Bitcoin Forum

Stefan Molynuex announced today that he's been diagnosed with lymphoma. Apparently the prognosis is good (as far as those things go) but he was unable to obtain an accurate and timely diagnosis within the Canadian medical system and had to travel internationally in order to purchase effective care.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwmr1elnxjg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwmr1elnxjg)

Well, shit. Hope he gets well soon.

Thats the guy who made the fable game?

lol... no. You're thinking of Peter Molyneux (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Molyneux).

Stefan is the Free Domain Radio guy.

Chemo isn't cheap. If you want his work to continue put your dollars and bitcoins to good use:

http://freedomainradio.com/Donate.aspx (http://freedomainradio.com/Donate.aspx)

Oh, dammit. Hope he gets well. Going to donate once I'm back home.

Asshole.

Right, Well, in that case, I hope you get lymphoma too. Ass.

No, that's what you get for expressing pleasure at his being diagnosed with a potentially fatal disease, and calling him a cult leader.

http://www.usingenglish.com/forum/ask-teacher/17969-couldnt-have-happened-nicer-person.html

In a thread about his potentially fatal disease? Yes, I think it's inappropriate.

OK, so maybe you just can't read. The title is:
Stefan Molyneux: Lymphoma

And the OP is:

And you're still an ass.

Well, when I see a personal classified ad, I'll be sure to report it to the mods to have it moved to off topic.

No, it's right where it belongs, because it's talking about a political thinker whom some of us consider a friend. So if you could kindly stop shitting all over the thread?

You should seriously seek professional psychiatric help. You are either on drugs you shouldn't be, or not on drugs you should be.

lets see, talking in the other thread about psychopaths... so lets look at mr. Molyneux, shall we?

He have no remorse, is irresponsible, egocentric, and charming, shows signs of antisocial behavior, and a great manipulator...

My guess: Yup, psychopathic cult leader. Better stay away.


(and that said, its always sad that people are dying from cancer...)

But I don't rejoice in their diagnosis, asswipe.

Fuck, even Kokjo shows more empathy than you.


How sad is that?

Right, by expressing glee at his diagnosis with a potentially fatal disease. Ass.

Trust me, your dignity and appearance did not suffer. We already know you're an asshole.

what?

U MAD NAO?

You, expressing more empathy than blablahblah.

If you ever showed any signs of not being an ass, then you'd see I'm not closed minded, you're just consistently an ass.

thats not empathy... its just me who have learned that its sad when people die... and even more sad when they die of a disease. I feel nothing for that dude, but i don't see why we should celebrate his disease. And i therefor just go with the general opinion: "awwww how sad that you got cancer, are you okay?"

Exactly. And even that is more than he shows.

No. I can understand why he is happy with SM to be ill. I just simply don't care. People was happy and celebrated when bin laden was killed too, you know.

Sad, isn't it? That people could actually celebrate a man being gunned down in his home, without a trial?

I don't really have a opinion about it...

OK, let's try a little exercise. If this works, you may feel your first ever feeling of empathy.

Imagine, if you will, you're sitting on the couch, dick in your hand, watching a porno.

Suddenly, you hear a crash as your apartment door is kicked down. If you have a dog, it's barking is silenced with a shot. You turn around, and see several men, dressed in black from head to toe, rush in. One raises his weapon, and the last thing you see is a muzzle flash.

That would kinda suck, wouldn't it? Be a bad day at the Kokjo household?

What did i do to deserve that? :P

Is there anything that does deserve that kind of treatment?

You have yet to express condolences.

The dude had some people fly air plains into buildings...

Ever think maybe he wasn't the guy who signed the order? What if he had a boss? I know if I were running an international terrorist group, I'd want two or three cut-outs between me and the public face of that group.

For all we know, Bin Laden was just the PR agent. A trial would have revealed that.

So, back to our little empathy exercise. Don't you think that would kinda suck? At least a little? Wouldn't you have preferred to be arrested and brought to trial instead of being summarily executed?

may i ask how?

Killing bad persons is not bad. Satisfied?

(no, i will not bite!)

This is the last time I forget to select "Self moderated topic" when I create a thread in this section of the forum.

please explain... are you saying that you wants to limit other peoples free speech?

