Actually I can promise you that I won't steal your property because I have all of the property I need and more (which isn't that much). Even if I lose all of my property, I can rely on the welfare state to provide for my needs so I will not have a valid reason to steal from you.


There are plenty of other alternatives. The one I favour is respecting each others opinions while disagreeing. My morality will prevent me from initiating violence anyway and even in the case of self defence, I will look for alternatives (such as running away).

My views on theft depend on the consequences. I don't believe that it is an absolute wrong like murder or initiatory violence. We have a fundamental difference in opinion where you believe in the sanctity of property and I don't.

Not always. I don't think taxes are immoral if they are used to provide public services and welfare (but not where they are used to fund war or wasted on needless bureaucracy). Someone starving stealing food is not immoral either in my opinion.

Motile is an English word.

I'm starting with a goal, attempting to find actions that will make progress towards it and discounting any actions that I find immoral. There are some countries with dictatorships causing a strong active restriction of the liberties of the people who live their. An action that could increase the liberty of those people is to go to war with those countries and overthrow their government then help the people to create a society that is more free and more democratic. I believe this is wrong even if the outcome is a long term improvement because I believe that war is always wrong.

I'm a socialist but not a statist and I don't even know what an American-liberal is.

Liberty is the extent at which you can do whatever you want.

In my opinion each individual should have as much liberty as possible without infringing on the liberties of other individuals. In the best societies there should be a very high average degree of liberty and nobody should have much less liberty than this average. It a difficult topic because there is no real way to objectively and quantitatively measure liberty.

Liberty is restricted in 3 ways:

• Naturally: restrictions due to the laws of nature and natural occurrences. For example, however much you would like to exceed the speed of light, you can't. Another example is illness, which can restrict your freedom to live your life the way you want.
• Passively: restrictions indirectly due to the actions (or inaction) of others. An example is ownership any scarce resource - if you own it, others can't. Another example is using DRM to prevent people from downloading and using digital goods.
• Actively: restrictions which are directly caused by the actions of others. Examples include violence, law and taxes.

Natural restrictions can and should be reduced through scientific research and development.

Passive restrictions can and should be reduced through voluntary sharing of both scarce and plentiful resources. They can also be reduced through an increase in active restrictions (eg. taxation with wealth redistribution).

Active restrictions can and should be reduced by limiting the powers of governments and corporations but going too far may enable more active restrictions from one individual to another (eg. removing murder laws will reduce active restrictions from government but may cause an increase in murders). Also a reduction in active restrictions may cause an increase in passive restrictions.

No you don't. 

<- waits for Anonymous to hack Facebook.

Normally, there is a program called 'gparted' (probably in System->Administration->Gparted or System->Adminitration->Partition Manager) on the live CD that you can use to modify partitions. If you already have a swap partition, you can use gparted to resize it. If you don't, you will need to shrink one of your existing partitions and create a swap drive in the newly created empty space.

There is a detailed gparted tutorial here which should teach you how to do most common operations.

As others have said, you may be better off making a persistent USB.

You don't need to use the top command. You can launch 'System Monitor' which is usually found in the System->Administration menu. Click on the 'Resources' tab:

Although for some reason the project logo is Google and the project is tagged with 'Google'

Oh! Oh! and look at the porn spider they are working on: pr0nbot.

 

As long as you only access the wallet from a live CD and don't move it to another drive it will only ever exist in that location and in memory, which is wiped when you end the live session.

Done. And this thread is the first result.

I admire this guy for many of the videos he makes. He's always had some irrational views though and it's good to see he's now taking a more rational approach.

btw what's what's with the Anonymous subliminal message?

None of the above.

Instead, public control of public services through a mixture of localised government owned democracies and privately owned cooperatives.

I almost forgot: Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig (non-fiction). It's free to download from www.free-culture.cc ( which appears to be down  so here's an alternate link) but you can also buy it if you wish.

You explain why it is unacceptable. Surely, we start off by assuming something is acceptable. If you want to say it is not acceptable, you need to provide reasons to show this.


Everyone has a right to health. Therefore it is wrong to actively harm someone's health. Removal of a kidney has undeniable health risks and so by forcefully removing a kidney from someone you are violating their right to health. I also believe people have a right of control over their own body. You are obviously violating this right if you remove one of their organs without permission. The person with no kidneys is in poor health and so attempts should be made to correct this but this can't violate another person's rights. If a person decides to donate a kidney then that is their choice and is ok, although it is preferable to take kidneys from people who no longer need them - the dead.


This is violating the right of education of these 'intelligent kids' and is therefore wrong. The 'slower' and 'intelligent' kids both have the right to education and they should both be provided for.

So I think most of us are actually agreeing here without realising it  .

Wealth, if defined as a physical measure is limited because our natural resources are limited.

If it is defined more loosely as a definition of well being, it is not limited.

Minimal is as close to equal as is practically achievable. Equal would be ideal but would require everyone to have a strong work ethic which is unrealistic. 'Minimal' recognises that people who don't work because they are lazy don't deserve to earn as much as those who do work or those who are unable to work. The lazy people still have all of their rights but don't deserve the luxuries they could afford with a higher wage. However, people who do currently low paid jobs such as manufacture are as (realistically more) important than people in extremely high paid jobs such as banking.