A charter of liberties

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by The Atomic Ass, Mar 7, 2010.

  1. The Atomic Ass

    The Atomic Ass Redefining Sound

    Messages:
    2,988
    Likes Received:
    267
    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2007
    Location:
    Assland
    WARNING: What is contained in this link is an affront to the current political power structure of the world.

    If you are a conservative, don't click on the link. :noway:

    If you are a liberal, don't click on the link. :noway:

    If you are a hardcore libertarian, then please click on the link. :yesway:

    Now with the formalities out of the way, I'll tell you what it's about. I've been influenced by the Magna Carta, the Constitution of the united States, and by other such documents to write my own charter. Essentially it's a middle finger raised to any state that prevents people from exercising their free will.

    As it is still a work in progress, I welcome your comments, criticisms and questions.

    Also, please make comments serious, and try to avoid ad hominem. I'd like for this topic to remain open. :)

    Imperium Carta Libertatum

    (Also, no, this is NOT a prelude to my performing an attack on any government office. I know someone will be thinking that. :lol: )
     
    QuambaFu likes this.
  2. tacotiklah

    tacotiklah I am Denko (´・ω・`)

    Messages:
    6,586
    Likes Received:
    934
    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2009
    Location:
    Lancaster, CA
    I agree with a lot of it, however some issues like not taxing for public education can affect a society negatively. Public education is a must have imo.
     
  3. The Atomic Ass

    The Atomic Ass Redefining Sound

    Messages:
    2,988
    Likes Received:
    267
    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2007
    Location:
    Assland
    <opinion> It is very nearly impossible to have a public education system of any kind without an agenda being pushed by whatever level of government controls it. An agenda being pushed is antithema of education. </opinion>

    No part of my charter actually forbids a state from operating a school, (or, for that matter, in engaging in any other business activity), however it does prohibit them from taxing everyone on a service that only a portion of the public uses.

    In the current system, if a parent does not approve of the quality of the education, or feels the agenda of the school does not conform with their beliefs/opinion/logic, then they MIGHT be able to remove their child from school and home school or utilize a private school, (this option is disappearing in the U.S. however, as well as entirely unavailable in some countries), however they're still forced into paying for the teaching of the agenda they originally did not agree with, as well as the teaching they DO approve of.

    If the parents who willingly choose to educate their children in a public school were the only ones paying for it, and were not forced by law to educate their children there, then this would force the state operating the school not only to be frugal in their expenses, (a situation that is not even close to the current reality), it would also (mostly) prohibit undue agendas from being forced in schools.

    Currently, most states fund their schools more through state-run lotteries than through property taxes. I'll say right now anyone playing the lottery to win it is a damn fool. :lol: Just my opinion again. :)

    Even if the above were not true, the amount of additional money that each worker would make if all of the sales & income taxes were eliminated would easily pay for the education of one, or perhaps two children. It is unfortunate, but a great deal of the wealth is being sapped away from the poor through taxes despite the variety of welfare programs and the supposedly low tax rates on the poor.

    Anyway, the tl;dr version for anyone else reading: the charter forbids the state from taxing for public education, but not for providing public education to those who wish it.
     
  4. Demiurge

    Demiurge Intrepid Jackass

    Messages:
    3,740
    Likes Received:
    210
    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Location:
    Worcester, MA
    It reminds me of what's going on in the town where I went to high school. The school had a good reputation, so many families moved to the town. Now, the school is crowded and may lose its accreditation. Endeavors to build a new school have continually been blocked by an apparently large group of senior citizens. They say, "we don't use the schools- why should we pay for them?"

    It's ironic because the senior citizens are collecting Social Security, which is being paid for by... wait for it... working adults whose children attend those schools. Social Security is going to be bankrupt by the time these people retire- so why should they pay?

    The fact of the matter is that people are way more dependent on their government to provide for the general welfare than they're willing to admit. That feeling is usually a reaction to what is being perceived is that we pay all this money in taxes to be used for stuff, but we never really seem to benefit from this stuff as much as our neighbor (I'm not on unemployment, social security will be bankrupt by the time I retire, I didn't trade in my clunker, I didn't buy a new house this past year- but I paid for other people to receive money from those things). Then again, there are many services that benefit me that I seldom even recognize.