You may.
I think you're a bad person. Does that mean it's OK for me to kill you?

How then?

No, because you believe in NAP, and i have yet to aggress.

I never said I would answer. Research trial procedures. Find out for yourself.

True. I think you might be starting to grasp the concept.

Torture 4 teh LULZ!

Which of them? The NAP or killing people is bad?

I understand the NAP, its inconsistent, and i disagree with it. The use of force is useful in some situations, whatever you like it or not.
and killing bad people is not bad, when its done in the best interest of the society. in other words: its perfectly okay to kill people under some circumstances.

Hey, fun fact: the NAP does allow the use of force, even lethal force, under some circumstances.

True. but the NAP says nothing about courts, trials or justice.

Nor does it need to.

so it was okay to shoot Bin Laden?

Was he aggressing?

he put airplanes into buildings.

But was he aggressing?

trowing two large buildings with people in them into the ground, seems like a pretty aggressive move. Don't you think?

I think I can predict what myrkul is going to answer:
Bin Laden did not fly any plane.

It does. But you've still not answered me. Was he aggressing when he was killed?

i don't think so, no(but "they" said that he was reaching for a gun).

so it is okay to beat someone up, and then stop aggressing when someone is about to stop you, so that they can't do you anything?

Well, if a bunch of armed men burst into your house wouldn't you reach for a gun (assuming you had one, which, as a good Dane, I know you don't)? And if you did reach for a gun, would you be aggressing, or acting in self-defense?

No, that's not OK. You were beating someone up, causing them harm. You'll need to repay that harm. But any force applied to you after you stop isn't repelling force with force, it's retaliation. The NAP is silent on retaliatory force, but logic dictates that it's counterproductive. It's hard to extract restitution from a man you put into the hospital, even harder from a dead man.

<irony on>
Yeah, right. When I'm being beaten up all I care about is the money I will get.
<irony off>

Well, if a bunch of armed men burst into your house wouldn't you reach for a gun (assuming you had one, which, as a good Dane, I know you don't)? And if you did reach for a gun, would you be aggressing, or acting in self-defense?
[/quote]
in this case, self defense and aggressing is the same thing.

are you saying that im forced to repay him?

Well, fight back, then, silly.

I'm afraid that's a straight-up impossibility. You cannot be defending yourself from the initiation of force and at the same time initiating force.

No, obligated.

no, it depends on the point of view. Bin Laden initiated force first, with 2 airplanes. and the US initiated force first too, by invading his home.

perfectly simple.

so i could just refuse to pay him, and beat him up again? NICE :D im beginning to like this NAP stuff.

Then you're actually talking about two completely separate events, and Bin Laden would be acting entirely in self defense by going for a weapon.

Well, you see, if you refuse to pay him, you're breaking an obligation you voluntarily accepted. That means you're likely to break other obligations. You couldn't be trusted to pay your bills, including that for arbitration and defense. That means nobody would come to your aid in the event you were attacked. Given that you started this whole thing by beating some guy up, it seems logical that he would get some friends together, and extract vengeance, since justice is not forthcoming.

When you act outside the social structure, don't be surprised when it doesn't come to your aid.

LOL!!!!!! The aid can't do anything.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

As soon that the aggressor stops aggressing, no one can do him anything according to the NAP. so any aid i could have got is useless.
also the guy i beat up, would break the NAP by aggressing against me, after i have aggresed against him and stopped again.

in a NAP based society, a person that did not respect the NAP would be god like!

WIN!

Except for one tiny little thing: By not respecting the NAP, you're not protected under it.

In a NAP based society, a person that did not respect the NAP would be an outlaw.

if someone damages you or your property than its not aggression to demand just compensation.

So im forced to respect the NAP? or get buttfucked by some "freedom" loving crazies?

the point is that you shouldnt have a problem with being "forced" to not be aggressive. Because for the other person that is called self defense. And yes people have the right to defend themselves.

No, but i could ignore your polite request for compensation. and when you aggress against me to force me to pay, you would be breaking the NAP.

Either the NAP was more stupid, hipocritic and inconsistent then i expected. or the US was allowed, by NAP, to kill Bin Laden.

