XD

Well, you got the 'label' right. No need need for further input from me.

same here

I believe people see state interference as including the enforcement of property rights, which occupied a large part of the libertarian manifestos that I read on the internet back when I thought socialism was evil.  

So the state interferes to enforce the existence of private property.  Which also means that corporations can't just decide to take your property away from you either.  

Not to mention, if you get rid of one bureaucracy that you may call a state just because it's the most powerful, while leaving any other form of hierarchy in place, then those other hierarchical systems automatically become the new government.  This is the present goal of the tea party: to remove government interference in business, so that corporations can do whatever the hell they want to.  Including regulate marriage, sex, physical appearance, whether a person who has the funds for a service may exchange those funds, and all sorts of intolerable things that are currently only enshrined as suggestions if at all.  Those sorts of office rules will become the new law, and there will be no process on the part of employees/subjects/slaves to change their leadership.  

So I don't see a whole lot of people who think so far ahead just blindly clicking "YEAH get the government out of our lives stupid police"

I have a libertarian streak or two, but as I suggested... "any notion of liberty is irrelevant until you demonstrate a basic willingness manage your pocket book!"

I think you'd be very surprised how this concept completely flies over the heads of superpowers and individuals alike.

I wholeheartedly agree. With exceptions.

I find it incredible that countries were running up huge deficits during times of strong economic growth (the PIIGS and GWB in particular spring to mind). For whatever misguided ideology or political opportunism drove them to think it was a good idea.

I don't know about the fascist pseudo-libertarians on this forum, however many there may be, but Libertarianism distinctly involves a government that protects property rights.  (And hardly anything else, of course)  You can't equate "anarcho-capitalism" (a common synonym for Libertarianism) with anything other than a misnomer.  

Zero state means you can't have capitalism.

Because Publix Pizza Dough+ DIY =tastes so much better?

Voluntary isolation is our most threatened natural resource.  Also: the desert does not have many allergens most of the time.  

What we need to do is start combatting urban sprawl.  The city I live in has a quarter the people of New York City, but occupies three times the space.  When did we come out against stacking things on top of one another?  Really, people, there's more than enough space.

How should I know? Indiana has free pizza near their gas stations in the summer.... thats all I know....

Fail ideas are fail.


So, maybe everyone (somewhere? somehow?) wants to have a successful "Garden Planet" some day where every plant gametophyte is hypoallergenic, but frankly, my thoughts on this are
NO SOUP FOR YOU!

edit; forgot the requisite

Damn it! I wanted Soup!!!!

What is fail about avoiding allergies while still enjoying the outdoors?  I don't know of any plants that release allergens during the winter.  If you get chilly build a fire.  That's the main attraction of camping anyway.

View with caution, then...

1. I've never had a problem with allergies
   
2. It requires something called a "Garden Planet", first.
   
3. Allergies are (usually) easy enough to avoid with meds, antihistamine blockers, etc
   

So there...

1.  If you (personally) do not struggle with allergies then you don't need any of the solutions I've proposed to being allergic.  Including seasonal!  

2.  How does it require a "garden planet?"  There are over seven billion humans on planet, and this is the last thing I'd call a garden planet; yet we get along.  It is in fact the places with the lowest population density that contribute the most to environmental destruction and threaten our ability to maintain these numbers.  You must have some occult meaning that as an outsider I can't perceive.  

If you can list a plant whose allergens cannot be avoided (for whatever reason), then I will need to do more research to support my position.  But you haven't challenged the opinion I've formed based on the facts available to me.  

3.  With an an-hierarchical voluntary association system, I would have free access to the knowledge I would need to generate antihistamines that I needed.  Or at worst be able to acquire them from others with a reasonable contribution of effort for reasonable reward.  To fit in with the "nature" response in the poll, these would have to be derived from natural substances.  But with luck!  We can find access to hormones involved in the human response to allergens and either synthesize solutions to them and the problems they pose or provide them from natural sources.  As far as I understand it, this is in fact what the medical establishment does.  Just at an exorbitant price.  

So, I feel I must repeat the question.  What is fail about my idea?

A "Garden Planet" is a world where everything (yes, even microbes) is domesticated for the benefit of a single intelligent species.


And yes, according to H G Wells, this would take several millennia to accomplish.

Frankly, humans are bombarded with antigens on a rather hourly basis, and any sort of attempt to "reduce the antigens/allergens (found) on planet earth" is both an ignorant notion regarding ecology, plus it would not actually reduce histamine responses(?)

Dude... I have better things to do with my spare time than debate economics. Some of them are are actually fun.

Oh... so, you have a cure for the Common Cold prepped up and ready for people to consume?


What about tape worms?

Drancunculiasis? You know... sterile abscesses and whatnot?

What about random vegetative stuff that people usually don't care about ending up on a mucous membrane? The occasional fire ant sting?

You said something about past members being antinature. I refuted whatever position they could have collectively developed.

You also seem to think you have the perfect medical idea regarding human histamine responses.

Neurology should only BE so simple! But it isn't, nor was it ever. How are you not potentially killing someone with whatever medicine you want to engineer? Can you guarantee their body will respond nicely to your medical chemical(s)?

That's usually the first collective question to ask during medical R&D. It determines the sellability of a medicine.

Rewilding is nice... if you don't mind disease.


Can't "rewild" insulin-producing bacteria. (for starters) There's also the question of supremely deadly (as in "killer of civilizations" types of epidemics) bioweapons...

Sure, but IMO words aren't strange little objects you get to redesign however you feel like simply because it's "intuitive". (Yes, I dealt with the "overly literal" interpretation of my native language quite a few times as a child and even as a teen and young adult. I got over it. I still hate slang, acronyms, and "freestyle" English that many people like to use sometimes because they never were educated on how to talk like a well-informed [Occidental?] adult, but cest'la vie.)

What is the upper limit on "rewilding"? Is it merely a pragmatic form of practical environmentalism? What do you "rewild"?

I mean*... there's room for Grizzly bears, yes? Or no? As long as they don't attack people (but maybe a garbage can or vehicle** or two?

*yes... I am a diehard skeptic, but I come by it honestly.

*yes... Grizzlies will attack cars, campsites and garbage cans. There' plenty of video and wildlife management-related evidence for this. For a grizzly attacking a car, watch "AP's Funniest Animals" sometime.

Probably the wrong one, and by design. (heh) I like to challenge people on how informed they are about their opinions they make, in the hopes they'll make more intuitive points in the future. Yes, it is  a very effective speaking tactic or "rhetoric" skill that forces people to clarify themselves more often, which is why I use it.