    A new system would really have find a way to properly resolve that. If a citizen is insistent that they only want to pay for X, Y, and Z and not A, B, and C- better make sure that said citizen never needs A, B, and C.
     
  5. The Atomic Ass

    The Atomic Ass Redefining Sound

    Messages:
    2,988
    Likes Received:
    267
    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2007
    Location:
    Assland
    Therein lies the beauty of my charter. It only prohibits the mandatory induction into a contract relationship, (Social Security is an example of a currently mandatory contract relationship), but does not prohibit a state from offering services to those who wish to pay for them.

    The state is then free to reject people asking for benefits who didn't pay for them, and this also enables individuals to make their own choices with the fruits of their labor.
     
  6. tacotiklah

    tacotiklah I am Denko (´・ω・`)

    Messages:
    6,586
    Likes Received:
    934
    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2009
    Location:
    Lancaster, CA
    Ok, I misread it then. My bad.

    But yeah it sounds reasonable enough to me. It'd be nice to arm myself with whatever I feel most comfortable/safe with. I have a question though, on the part where it says that person can ingest anything they feel is healthy for them, what about if it's proven to be dangerous for a person to ingest/consume? Like tobacco. Where do you draw the line there?

    Personally I'd like to stock up on my Zombie survival kit. :p
     
  7. Randy

    Randy !ǝɯ ʇɐ ʞooן Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,736
    Likes Received:
    2,361
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Location:
    The Electric City, NY
    I only ready part of it, but from what I read, it could only work in a "perfect society". There's a lot of room for interpretation or details that could lead to corruption. Other than that, the actual vision of the document isn't bad.
     
  8. tacotiklah

    tacotiklah I am Denko (´・ω・`)

    Messages:
    6,586
    Likes Received:
    934
    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2009
    Location:
    Lancaster, CA

    +1:agreed:

    I'm not worried about what's in it (which is damn awesome) but how would be carried out and how a court would interpret the language of it. There's just a few things that need more elaboration on as it's still kinda hazy.

    for example:

    -if a substance is deemed unhealthy, does one still possess the right to ingest it?

    - If there will still be prisons/jails, and the public cannot be taxed for it, who will pay for the overhead costs of the prisons/inmates?

    - Who will pay for the salaries of doctors/firemen/other public officials? I can't think of any of them working their ass off for free. Not a dig at you, but I see that only the courts and police are provided for.

    - I think there needs more detail in the area of 'dissolving into neighbors' if a state violates that charter. Who gets how much of what parts of the dissolving state?


    I'm sure there are some others but that's all I can think of off the top of my head. Again, I'm not trying to shoot you down. I think this a great idea, but if you want a sturdy charter, it's gotta be detailed to an obscene amount. I'm talking down to the correct placement of punctuation like commas, periods, semi-colons, etc. It is entirely feasible that putting a common in front of the wrong word can entirely change the interpretation of a section/document. (has happened many times here in the good ol' US)
     
  9. The Atomic Ass

    The Atomic Ass Redefining Sound

    Messages:
    2,988
    Likes Received:
    267
    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2007
    Location:
    Assland
    You can't, really. The essential nature of individual Sovereignty has to include the ability to make choices, even if the result of those choices is self-destructive.

    The alternative is a large part of the reason we have such an enormous government today, because they're out to protect us from ourselves. Hallucinatory drugs are made illegal to protect us from "reefer madness". :lol:

    We have a "Consumer Protection Agency", whose sole purpose is prohibiting the sale of products that don't meet some vague standard, which can be up to the whim of the individual inspector at the CPA. I think the Underwriters Laboratory, an institution that's been around for far longer, has an enormously better system.
     
  10. The Atomic Ass

    The Atomic Ass Redefining Sound

    Messages:
    2,988
    Likes Received:
    267
    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2007
    Location:
    Assland
    That's my entire reason for posting the incomplete document to the Internet. I can't think of any possible loopholes, so I'm looking for outside perspective. :)
     
  11. tacotiklah

    tacotiklah I am Denko (´・ω・`)

    Messages:
    6,586
    Likes Received:
    934
    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2009
    Location:
    Lancaster, CA

    Fair enough.
     
  12. The Atomic Ass

    The Atomic Ass Redefining Sound

    Messages:
    2,988
    Likes Received:
    267
    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2007
    Location:
    Assland
    That's an issue I do need to touch on, but my stance on that point is that prisoners should not be made to lay around and do nothing, rather they should at the very least be made to do enough work to pay their room and board.

