So I am from Florida

everything above orlando is bad.

everything above orlando is bad.

frannkzappa

This is a very good law: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/14/rick-scott-slow-drivers_n_3442792.html

everything above orlando is bad.

frannkzappa

everything above orlando is bad.

 

 

frannkzappa

the further north you go in florida, the depper south you get

This is a very good law: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/14/rick-scott-slow-drivers_n_3442792.html

 

Jebus213

why is weird sh*t always going on in Florida..

why is weird sh*t always going on in Florida..

meatgrinderz

Rick Scott is an idiot. Anyways, if you do not want imbeciles with guns telling you what you can/cannot do with your life then I encourage you to vote libertarian.Laihendi

yes

no

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]Rick Scott is an idiot. Anyways, if you do not want imbeciles with guns telling you what you can/cannot do with your life then I encourage you to vote libertarian.frannkzappa

yes

no

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]Rick Scott is an idiot. Anyways, if you do not want imbeciles with guns telling you what you can/cannot do with your life then I encourage you to vote libertarian.Laihendi

yes

no

No, it would limit the potential and resources of the people. Only under a strong technocratic state can humanity flourish. a libertarian government would drown in anarchism before very long.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

yes

no

frannkzappa

No, it would limit the potential and resources of the people. Only under a strong technocratic state can humanity flourish. a libertarian government would drown in anarchism before very long.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] In a libertarian government there would be no restrictive/destructive laws to control people. It would be a great improvement over the current government (this applies beyond Florida).Laihendi

No, it would limit the potential and resources of the people. Only under a strong technocratic state can humanity flourish. a libertarian government would drown in anarchism before very long.

succeeding does not equal flourishing.

and while i commend your views on strong government and police. trash are not allowed in a technocratic system. they will be weeded out by public education and forced deportation of those that refuse to work. your capitalistic system rewards not merit but deceit. we need a society that as Plato said"rewards justice, and is just in and of itself". Government and the state must be run by those exclusively fit to rule it, not politicians and not the general public.

"There will be no end to the troubles of states, or of humanity itself, till philosophers become kings in this world, or till those we now call kings and rulers really and truly become philosophers, and political power and philosophy thus come into the same hands." - Plato

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]Or to clarify, specific individuals can flourish without the help of a technocratic government.microsoft4life

Isn't it odd that some people seem to like being controlled under laws that make no sense? It's as if people are scared to be free.

freedom is vague concept worth little in the face of it's disadvantages.

Someone uses internet café for gambling, government shuts down all internet cafés, brilliant!  Even without the law having possible applicability to every internet-ready device it's f*cking ridiculous.  Rick Scott is a joke, dunno how these Republican morons keep getting elected to governor positions.  Step one, run on a platform of fiscal conservatism.  Step two, implement fiscally conservative measures that ruin the local economy or make it worse.  Step three, make the rest of the term about radical social policies.  Step four, ???.  Step five, profit!

Rick Scott is an idiot. Anyways, if you do not want imbeciles with guns telling you what you can/cannot do with your life then I encourage you to vote libertarian.Laihendi

Libertarians ARE idiots with guns.

In April Florida Governor Rick Scott approved a ban on slot machines and Internet cafes after a charity tied to Lt. Governor Jennifer Carroll was shut down on suspicion of being an Internet gambling front -- forcing Carroll, who had consulted with the charity, to resign.

Lai i take your silence as consent.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

No, it would limit the potential and resources of the people. Only under a strong technocratic state can humanity flourish. a libertarian government would drown in anarchism before very long.

frannkzappa

succeeding does not equal flourishing.

and while i commend your views on strong government and police. trash are not allowed in a technocratic system. they will be weeded out by public education and forced deportation of those that refuse to work. your capitalistic system rewards not merit but deceit. we need a society that as Plato said"rewards justice, and is just in and of itself". Government and the state must be run by those exclusively fit to rule it, not politicians and not the general public.

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

This is a very good law: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/14/rick-scott-slow-drivers_n_3442792.html

 

MacBoomStick

That's anywhere. 

Honestly if you're going to do the speed limit please stay in the right lane as much as possible. I felt the need to share that.]

Also I noticed people in Florida are terrible about using their turn signals. Seriously, not using your turn signals is such a dick move.

