dreamdancer

sounds good... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/5603178/Wind-farms-could-supply-planets-power.html stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding

I'm not clear with whether the issue here is--the thing that libertarians might have an issue with--is the inherited wealth of the royals or the inherited power of the royals. In general I don't think libertarians have a problem with people making their own free choices as to who will inherit their money--even if the wealth was originally acquired a few generations ago via not-so-libertarian mechanisms. However I think most libertarians would claim that within a generation or two the dominant force determining wealth distribution would be libertarian market forces and not "old money" staying with "old families". Basically I don't think libertarians would especially like "old money" staying with "old families" indefinitely but they would prefer to let free market forces even things out over time rather than introducing new government intervention to rectify past government intervention. When it comes to the power exercised by royals, it is actually rather small in a constitutional monarchy, and well within the limited role that libertarians allow government. In practice the UK/commonwealth queens's primary role is to decide whether to dismiss the government and call an election or allow the existing parliament to try to work through a crisis. I think libertarians would consider that a legitimate role but they'd prefer the role be exercised by an elected, not an inherited, official. wow, a decent libertarian response. one would think though that after seven hundred years those fabled 'market forces' would have meant the duchy of cornwall estate would have been sold off to its hundreds of peasant/tenant farmers - but no, there it still is after all this time stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding

your right-libertarianism says it's ok for a feudal monarchy to grab thousands of hectares of land and then tax and tax for centuries to pay for its upkeep. your left-libertarianism says each individual has equal inherent value (thereby making the idea of an 'inherited' monarchy anti-libertarian nonsense) stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding

crashing and drama, here we come! stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding

i don't think obama is the wright brothers. stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding

as i've already said - right-libertarianism is a peculiar us construct with no real application either there or anywhere else. stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding

that is a problem stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding

i've asked you what the right-libertarian position is on monarchies. stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding

Can is a question of ability.

http://polycentricorder.blogspot.com/2008/12/left-libertarian-vs-right-libertarian.html stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding

this is just the first beat

which is the bit which says i'm wrong Minor royals don't get money from the government. Only Liz and Phil do. of course the minor royals get money from the government - who pays for the police protection and all the council houses they use stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding

Do you think the taxes the royals pay comes anywhere close to covering the government costs of keeping the royals? I seriously doubt it. nowhere near - remember you have to add in all the minor royals leeching off the government teat

Do you think the taxes the royals pay comes anywhere close to covering the government costs of keeping the royals? I seriously doubt it. nowhere near - remember you have to add in all the minor royals leeching off the government teat

Can is a question of ability.

Do you think the taxes the royals pay comes anywhere close to covering the government costs of keeping the royals? I seriously doubt it. I think that it might, if you consider the massive legal expense (and potential asset loss) of trying to disentangle the government's property from that of the royal family. I'm not sure what the actual legal standing is right now, but there was a time when the monarch actually owned every bit of government property personally. I bet the current system would look like a pretty good compromise if it came down to having to reimburse the Queen for the use of "her" navy, for example. so libertarians are ok with kings and queens (and all the attendant lords and ladies) stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding

Do you think the taxes the royals pay comes anywhere close to covering the government costs of keeping the royals? I seriously doubt it. nowhere near - remember you have to add in all the minor royals leeching off the government teat

No. but he says he can

Well, we've speculated as much about numerous posters over the years. There was a point where I thought one poster in particular had simply created an ELIZA program and substituted responses with political rantings. To test it I made a thread and simply said "white," it responded with, "black." I'm still not sure thing particular user ever was anything but an automated response program. We've also had (I suspect) at least one professional social networking site shill for a political candidate. Guy showed up about 6 months before the 2004 election, pissed and moaned about Clinton endlessly. Copied and pasted gigabytes worth of crap and the minute the election was over, gone, never to be heard from again. how many jumps had this shill done? (and had he ever been elected onto his sport's governing body) stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding

dreamdancer is in fact a malfunctioning chatbot escaped last year from the turing labs in switzerland

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/5594124/Prince-of-Wales-beats-the-recession-with-30-million-property-deals.html stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding

http://www.alternet.org/media/140740/whiny_conservatives%3A_how_dare_rich_white_guys_cry_about_oppression/ stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding

can he do it? http://www.alternet.org/story/140804/obama_must_dare_to_be_revolutionary/ stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding

http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/140764/rhode_island_will_license_medical_marijuana_shops/ stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding

interesting... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/5586543/Is-this-the-death-of-the-dollar.html stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding