#bmrgthoughts

There are some things I find people tend to forget about when considering Libertarian arguments concerning wealth and less fortunate people. As long as the ruling class, such as corporations that largely benefit by government enforced monopolies and protections, or simply market manipulation in general, are creating unfair advantages that keep the less fortunate stuck at the bottom, those people at the bottom need help. Government enforced monopolies and government beneficiaries on the large scale need to be dealt with before anything should be done along the bottom tier of people just trying to stay in there. Is there major problems in the current system that could be improved to reduce the dependency factor and other such issues? Yes of course, but removing the system completely, before addressing the top tier issues is just making peoples lives miserable when the government is artificially manufacturing the inequality.

The thought of my body sitting in a casket, slowly rotting itself into goo, does not sound pleasant. Denying my body to be put back into the system, that's selfish and honestly wrong in the saddest way. 

How would taxes work without government? They wouldn't. Tax is theft. A monopoly of services would not be enforced through violence (which is what public goods payed through taxes are)

The exact way it's done would depend on the communities involved, community being whatever number of people that voluntarily decided to interact as a group.

In my opinion I think a lot of public goods will end up being provided at the cost of company profits. For the example of long distance roads, highways, who benefits most from their existence? Companies who have their goods/services transported to other places. If you, as a consumer of a product, have the choice to buy similar products from multiple companies, who would you buy from? The one who uses it's profits to help fund public goods that benefit your community, or the one that doesn't? 

Or due to the lowered cost of entry to a market, due to government interference being removed, the market may have no profits from selling products. Just enough to pay for cost of running with employee wages, and whatever else. So the cost of other things would go down, leaving people enough to pay for the public goods in their community themselves. 

Just think about how a gun ban would work... it wouldn't. Especially if you consider the cultural foundation surrounding the US population, well specific areas/groups within the united states. 

Then, if you ever did get the guns banned, and start to remove them in large numbers, who is going to lose their guns first? Most likely people who are not a danger. What does that do? Well short term example of what happened in Australia, gun crime spiked. Short term it increased drastically. Compare the culture difference, the number of gun difference, ect ect ect. That spike isn't going to go away for a long time compared to Australia. If it goes away.

The long term? Australia gun homicide went down. Meanwhile the overall homicide rate continued to drop at the SAME level it was already decreasing BEFORE. Meaning it did nothing to the murder rate. People. Will. Use. Substitutes. 

Also, things like home invasions, and other violent crimes, increased in Australia. Think about the culture and gun number difference. How much worse would it be in the United States?

Now lets look within the united states, which cities have high gun restrictions? Washington, District of Columbia.... yet they have a high murder rate, like 7th highest for the big cities... the other examples are the same results. Gun restrictions don't work.

It's not a photography site. Almost nothing on it is posted by original owners, if anything at all. Nor is the large majority of it sourced properly. 

Example: I just went to weheartit and clicked a random photo

Sourced to imgfave? Not even an account from imgfave, just the popular tag. That gives 0 credit to the owner. 

People: You're objectifying homeless people! Stop helping them!

Honestly, that just says something about you.

When I start to like someone, even if I didn't find them attractive before, they start to become attractive. It's seriously that simple.

Also, "But still you want to be able to show your partner off and be like yep, he/she is fucking perfect huh" hahahaha I didn't realize relationships required other people's opinions.

If you really like someone, they start to appear as perfect, and then they become perfect. If you only talk to people who are attractive, and being initially attractive is a requirement, that just says more about you.