    Having spent a weekend in a jail myself, I can tell you how BORING it was. I would have welcomed some work to pass the time.

    Not police. Peace officers. There is a substantial difference. The police in our current society have a much different role than would peace officers.

    Anyway, a doctor is really not a public servant, rather they were and are private businessmen, even today in the U.S. Most doctors you ask will be capitalists, even if they're only in it to save lives.

    As for firemen, that's one sector I'd like to see go private.

    And as to other public officials, they're mostly redundant. The DMV would no longer exist, and given that states could no longer write new laws (why we have to continue to write new laws is a concept beyond my understanding) the legislature of the states would become redundant.

    It sounds harsh to say that in every state, there's going to be thousands laid-off due to a change in the law, but with the disappearing restrictions on trade and business, I can see the private sector providing jobs for them in a short period of time (weeks).

    Democracy is one of those things I've really come to despise as of late. If 51% of the people are electing people to write laws that effect 100% of the people, then 49% are getting shafted. California's prop 8, anybody? :rolleyes:

    I would think it would be equally divided based upon border area with surrounding countries, but I don't know how it would work in the (unlikely) event that Australia violated the charter.

    No biggie. Criticism is good, and that's what I'm here to get. An obscene amount of detail is something I'm actually trying to avoid, as I'm planning on this charter being "portable".

    /wordvomit
     
  13. The Atomic Ass

    The Atomic Ass Redefining Sound

    Messages:
    2,988
    Likes Received:
    267
    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2007
    Location:
    Assland
    New bit under suspension of rights article that will show up with the next update:

     
  14. QuambaFu

    QuambaFu SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    253
    Likes Received:
    148
    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Location:
    MN
    :agreed:

    When risk is removed from the consequences of a decision the bad choice becomes the easy choice. Laissez-faire capitalism? Seperation of economy and state?

    Am I wrong to assume that natural law would be an appropriate starting point for such a document?
     
  15. orb451

    orb451 Banned

    Messages:
    1,978
    Likes Received:
    742
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Location:
    LV426
    In the first Sovereign paragraph pertaining to "Right Of Life" you might have misused the word Insure, I think you mean Ensure - to guarantee, make certain of. But then again, because it's healthcare related, perhaps you do mean Insure :)

    With respect to Self-Defense and tools excluded from use, I would ask, does blaring Hip-Hop out of car windows at obscene volumes count as a valid reason for using other tools to defend my ear drums from the auditory onslaught????

    As far as this is concerned:

    - No Sovereign shall be forced against their will to accept contracts which
    they find not to be in their interest, and no contract shall be valid which
    was instituted against their will, or by fiat or default, or contains
    inclusions that can change without the Sovereign?s knowledge or consent.

    I would clarify the 'escape clause' with something like an add/change that digital licensing agreements between a Sovereign and a business are in fact null and void (EULA's) without either:

    1) A plain language, EASILY readable, non-legalese written license summation that clearly and easily lists the goals/objectives of said license.

    2) The right of the sovereign to accept freely the digital licensing agreement and still maintain the right of the sovereign to nullify at any time and for any reason the license in part or in whole.


    I have a hard time with this one:

    War, being a contrivance whose only purpose is consume the productive efforts of
    Sovereigns against their will, and being equally detrimental to all Sovereigns,
    is hereby abolished.

    - No state shall make plans for war, nor raise armed forces to conduct such a
    war, nor bring about martial law, for any reason whatsoever. Failure to heed
    to this shall result in the complete dismantlement of a states government
    structure, and the dissolution of that state into it's neighbors.

    I respect your opinion but find this one particularly hard to swallow. First, I consider myself a Libertarian. Second, I commend you on taking free time to draw up such a document. Third, I STRONGLY, strike that, VEHEMENTLY disagree that War is a contrivance, etc. Without wars and conflicts we wouldn't have many bits of the wonderful technology and medical knowledge and practice that we do today. You wouldn't be reading this right now if it weren't for people like Dr. Alan Turing. His work in World WAR II decoding and decrypting Nazi intercepts helped him birth the concepts of the first electronic computer.