No, You're free to not respect the NAP. Just don't expect protection under it if you don't. If you're going to be acting antisocially, why should society keep you around?

Just to clarify this, there is obviously no way to enforce the NAP in a free society, right?  Obviously, there is no central authority and thus no central law as such.  People would be free to agree with it or not.

It's just that you would have security companies enforcing property rights.   And they would hire arbitration companies for disputes between different customers of different companies.  Or something along those lines.

See, The US is not a NAP based society. It's based instead on the Constitution, which guarantees criminals a swift and fair trial.

We do not believe that using violence to acquire just compensation from an aggressor is a form of aggression. In the same way that not all violence is aggression because some violence is defensive. Using violence to uphold justice is similarly not aggression.

in other words: respect the NAP or die. i feel the gun to my head now, but sure sure its my choice.

yeah we all know that the US is a bunch of hypocrites, but you should be like: Hey man lets kill the fucker that took down WTC.

no way to enforce it. but you people would be a bunch of hypocrites too, if you did not respected it to the letter.

oh, justice, you mean enforcement of arbitrary rules? who's rules?

But violence is always a last resort.   In a free society you would have contracts which obliged people to go to arbitration when there are disputes I would think.

Unless, someone didn't have there own security provider.   But I would think that would be as rare as not having utility providers like water and electricity.

Let's expand some of these words, so maybe you can see how silly you sound.

"In other words, respect the principle that I have no right to initiate the use of force against another person or have force used against me. I feel the gun to my head now, but sure sure it's my choice."

So, you want to be able to use force against other people, without them being able to use force against you, right?

The vast majority of people respect it now.

The only institution that allows for the initiation of aggression and calls it OK is the government.

Without the government it would be perfectly obvious to everyone that the initiation of aggression is wrong, just as it is now for everyone but govt.  

And people would not directly rob from their neighbours.  In fact, that's the reason why they don't want to get rid of the government.  Because they know they can't get away with it themselves.

 

Oh and it would be enforced.  Through the protection of property rights when you sign a contract with a security company.

i would say that people are forced the respect the NAP, because of the government threat.

if there was no police, people would be taking what they wanted if they have the necessary force.

(yes yes, go on talk about pseudo-police private security firm)

Some would, there is no doubt.  I have never doubted nor claimed that security wouldn't be needed.   People should have the choice though and not be forced to pay a monopoly protection racket.

If you are on your own property and you are doing crazy stuff than dont be surprised if bad things happen to you and no one really cares to attempt to punish the person who does bad things to you, after all why should they. If you are on someone elses property and doing things that they dont like, than you will be asked to leave. if you refuse to leave than they will pay someone to make you leave. if you try to pay someone to prevent the legitimate property owner from making you leave than you would find it prohibitively expensive.

if you defraud people and refuse to pay just compensation. Even though a person could hire some mussle to take back his property much more cheaply than you could possably expect to hire people to defend your illegitimate claim. People would most likely find that social ostracism was more than enough to protect against fraudsters.

The state doesn't guarantee any of that. It just claims a monopoly on it.

but your private security firms would also be protection rackets.

Nope. Protection rackets need monopoly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket

i see that start of a war(take out the competition), or the collaboration between 'voluntary' security firms.

I would be free to choose which one I pay and which services I get.  And leave and get another provider if I wasn't happy.  It's all my choice.  With the government, I don't have a choice.  It's pay or else.

And I would be free not to have one at all if I didn't want.  But that's like not going with a phone company or electricity company.  I could not do it, but my life would be worse off.

that quote is shit and you know it.

On the open market, wars are expensive.  Think of all the personnel you lose, healthcare costs, property damage, all the weapons and ammunition.  That would do serious damage to a companies bottom line.  Not to mention having to go constantly into the job market to replace lost personnel.  People would soon get pissed off if they were constantly shooting up their neighbourhoods too.  

The only institution that can fight wars is govt because they can forcibly take money, print war bonds and ultimately print money if necessary.

The smart thing for security companies that have disputes would be to agree to go to arbitration.  

Then answer his question. Why would they make war?