Lai i take your silence as consent.

frannkzappa

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]Rick Scott is an idiot. Anyways, if you do not want imbeciles with guns telling you what you can/cannot do with your life then I encourage you to vote libertarian.theone86

Libertarians ARE idiots with guns.

I live in Jacksonville and there are some dumb people here. I honestly had to look at my url cause I thought the link was actually an Onion article.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] Not if it maintained a strong police force and military. A libertarian government does not have to be weak, it just has to have its authority strictly limited to defending people from the initiation of physical coercion. The trash of humanity will not accomplish much under such a system, but they cannot accomplish much anyways. There are many individuals who have accomplished great things in their lives without the help of government, so the claim that humanity cannot flourish without a technocratic state is contradicted by history in general.Laihendi

succeeding does not equal flourishing.

and while i commend your views on strong government and police. trash are not allowed in a technocratic system. they will be weeded out by public education and forced deportation of those that refuse to work. your capitalistic system rewards not merit but deceit. we need a society that as Plato said"rewards justice, and is just in and of itself". Government and the state must be run by those exclusively fit to rule it, not politicians and not the general public.

1. doesn't need to they just need to be productive members of society.

2. if they are doing unskilled labour they won't be deported, they are productive.

3. in technocracy all official citizens receive at least the equivalent of a modern day middle class standard of living. if they do not work, and thus earn their lifestyle they are deported. homelessness and poverty is impossible as it is effectively illegal(not to mention hard to do).

4. capitalism is the manipulation of values. if there is no demand for your product or service you create one through any means necessary. without government intervention production will will fill the needs of the capitalists not the state. to have a strong, powerful state that can react to any threat internal or external the state must have full control of resources and production.

5.(this is not related to a bolded point). i do however value capitalism in the service industry. the service industry is entirely for the people so they are the ones who should have control of it. a self run capitalistic service industry that self regulates saves the government time and resources.

Isn't Florida the dick of the United States?

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]Rick Scott is an idiot. Anyways, if you do not want imbeciles with guns telling you what you can/cannot do with your life then I encourage you to vote libertarian.Laihendi

Libertarians ARE idiots with guns.

So libertarians don't own guns?  Good to know.

Wow the lawmakers in Florida do suck. Rattlesnake_8

Wow the lawmakers in Florida do suck. Rattlesnake_8

that's what happens when all the political power is in the northern part of the state.

also gerrymandering, Florida has the worst gerrymandering in the country as far as i can tell.

Isn't Florida the dick of the United States?

gago-gago

the panhandle is definitely the countries sweaty balls.

[QUOTE="Rattlesnake_8"]Wow the lawmakers in Florida do suck. frannkzappa

that's what happens when all the political power is in the northern part of the state.

also gerrymandering, Florida has the worst gerrymandering in the country as far as i can tell.

And stupid, old people who don't know what they're voting for, or don't care, or both.  A lot of these states took the fiscal conservatism bait hook, line, and sinker in 2010 and all they've gotten are a bunch of intransigent ideologues who have no interest in doing anything constructive at any level, state or federal.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

succeeding does not equal flourishing.

and while i commend your views on strong government and police. trash are not allowed in a technocratic system. they will be weeded out by public education and forced deportation of those that refuse to work. your capitalistic system rewards not merit but deceit. we need a society that as Plato said"rewards justice, and is just in and of itself". Government and the state must be run by those exclusively fit to rule it, not politicians and not the general public.

frannkzappa

1. doesn't need to they just need to be productive members of society.

2. if they are doing unskilled labour they won't be deported, they are productive.

3. in technocracy all official citizens receive at least the equivalent of a modern day middle class standard of living. if they do not work, and thus earn their lifestyle they are deported. homelessness and poverty is impossible as it is effectively illegal(not to mention hard to do).

4. capitalism is the manipulation of values. if there is no demand for your product or service you create one through any means necessary. without government intervention production will will fill the needs of the capitalists not the state. to have a strong, powerful state that can react to any threat internal or external the state must have full control of resources and production.