    War is and will always be a part of human nature. When you willfully take away your preparedness for conflict, be it armed or not, you willfully put yourself at the mercy of your enemies. Whether you agree with me or not, you'll never convince me that conflict is NOT inherent to ALL animals. We humans have been the lucky group that has put technology to use in all it's glory and all it's horror. Science shows that our species homo sapiens have been around for ~195,000 years. You're just NOT going to take 195,000 years of animal instinct and suppress it, neuter it or outright remove it just because it sounds good in theory and on paper. And that's not a dig, or an attack, just what I believe and what logically makes the most sense.

    Make no mistake about it, I'm not advocating a large, monolithic military that gets involved in armed conflict all over the world. Nor am I advocating a large military "presence" anywhere in the world. If it were up to me the wars in the Middle East would have been long since over and our military would be safely home. I would actively find and close down every public and not so public US based military installation and shut them down and bring personnel home as well. But, after everyone was home, I would not, repeat NOT shutdown the military as a whole.

    I would scale it back. I would make it more agile. I would keep it prepared and properly trained. I would keep our weapons research and development moving forward until the point where I could privatize 50% of it. The other 50% I would always keep under government control.

    Group-think has gotten the best of many young minds as of late. It is popular to think of war as just about the most awful thing imaginable. That war is completely unneeded. That it does absolutely no good. That it is just useless spending, spending of time, lives and money. Those are good points, and they are valid. However, the good that has come from war in the forms of medical advancements, treatments and technological advancements are numerous and irrefutable. They may not make up for all the lives that were lost, nor should they ever, or ever try to. But once you recognize war and conflict as inevitable, you simply cannot turn and walk away from it. Wishing and hoping for wars to cease and vanish isn't just naive, it's dangerous. Again, that is NOT an attack, just my opinion on the matter.

    Someday, somewhere, someone will have a bone to pick with you. Whether it sovereign person to person or sovereign nation to nation. They might be wrong, they might be unjustified, they might be crazy, but it is CRAZY to NOT be prepared for it when it comes. Just as you list your Right to Self Defense as a sovereign individual, our country, unless you're really trying to disband the whole thing, has a right to defend itself too. Not every country will think and act as you do, or with your best interests at heart. However, we as Americans, or as a society have become ham-strung, tripping over ourselves trying to do just that. Trying to get involved in too many places and for too few good reasons. I'm all for closing the borders, shrinking the military and ending our involvement elsewhere in the world. It's high time we let the rest of the world do what they want. And it's definitely time that we started caring more for our own people, their well being, their present and futures and less about what everyone else is doing.

    But, and this is a big hairy but, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be prepared, in every capacity, to deal with aggression. Be it against us directly, or against our allies.

    And then this:

    - No state shall establish surveillance equipment of any kind in any public
    place, except within prisons or jails, or within court houses to record
    proceedings.

    I think what you'd find is that by curtailing the government's ability to monitor
    citizens, a whole new market of private businesses doing the same would then
    sprout up. That is, you tell the feds "no cameras". They say fine, we still
    want to know what's going on, so we're going to use "Joe's Security" firm
    instead. Joe's Security firm and it's ilk would quickly turn into government
    subcontractors running the same wires, installing the same cameras
    and giving control either directly or indirectly right back to the people
    you just tried to take it from.

    What I would do is say government may install "x" number of cameras
    and/or surveillance equipment, but said equipment, it's records and controls
    will be open for public, company or special inspection, but through
    proper channels and with proper consent so it can be determined
    who/what/where is being tracked and for what reasons.

    All in all I think you have a great document started there. Even if I don't agree
    with you on everything, I respect your opinion.


     
  16. The Atomic Ass

    The Atomic Ass Redefining Sound

    Messages:
    2,988
    Likes Received:
    267
    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2007
    Location:
    Assland
    A pun-filled misspelling. Thanks for catching that, I've corrected it. :)

    Well, now, that may be the case. At some level, I believe it's around 160db, you are actually in physical danger, as the sound pressure can cause heart palpitations. :eek:

    Plus, ya' know, insanity can ensue from extended exposure to painful sound levels.

    Hmm... Let me address these in reverse...

    2) A Sovereign can reject the license at any time by ceasing use of the product, even under the current draconian laws... There may be some room for a requirement of return policy in the event an agreement is later nullified.

    Under the current draconian laws, however, you can return software/music/videos for a full refund if you initially do not agree with the EULA, which is what more people should do, as it would cause companies to modify their EULA licenses to prevent going out of business.

