The Last Desire, The Last Ambition
Leading LadiesFinal Fantasy 
emeraldlatias:

Nice choice for IRL Seifer there. 

YES. 

emeraldlatias:

Nice choice for IRL Seifer there. 

YES. 

thisurlwasnttakenbutnowitis:

Okay.

MY LITTLE COMMIES 

thisurlwasnttakenbutnowitis:

Okay.

MY LITTLE COMMIES 

popularhistorian:

sheislegend:

Some things never change

That is the most adorable thing…I can’t even…cute.

HNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG

That girl is SMOKIN’. Literally. 

Haha I want this shirt!

Haha I want this shirt!

Mhmmmmmm <3

Mhmmmmmm <3

rawrmelissaa:

jonaki:

rawrmelissaa:

adeyami:

Why are Libertarians so confused…  Paying taxes has nothing to do with force.  Wrapping your selfishness in rhetoric does not make it less selfish.

Let’s make this quick and simple:
If I asked you for something, say some of your lunch, and you decline to give me any, then I move on—because I am not forcing you to give it to me. But if I demanded you give me some of your food, and you still said no, by force I would take your lunch anyway. If you tried to stop me, I might hit you. Obviously, I’m forcing you to give me some of your lunch.
It’s an easy situation to understand, right?
It’s the same with the government collecting taxes. They demand you pay them, and if you say no, the government does not simply accept this and leave you be. By force, they go after you and fine you and/or throw you in jail.
“…If it’s been a long time that you have been evading taxes, [the IRS] could send a special agent after you – and this could lead to criminal charges for tax evasion. This can lead to the IRS seizing your home, car, other assets, freezing your bank accounts or even sending you to prison.”
“…The IRS could prosecute you criminally with a misdemeanor violation punishable by up to a year in prison and a fine of $25,000. “
Now, with you saying paying taxes has nothing to do with force, you are terribly mistaken. Raising taxes on the rich to help the poor definitely is forceful because the government is saying, “It may be your money that you earned, but we don’t trust you to be kind enough to freely and voluntarily use some of your money for the poor, so we’ll just demand some of that money from you, pocket some of it for ourselves, and give some to the poor in the form of welfare, etc. Oh, and if you choose to hold onto your own money, then we’ll send people after you to throw you in jail and fine you.”
How is that not forceful?

Let me just put something out there.
How many people do you honestly think are actually going to, consistently, “be charitable” if they were left to their own devices? How many wealthy individuals, in your own personal opinion, would make this choice instead of opting to simply ignore all those grave social problems because they don’t personally concern them? This notion shouldn’t be that hard for you to grasp. Indifference and selfishness are real things that dominate much of our decision-making, and if you even try to deny this fact I will be safely led to conclude that you are officially either an alien from another reality or a retard. 
It thus wouldn’t be preposterous to suggest the following: People who “need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed and sheltered” cannot depend for their entire survival on whether Penn Jillette or Bill Gates or any other smug asshole with half the planet’s money in his bank account will get up on the right side of the bed every morning. They can’t entrust their lives entirely to the whims and arbitrary decisions of a handful of rich individuals who, for all we know, could either be feeling generous or PMSing at different points in time. I really don’t understand how this actually makes sense to some people.

Is it really greedy though, if I go to work each day, earn money, and decide to spend my money however I please? I am not one bit obligated to feed the poor man living out on the street, and he has no right to get the government involved in the decisions of where my money goes. I could be considered cold-hearted, I suppose, by all the emotional, whiney people who want to force me to hand out my hard-earned money to every homeless I pass by, but I cannot be considered selfish for choosing to invest my money elsewhere.
This is where charities, non-profit organizations, and churches can step in and decide to help people out voluntarily, but it is not the place of the government to decide for me how moral my monetary spending will be.
If I choose not to hand the homeless guy on the corner some cash or food, that’s my decision. And if ever I live on the street, I know damn well I’m not going to expect a right  to someone else’s money. It’s their decision whether or not they donate.
In the most basic sense, you are saying the homeless man is entitled to my earnings simply because he doesn’t have a means to make his own money. This, in turn, means I will have to work the same amount of hours and be paid less, while he gets to continue standing on the corner, without any labor being performed, and collect that money I no longer will receive. Now that is selfish.
Note, however, that I am not against helping people out. I am simply against the government deciding for me how I will help people out and to what extent.