5.(this is not related to a bolded point). i do however value capitalism in the service industry. the service industry is entirely for the people so they are the ones who should have control of it. a self run capitalistic service industry that self regulates saves the government time and resources.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="theone86"]

Libertarians ARE idiots with guns.

theone86

So libertarians don't own guns?  Good to know.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] Firstly, public education cannot turn an idiot into an intelligent and enlightened individual. At best it can only train someone to believe certain things and act certain ways. There are plenty of such people with high school and college diplomas to demonstrate that. Secondly, it is foolish to deport such people (unless they are engaging in destructive activity that harms others) because they are an excellent source of unskilled labour.////// If those people are not given access to government welfare programs then they are forced to work in jobs that there is a demand for in order to afford food/housing for themselves. So basically everyone is better off if they are not deported. Capitalism does reward merit in the sense that it encourages things that work and allows for things that people value. Any book can be published in a capitalist society as long as someone actually wants it published. If there is not sufficient demand for it to be published, then there is no reason to publish it because no one will read it anyways. Capitalism is a social system where everything happens for a deliberate reason, and where every (honest) transaction results in all involved parties being satisfied. It is an inherently constructive social system. Deceit is only made easier when a small number of people are given unchecked power over the lives of everyone else.Laihendi

1. doesn't need to they just need to be productive members of society.

2. if they are doing unskilled labour they won't be deported, they are productive.

3. in technocracy all official citizens receive at least the equivalent of a modern day middle class standard of living. if they do not work, and thus earn their lifestyle they are deported. homelessness and poverty is impossible as it is effectively illegal(not to mention hard to do).

4. capitalism is the manipulation of values. if there is no demand for your product or service you create one through any means necessary. without government intervention production will will fill the needs of the capitalists not the state. to have a strong, powerful state that can react to any threat internal or external the state must have full control of resources and production.

5.(this is not related to a bolded point). i do however value capitalism in the service industry. the service industry is entirely for the people so they are the ones who should have control of it. a self run capitalistic service industry that self regulates saves the government time and resources.

1. i don't understand your logic. why would somebody want to live in poverty?

2. powerful capitalists are a serious problem. if they hold the means of production than they can do things contrary to the states will, which in a technocracy is inefficient and pointless. without regulations capitalists also exploit their labour. exploited labour leads to unions and unions are inefficient.

3. the government only needs to hold the means of production, the service industry and 3rd party distribution of goods produced can be handled privately.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

1. doesn't need to they just need to be productive members of society.

2. if they are doing unskilled labour they won't be deported, they are productive.

3. in technocracy all official citizens receive at least the equivalent of a modern day middle class standard of living. if they do not work, and thus earn their lifestyle they are deported. homelessness and poverty is impossible as it is effectively illegal(not to mention hard to do).

4. capitalism is the manipulation of values. if there is no demand for your product or service you create one through any means necessary. without government intervention production will will fill the needs of the capitalists not the state. to have a strong, powerful state that can react to any threat internal or external the state must have full control of resources and production.

5.(this is not related to a bolded point). i do however value capitalism in the service industry. the service industry is entirely for the people so they are the ones who should have control of it. a self run capitalistic service industry that self regulates saves the government time and resources.

frannkzappa

1. i don't understand your logic. why would somebody want to live in poverty?

2. powerful capitalists are a serious problem. if they hold the means of production than they can do things contrary to the states will, which in a technocracy is inefficient and pointless. without regulations capitalists also exploit their labour. exploited labour leads to unions and unions are inefficient.

3. the government only needs to hold the means of production, the service industry and 3rd party distribution of goods produced can be handled privately.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] There is no reason to force someone to work to provide a specific standard of living for himself. A person is not harming anyone by choosing to live at a standard of luxury below what is recognized as middle class. To force him to live by a certain standard of luxury is just control for the sake of control. People being manipulated into buying things they have no reason to is not a serious problem. If someone makes a stupid purchase then that is his personal problem, and it does not harm anyone else. All industries provide a service in exchange for something. It is a contradiction to say that people should be free to spend money on some services that are of interest to them, but not on others.Laihendi

1. i don't understand your logic. why would somebody want to live in poverty?

2. powerful capitalists are a serious problem. if they hold the means of production than they can do things contrary to the states will, which in a technocracy is inefficient and pointless. without regulations capitalists also exploit their labour. exploited labour leads to unions and unions are inefficient.

3. the government only needs to hold the means of production, the service industry and 3rd party distribution of goods produced can be handled privately.

1. i said a modern day middle class equivalent, this standard will of course change with time. the unskilled worker will get at least this. those that work harder or contribute to their fields get more. if you refuse to work at all you must leave the state. this system removes poverty, but doesn't create equality of wealth.