    1) It would be to the benefit of companies to make their EULA's more succinct, though I'm not sure if that can quite be done without violating some part of the Right of free contract.


    Ehm, next part broken into multiple sections due to length.
    I won't disagree that war does bring us great technological advances, though I would argue that perhaps we are trading one type of technological advance for another. Whether that trade is even, in our favor, or against our favor we'll never know, but technological advance does march forward even in the absence of war.

    I'm not saying we should remove our preparedness for conflict, on the contrary, we should prepare for and expect conflict, but on an individual level as opposed to a national level. Thus the whole point of the self defense article. :D

    And certainly conflict is a part of human nature, we practically revel in conflict. When this desire for conflict is directed in a positive direction, everyone benefits. But states have shown a great tendency towards directing the energy of conflict into a negative direction, generally resulting in great destruction to property, productivity, and life, and generally yielding no tangible benefit.

    My intention is that states shall not be able to enter into conflict. As history has shown, the last century of conflict has been largely orchestrated through states by a few whose motives were to consolidate world power, as opposed to two or more states having an otherwise unsettle-able dispute.

    Today, our desire for conflict is severely misdirected, and divided between our vicarious conflicts, (through the medium of professional sports, politics and other such "one side pitted against the other" type of television shows), and our spoonfed pseudo-conflict with terrorist boogie-men. (How anyone can think the recent underwear bomber was real is beyond me, but unbelievably, I've met a few.)

    Privatize 100% of it. I wants me a phaser dammit. :lol:

    I may come across in the document as accepting the group think, but I don't. I merely recognize the false and manufactured nature of relatively recent conflict, and I'm trying to put forth a solution to the issue. The solution I put forth may be a bit rough, but most of the charter is a hard pill to swallow for governments as it is. :lol:

    On this particular article, I am considering a provision where states may retain arms until such time as they all agree to disarm. How to prevent such a situation from going into perpetuity, though, has prevented me from making a section that I can feel comfortable with.

    Ultimately, states in conflict don't just affect themselves, they most usually cause harm to the disinterested individual, and usually include (by force) in their conflicts great numbers of individuals who are actually opposed to the specific conflict, the latter being less true in this country today, but still a very valid issue in many other countries where drafts are still common place.

    I'm not really tied to national pride, TBH. I could care less what country I lived and worked in, and called my home, so long as I could honestly proclaim it was the freest place on the face of the earth. I'm actually for opening borders, as the travel article demonstrates. My charter isn't restricted to the U.S., otherwise I would right now be championing the Declaration and Constitution, as when they are properly enforced, they make redundant 95% of my charter. :lol: I intend my charter to be for all Sovereign individuals, no matter where on the earth they exist at any given time.


    Cameras aren't as much of a danger to the public as other forms of public surveillance that are being marketed at the moment. The naked-body scanners they're installing in airports come to mind. A government could make whatever rules it wanted to, including putting a naked-body scanner on every lamp post, unless it was prohibited from doing so (by the charter).

    A private firm is already prohibited from violating the privacy of Sovereigns, so at best all they can install is cameras. I paint with such a wide brush against the state, because whenever it finds a crack, it starts hitting it with a jackhammer. Forbidding all surveillance devices covers the non-camera types today, as well future technological developments.

    Damn that was a long post.
     
  17. orb451

    orb451 Banned

    Messages:
    1,978
    Likes Received:
    742
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Location:
    LV426
    Not sure what you mean by this. Specifically the part about the last century's conflicts being orchestrated through a few states to consolidate world power. Are you saying that US states individually should be stripped of their senators and congress-critters? Isn't it them, collectively, or supposedly, that decides if/when we go to war with someone else or at the very least deploy troops to this place or that place?

    Not sure about this point either. Are you saying the underwear bomber was just acting alone? Didn't have any ties to Al-Qaeda or Islamic extremists? I ask because I honestly haven't looked him up, yet. What about the guy who was organizing an attack on the NYC subway line? Are you saying we shouldn't take these guys seriously because they're not wearing official Team Qaeda licensed and sanctioned T-shirts? Or because they're more or less acting of of their own volition, but no less seriously, still trying to hurt innocent Americans?

    Mmmmmm, phasers! Now that I can agree with :agreed: We need more fucking phasers in life.