To gain market share. it is strategy 101: take out your competition, and be rich.

but collaboration would be a much more likely way they would take, to push the prices and gain power.

Could you imagine a society where everyone was talking to each other about what they stole from another person that day?   No, because everyone knows stealing is wrong.  And most people would not want to live in such a society, not to mention it would collapse pretty quick anyway if nobody's possessions were safe.

It's just when you have the state as a middleman, people get to ignore the stealing.  There is no way in a free society, or any society, that most people would think stealing is OK.  Some might but they would be in the minority and that's what you have security for.

Except that when you "take out" a competitor, you:
Lose men, either directly through combat losses, or indirectly from quitting.
Lose customers to other defense firms who aren't going to waste money attacking when they should be defending.
Don't gain the customers of the defeated rival. They're much more likely to go to one of the other firms which don't waste their money.

So how is that going to make anyone rich?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel#Long-term_unsustainability_of_cartels

also from the article:

That's your best argument? That a single trade cartel managed to stay together for longer than average?

Also from the article:

How likely do you think it will be that a maverick will pop up, in a market with no barriers to entry save overhead?

how fast do you think that the cartel companies are to take out a maverick? 10 against 1, is really no fair chance.

10:1

That doesn't change the fact that when you "take out" a competitor, you:
Lose men, either directly through combat losses, or indirectly from quitting.
Lose customers to other defense firms who aren't going to waste money attacking when they should be defending.
Don't gain the customers of the defeated rival. They're much more likely to go to one of the other firms which don't waste their money.

you cant "take out" your competition in a free market. It will be instantly replaced by new competition. The only way you can "take out" the competition is if you can keep out new competition. There is no mechanism that i am aware of for doing this other than the state.

Disease and The Drive to Hide with Stefan Molyneux and Jeffrey Tucker
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbkYg3saQSc

Haven't thought that one through, have you?

there is less gun violence here in the stupid and evil state of Denmark. I have less chance of getting shot then you.

you really dont think in the absence of government that people would purchase protection against this sort of thing? i mean people pay for cable tv and you dont think they would be willing to pay someone to protect them from being shot in the head?

A lower chance of getting shot just increases the chances you will be assaulted with another weapon. Such as a knife. Or a bat.
And you still haven't answered my question.

proof please.

yes, i have thought it through.

Here you go (http://books.google.com/books/about/More_Guns_Less_Crime.html?id=j6cMYKRgqQ8C).

Evidently not, if you think that no restrictions on guns means that pulling a gun to enforce your opinion will work better, rather than worse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime#Opposition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott#Disputed_survey

just saying...

it always works in the movies... :P

How well when both sides have guns?

good too, but in the movies its always the good guys that wins. in reality i would say that its 50/50, which sucks.

OK, let's take that assumption. In an armed conflict, the good guys win half the time, the bad guys win the other half. Do you think that there are more bad guys, or good?

mostly egotistic idiots.

Do you think that there are more bad guys, or good?

most bad.

Then how can you support the state, given how likely it is that "bad" people will gain positions of power, and oppress the "good" minority?

democracy.

So, you want to guarantee that the "bad" majority will oppress the "good" minority?

can't beat them, join them.

In other words, you include yourself in that "bad" majority.

and it would then be "good".

::)

So now you're part of the "good" majority. Since most people are "good," and the odds of winning a fight are equal between the "good" and "bad," What problem do you have with arming everyone?

i don't like bad people to have guns, they are much harder to kill if they have them.

True, but so are good people, and bad people tend to get guns regardless of laws against them.

Since bad people are going to be armed, anyway, don't you think the good guys should be, too?

How did it go from "Stefan Molyneux has Lymphoma" to this?

The troll twins, blablahblah and kokjo.

mostly blablahblah...

Disease and The Drive to Hide with Stefan Molyneux and Jeffrey Tucker (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbkYg3saQSc)

I think I recognize this guy, is he the one that put up that youtube video with just him saying social security is worse than a ponzi scheme?

ive never known stef to be one to put up a short video about anything. what ever you saw was probably edited out of context.

I've read few articles that sounds promising about eating canabinoid oil to cure/prevent this kind of health issue..
Just to mention !