street? Scrooge McDuck?He means the joos, probably reffered to vaguely as "the elites". Or maybe the COMMUNIST COMPUTER GANGSTER GOD. In either case expect to be told to wallow in your ignorance or linked to a youtube video if you don't think either controls the world. Well... you guys are wallowing in your ignorance, on that you're right at least. The rest? No. Enjoy! Enlighten us, Buddha.

And who are these mysterious masters? Bilderberg? Nazis? Wall Street? Zionists? Aliens? Lizards? Sesame Street? Scrooge McDuck?He means the joos, probably reffered to vaguely as "the elites". Or maybe the COMMUNIST COMPUTER GANGSTER GOD. In either case expect to be told to wallow in your ignorance or linked to a youtube video if you don't think either controls the world.I personally think that all this "they control the world" theories come frome the deep psychological desire for someone to be in control of this. The biggest fear of those people is not that "they" are in control but that no one is in control.That; and because conspiracy theories greatly simplifies things, unlike having to understand the world's anarchy.

It's incredible