    Which recent conflict are you talking about? Iraq/Afghanistan? If by false and manufactured you mean the intel they sold us as the reason for going there then yes, I'd agree that it was a crock of horseshit. That said though, since we've been there, the least we could do is stay in it to win it, or at the very least, make sure the countries involved don't devolve into absolute civil war and total chaos. I think Iraq is just now getting to the point of *almost* governing itself. Afghanistan is a whole other shit sandwich.

    I think you're on the right track though, that disarming bit would quickly turn into a stalemate for all involved. Getting around that is the million dollar question. You figure out a way to make that happen where all involved still feel good about the whole deal, you let me know, seriously! :)


    And with respect to this, maybe I was misunderstood. I was saying that we should close the borders or at the very least completely tear down and build anew our current immigration policy. I don't give a rat's ass if people want to travel here for tourism or travel elsewhere for tourism, business or what have you.

    Anyway, those are my takes on those points/pointer-counts you made. Keep at it! :hbang:
     
  18. The Atomic Ass

    The Atomic Ass Redefining Sound

    Messages:
    2,988
    Likes Received:
    267
    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2007
    Location:
    Assland
    Pardon me, I should have explained, I'm using "states" interchangeably with "nations". And my comment was not specific to the U.S., Hitlerian Germany was a state being used as a tool for the consolidation of power. Just ask Prescott Bush.

    And I'm saying that under this charter, the current major power structures would have nothing to do, save twiddling their thumbs, or perhaps churning out statistical census data. This includes the U.N., the U.S. federal government, as well as similar structures around the world.

    And what do our senators and congress-critters actually do? They write laws. All day long, they sit and debate about what new laws should be passed. Even with their lengthy vacation breaks, I'm fairly certain they still manage to argue about new laws for 6 solid months out of a calendar year. But if the only laws that can even exist have to do with prohibiting an individual or group from causing harm, injury or loss to another individual or group, then I can foresee the people realizing "hey, what are we paying these guys for again?"

    I don't think states (in the U.S.) should be "stripped" of their senators and congress-critters, rather they should willingly shed them as an unnecessary burden.

    Minarchism is the system espoused in the charter.

    If he was working alone, or for a real terror group, then I'd be worried about his actions. However he was neither, and therefore I'm worried about the symbolism of his actions, as opposed to the actions themselves. The short story is he had a bomb, his father several weeks before had gone to the CIA with concerns of his sons' involvement with a known terror group, and he showed up at an airport in Amsterdam, no luggage, one-way ticket paid with cash, headed for the U.S., and THEN he is escorted onto the plane by a CIA agent, where tries to blow himself up and fails. That is a text-book ruse to force a policy, that being the naked-body scanners.

    The CIA has already admitted in the past they created Al-Qaeda, I don't see it as much of a stretch to think they may still be controlling them, and using them to carry out an unpopular agenda within this country.

    :agreed:

    Recent relative to human existance, the past century at least, starting with WWI, though it could have started earlier, that is the earliest my studies have shown conflicts to have been manufactured. And it most certainly goes deeper than just purposely distorted intel.

    Of note, check out Matthew Hoh. He resigned from duty in Afghanistan citing that he believed there to be no active conflict with terrorists, rather we are merely placing ourselves in the center of a civil war. His letter of resignation is linked in the article I linked.

    It is an essential component in the fight for individual liberty, so I will be brainstorming day and night on it. :)

    The only real problem with our immigration policy is what this country's government offers. Some come across the border for genuine work, and are hard workers. I WANT those people to be free to work anywhere they please.

    Others come across merely to live off the various social programs we have. I want those people to suck a dick. :lol: But in all seriousness, they'd have no reason to come here if the welfare programs did not exist.

    Really, the need to close borders is nothing but a symptom of a broken system.
     
  19. The Atomic Ass

    The Atomic Ass Redefining Sound

    Messages:
    2,988
    Likes Received:
    267
    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2007
    Location:
    Assland
    I can't quite tell if that's a rhetorical question.

    I'm assuming it is, but my mind can't quite process it fully. :lol:
     
  20. The Atomic Ass

    The Atomic Ass Redefining Sound

    Messages:
    2,988
    Likes Received:
    267
    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2007
    Location:
    Assland
    v0.2.1 Just got posted. Changes as noted in the change log.
     

Share This Page