2.there is no money in technocracy. It is a quasi socialist economic system where people are given a base package and they need to ask for more (and they will usually receive).the citizen can receive all manner of things from the government he merely needs to make his request known and he will more than likely get what he wants (within reason). there is no medium of exchange in technocracy besides merit.

3 labour is/was and will be exploited. history shows that capitalist always put profit first and will underpay workers to obtain a higher profit. this creates an oligarchy which holds massive power on the lower and middle class.

4 production is not a service. distribution of produced goods can be a service. this link should help. http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0073403296/student_view0/ebook/chapter1/chbody1/differences_between_services_and_goods.html

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

1. i don't understand your logic. why would somebody want to live in poverty?

2. powerful capitalists are a serious problem. if they hold the means of production than they can do things contrary to the states will, which in a technocracy is inefficient and pointless. without regulations capitalists also exploit their labour. exploited labour leads to unions and unions are inefficient.

3. the government only needs to hold the means of production, the service industry and 3rd party distribution of goods produced can be handled privately.

frannkzappa

1. i said a modern day middle class equivalent, this standard will of course change with time. the unskilled worker will get at least this. those that work harder or contribute to their fields get more. if you refuse to work at all you must leave the state. this system removes poverty, but doesn't create equality of wealth.

2.there is no money in technocracy. It is a quasi socialist economic system where people are given a base package and they need to ask for more (and they will usually receive).the citizen can receive all manner of things from the government he merely needs to make his request known and he will more than likely get what he wants (within reason). there is no medium of exchange in technocracy besides merit.

3 labour is/was and will be exploited. history shows that capitalist always put profit first and will underpay workers to obtain a higher profit. this creates an oligarchy which holds massive power on the lower and middle class.

4 production is not a service. distribution of produced goods can be a service. this link should help. http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0073403296/student_view0/ebook/chapter1/chbody1/differences_between_services_and_goods.html

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] What constitutes a middle class standard of living is not an absolute. It varies according to factors such as the time period and the region of the planet. People have different standards for the lifestyle that they want to live, and how much work they are willing to do to provide themselves with that lifestyle. A person might think it is good enough for him to live in cheap housing, eat cheap food, wear cheap clothes, etc. if he does not have to do much work to provide it for himself. He is not harming anyone by choosing that lifestyle for himself. Perhaps someone has enough money to afford nice housing, food, clothes, etc. but would rather spend it on things more relevant to his interests, such electronics, books, or whatever else. If someone uses his means of production to make things there is not a demand for then he will just lose money and eventually have to stop.//// Labour is never exploited in a free market. Labour is paid exactly what it is worth, and nothing more. Absence of charity is not exploitation. Unions are not a problem at all as long as they do not have political leverage/power. Production is a service.Laihendi

1. i said a modern day middle class equivalent, this standard will of course change with time. the unskilled worker will get at least this. those that work harder or contribute to their fields get more. if you refuse to work at all you must leave the state. this system removes poverty, but doesn't create equality of wealth.

2.there is no money in technocracy. It is a quasi socialist economic system where people are given a base package and they need to ask for more (and they will usually receive).the citizen can receive all manner of things from the government he merely needs to make his request known and he will more than likely get what he wants (within reason). there is no medium of exchange in technocracy besides merit.

3 labour is/was and will be exploited. history shows that capitalist always put profit first and will underpay workers to obtain a higher profit. this creates an oligarchy which holds massive power on the lower and middle class.

4 production is not a service. distribution of produced goods can be a service. this link should help. http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0073403296/student_view0/ebook/chapter1/chbody1/differences_between_services_and_goods.html

1. if someone is capable of working yet doesn't why would the state keep that person?

2. the bureaucrats are held accountable, by the success of the state, the citizenry and other bureaucrats. corruption does not benefit the state, so a corrupt state would be less ideal for the bureaucrat. the people, while not allowed direct involvement in government, still have the right of petition and peaceful protest(assuming it doesn't affect general productivity), so if the people are aware of an injustice they can make their opinions and displeasure known, and the true technocrats will deal with those found to be corrupt. corruption hurts the state, so the logical bureaucrat will know that corruption also hurts him in the long run, therefore he will not seek corruption but will root it out where he finds it, as it negatively affects him to let corruption be.

3 the interest of the employer should not be held in greater account then that of the state. a man should not be able to pursue his interests at the expence of the worker and the state.

I want to go to florida.