also stop describing yourself as libertarian and start describing yourself and anti-food safety, anti-public universities, anti-environment, anti-labor law, anti-border security, etc...
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-09 23:20 ID:/qb8Tj+m
>>40
What the fuck are you talking about?
Peanut Butter medication?
Peanut Butter company in financial trouble?
_teh_?
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-09 23:29 ID:/qb8Tj+m
>>40 >>41
Maybe THIS scary business? I hope to god these pricks go bankrupt! It's called ACCOUNTABILITY, motherfucker.
The ConAgra facility in Longmont, Colorado, had the highest rate of salmonella among all the turkey processors tested by the Department during 2001. Nearly half of the turkeys processed at ConAgra’s Longmont, Colorado, facility were contaminated with harmful Salmonella bacteria, compared with a rate of 13 percent for the industry at large. In 2002, ConAgra ... spent heavily to defeat Oregon's measure 27, which would have required food companies to label products that contain genetically modified ingredients. In 1997 ConAgra pled guilty to federal criminal charges that its Peavey Grain unit illegally sprayed water on stored grain to increase its weight and value and also bribed Federal inspectors. The company agreed to pay $8.3 million to resolve the charges, which included a $4.4 million criminal fine, $3.45 million as compensation for illegal profits and $450,000 to reimburse the U.S. Department of Agriculture for storage and investigation expenses.
But they only have to pull peanut butter off the shelf because the EEEVIL government is FORCING them to. If the FDA and the CDC hadn't been investigating them and enforcing our "Socialist" food and drug laws, those cans of peanut butter would still be on the shelves.
They certainly weren't pulling those cans off the shelf before the government got involved.
that's not anarchism, people would find out that it was unhealthy, and then they would stop buying it and the peanut butter company would go out of business. don't you understand anything about libertarianism?
>>49
What, are you dense? Seen any tobacco company gone out of business lately? And what, you prefer that some people get cancer and die so the rest can say "Shit, smoking and peanut butter seem to kill people, better not buy that shit, oh man i would die for some mercury laced crackers now"? Thats really nice, but i think i prefer our way, sorry.
sure, but do the strong ones take care of the weak ones in the pack? no. there's no reason to, because the weak ones have weak genes and they aren't worth keeping alive.
in fact, nature is completly amoral and doesn't care about anyone
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-10 21:42 ID:DWOSBCNu
>>53
Yes they do, or rather, the pack divides the food hunted with those who did not hunt according to pack hierarchy. Also, each individual is to weak to fell larger prey and it is only through cooperation they can succeed and survive. Also, the pack minimizes misfortunes, i.e. even the strongest individual can wind up not catching any prey but through pack it doesnt have to go hungry. This also means the strongest is the one giving up most of its killings to the pack, but the insurance it gets in return is well worth it (otherwise this behaviour would not be represented in nature). The degree of cooperation is among other things determined by the abundance of resources in the environment, the harsher the conditions the more important cooperation gets and vice versa.
>>58 >>59
If some animals are better off working together, those that are inclined to do so are more likely to pass on their genes. However when these new cooperation genes are widespread, those that find ways to leach off the group will be more likely to pass on their genes, halting cooperative evolution.
This means there are emotions that make someone selfish and emotions that make someone altruistic. If you make people too stupid to realise they are better off ignoring their altruistic emotions you also increase the prevalence of their naturally greedy emotions.
Only if you start describing yourself as anti-freedom first.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-11 8:29 ID:Pm1926P3
>>61
For the freeriders to halt evolution it would mean that the advantage of cooperation was low to begin with. Rather, freeriding exist as an undercurrent but since cooperation is needed to survive it cant be completly eradicated.
I dont believe these facts can be readily transferred to human psychology, its a little more complex than that, so i wont comment altruism or greed.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-11 8:33 ID:qvpW9yWD
>>63
You are just repeating my point that it is a balance between the benefits of cooperation and selfishness. You denied selfishness existed in the first place and I corrected you, why not simply admit you were wrong instead of pretending otherwise?
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-11 9:10 ID:Pm1926P3
>>64
Can you paste where i denied that selfishness existed? Firstly, i believe its retarded to source complex human emotion to evolutionary processes, human mind does not work like that. Cooperative behaviour is not altruism at all, its among other things knowing whos your master and whos your underling, and when the master is weak so you can depose him etc. These things are necessary for the pack to survive. What i was meaning with the natural example is that in environments where survival of the fittest is the governing law cooperation can be the only way of survival. Cooperation is not everybody being fucking hippies, its everybody giving something up for the benefit of the pack, since without the pack there can be no individual. And this is true where resources are scarce. Now plez admit that u are an hero.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-11 9:32 ID:ziSgaqpp
ragidfesu
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-11 10:53 ID:jRRSEhP5
ITT creationists talk about evolution
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-11 13:41 ID:R2PADUqf
I AM FROM THE FUTURE
KILL ALL NIGGERS BEFORE THEY KILL YOU
(future is dominated by nigger-liberals!)
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-11 17:59 ID:Ok3fxU53
Fucking stupid libertarians don't even realize libertarianism is drawn directly from marxism.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-11 21:12 ID:qvpW9yWD
>>69
No it isn't. It was around before Marx's dad had even learned how to fap.
>>40
Without food safety laws the company would have had no financial incentive to pull the product and thus would have possibly simply left it on the shelves.
>>73 >>76
Considerring how much time they spend trying to be apologetic towards socialism I doubt they are all trolls. >>74
No facts, no rational argument. gb2 socialistology class >>75
Food safety laws are important in preserving justice which libertarians support.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-12 20:29 ID:qhBoYyBQ
Yeah, people are very rational and reflective consumers and "vote with their currency."
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-12 22:09 ID:4Z/mngkS
"Libertarians" are 99 times out of 100 Republicans who are afraid to admit it because of what that admission would do to their koolness quotient.
The real Libertarians, while offering some good ideas, have a utopian belief that YOUR NEIGHBORS can unite to make a great place to live, if only they were given the responsibility. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...my neighbors would do what?
Here's what my neighbors would strive to do with the last drop of their heart’s blood:
a.) establish a Committee for Public Safety and get the show trials and executions started
b.) open a welding supply company right outside my bedroom window
c.) let insane people wander the streets, so they can self-actualize…wait, we already do that.
d.) Teach the young ones all the science that people in my neighborhood believe to be true…wait, we already do that too.
That said, noted Libertarian & fruitcake Ron Paul rules for saying just what he thinks in the middle of a bunch of Republicans.
Name:
Anonymous2007-06-12 23:10 ID:OAbUy/PW
>>79
I stopped reading at the assumption manifested into statistic of '' ''Libertarians'' are 99 times out of 100 Republicans.''