Word up! Fuck the statists and their methods of coercion. We launched a &#8220;War on Poverty&#8221; in the 60s and it made the problem worse. The best thing we can do is to care for people, but we should never accept the government FORCING us to do that. 

rawrmelissaa:

jonaki:

rawrmelissaa:

adeyami:

Why are Libertarians so confused…  Paying taxes has nothing to do with force.  Wrapping your selfishness in rhetoric does not make it less selfish.

Let’s make this quick and simple:

If I asked you for something, say some of your lunch, and you decline to give me any, then I move on—because I am not forcing you to give it to me. But if I demanded you give me some of your food, and you still said no, by force I would take your lunch anyway. If you tried to stop me, I might hit you. Obviously, I’m forcing you to give me some of your lunch.

It’s an easy situation to understand, right?

It’s the same with the government collecting taxes. They demand you pay them, and if you say no, the government does not simply accept this and leave you be. By force, they go after you and fine you and/or throw you in jail.

“…If it’s been a long time that you have been evading taxes, [the IRS] could send a special agent after you – and this could lead to criminal charges for tax evasion. This can lead to the IRS seizing your home, car, other assets, freezing your bank accounts or even sending you to prison.”

“…The IRS could prosecute you criminally with a misdemeanor violation punishable by up to a year in prison and a fine of $25,000. “

Now, with you saying paying taxes has nothing to do with force, you are terribly mistaken. Raising taxes on the rich to help the poor definitely is forceful because the government is saying, “It may be your money that you earned, but we don’t trust you to be kind enough to freely and voluntarily use some of your money for the poor, so we’ll just demand some of that money from you, pocket some of it for ourselves, and give some to the poor in the form of welfare, etc. Oh, and if you choose to hold onto your own money, then we’ll send people after you to throw you in jail and fine you.”

How is that not forceful?

Let me just put something out there.

How many people do you honestly think are actually going to, consistently, “be charitable” if they were left to their own devices? How many wealthy individuals, in your own personal opinion, would make this choice instead of opting to simply ignore all those grave social problems because they don’t personally concern them? This notion shouldn’t be that hard for you to grasp. Indifference and selfishness are real things that dominate much of our decision-making, and if you even try to deny this fact I will be safely led to conclude that you are officially either an alien from another reality or a retard. 

It thus wouldn’t be preposterous to suggest the following: People who “need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed and sheltered” cannot depend for their entire survival on whether Penn Jillette or Bill Gates or any other smug asshole with half the planet’s money in his bank account will get up on the right side of the bed every morning. They can’t entrust their lives entirely to the whims and arbitrary decisions of a handful of rich individuals who, for all we know, could either be feeling generous or PMSing at different points in time. I really don’t understand how this actually makes sense to some people.

Is it really greedy though, if I go to work each day, earn money, and decide to spend my money however I please? I am not one bit obligated to feed the poor man living out on the street, and he has no right to get the government involved in the decisions of where my money goes. I could be considered cold-hearted, I suppose, by all the emotional, whiney people who want to force me to hand out my hard-earned money to every homeless I pass by, but I cannot be considered selfish for choosing to invest my money elsewhere.

This is where charities, non-profit organizations, and churches can step in and decide to help people out voluntarily, but it is not the place of the government to decide for me how moral my monetary spending will be.

If I choose not to hand the homeless guy on the corner some cash or food, that’s my decision. And if ever I live on the street, I know damn well I’m not going to expect a right  to someone else’s money. It’s their decision whether or not they donate.

In the most basic sense, you are saying the homeless man is entitled to my earnings simply because he doesn’t have a means to make his own money. This, in turn, means I will have to work the same amount of hours and be paid less, while he gets to continue standing on the corner, without any labor being performed, and collect that money I no longer will receive. Now that is selfish.

Note, however, that I am not against helping people out. I am simply against the government deciding for me how I will help people out and to what extent.

Word up! Fuck the statists and their methods of coercion. We launched a “War on Poverty” in the 60s and it made the problem worse. The best thing we can do is to care for people, but we should never accept the government FORCING us to do that. 

strawberrybootlace:

EVER
divinesire:

Wait for official instruction?

Oh yeh. 

divinesire:

Wait for official instruction?

Oh yeh.