abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
So get rid of the gov't but do nothing about the ruling class that owns it...
So get rid of the gov't but do nothing about the ruling class that owns it...
bit like south Africa .. apparent political change but the wealth stays with the same folkSo get rid of the gov't but do nothing about the ruling class that owns it...
celestial bodies are not allowed to be owned by any nationsA ruling class is not something I consider beneficial, so I'm all for exploring ideas of how to change that. It all comes down to the definition of what can and cannot be owned in a just world doesn't it?
Am I his token? If so, thanks for taking a break from farting out all that non gay semen to think of me. Sometimes it's just so nice to be included.Secondly, you and your token
No, the dude that fucked me was and is gay. But that semen has been gone for years.Am I his token? If so, thanks for taking a break from farting out all that non gay semen to think of me. Sometimes it's just so nice to be included.
All that I know, as an Irishman, is that living in a hole with rabbits, that would be morally more important to myself than living under the thumb of the so called British Empire.My immediate family were IRA, and God bless them, at least most of Ireland kicked them out 98 years ago this Easter. The Scots have always kissed British ass, except for an exceptional few, and probably will do so forever.( only kidding, sort of) Peace outWhat possible benefit could that be to them?
I've read a few pro independence articles and can't get a good concise rational.
Any British subjects want to chime in?
then show me one historian who shares your retarded and racist views that blacks were not harmed by denial of service in the south before civil rights.Maybe. Every historian? Bullshit.
that must explain why the government needed to step in and end the racist and harmful practices that you support.Hence, when no coercive government reigns there will be equality.
white person asking to buy gas from gas station owner: not an act of aggression.Being made to serve somebody, even if you agree to leave them alone or be "indifferent" is an act of aggression against the property owner.
no, that's your idea of fairness, since you are the one who elevates the right of a racist business owner above all else.Your idea of "fairness" is to place the right of one person above another.
then find one historian who shares your racist and denialist opinion that denial of service to blacks in the pre-civil rights south caused no harm.You believe that some people ... can be prevented from using their property in ways that they chose which do not cause an actionable harm to others.
you are using the same playbook as holocaust deniers.You are using the same playbook as prohibitionists and don't even care or realize it.
race definitely is the issue here, since you are defending the actions of racist business owners which caused harm. no one has a right to cause harm to others, as happened in the pre-civil rights south.Race is not the issue here. All people have a right to control their own property, but not the property of others....Yes or no?
Not if they made it illegal for them to spend the money in Norway...Interesting. Of course that might cause a rise in prices in Norway.