Since AnCap can't prevent non-AnCap governments from taking over, it seems to be an inherently unstable political system.
"Non-AnCap Government" uses force or the threat of force to achieve it's ends. They would be considered (and treated as) criminals in an AnCap society. Seems like you're using circular reasoning in order to perpetually oppose anything that resembles an organised form of authority. Seems like you're using circular logic to perpetually defend coercion. It is not circular logic to say: 1. Coercion is wrong. 2. Government uses coercion to achieve its ends. 3. Therefore, government is wrong. This is correct too. The person who spoke about "circularity" earlier was mistaken (probably because he chose to be mistaken, otherwise he would have had to deal with cognitive dissonance provoked by his belief system). |
|
|
|
And before you say, "but tolls are so obnoxious!" you should know that, once again, private industry solves that problem via either pre-paid subscription models or RFID drive through tolls. In Dubai, the "toll booths" are just small structures that cross over the freeway. They scan a sticker in your car window when you drive underneath at 80 miles per hour. Easy.
Yes, tollbooths are shitty only when they're statist, because there's no incentive to make them not stupid and not slow. When you have voluntary customers, the last thing you want is to ruin their trip with delais. |
|
|
|
The logisitics and corruptibility behind each method (election or random) are not simple however and the details here are probably most important. There are of course different ways to run an election or a random sampling, I am encouraged by new ideas in these ventures.
Yah, good point. Our good overlord Stalin once said that it's not the winner of the popular vote who wins the elections... it's the one who counts the votes... and I guess this applies to random sampling as well. |
|
|
|
[...]
Thanks! :-)
Go fuck yourself. You're the one attempting to hijack somebody else's thread with your AnCrap bullshit. Your behaviour suggests that in fact you are the "gang of thugs". What did I say? Stockholm Syndrome. The combination of "Stockholm Syndrome" and "cognitive dissonance" produces a victim who firmly believes the relationship is not only acceptable, but also desperately needed for their survival. The victim feels they would mentally collapse if the relationship ended. In long-term relationships, the victims have invested everything and placed "all their eggs in one basket". The relationship now decides their level of self-esteem, self-worth, and emotional health.
For reasons described above, the victim feels family and friends are a threat to the relationship and eventually to their personal health and existence. The more family/friends protest the controlling and abusive nature of the relationship, the more the victim develops cognitive dissonance and becomes defensive. Bingo, 100%. |
|
|
|
 I still have things to learn about that sort of thing, I did watch a very interesting video just recently, it has a lot of emotional argument as you'd expect but it did make an interesting point about the trauma that physical abuse from parents causes to children as well as actual damage to the brain? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NrVMGmsHmoI'll have to look up more stuff about this, it was about the Judge William Andrews case where he beat his disabled daughter allegedly for filesharing. |
|
|
|
One final thing I will say though before giving up on this stupid conversation, all these pro-corporal punishment advocates, I wonder if they have ever been on the receiving end of a punch? Or any other kind of physical pain?
I'm pretty sure they have been abused so extensively as to conclude that abuse is okay. Every child abuser was a child abuse victim himself. There is no such thing as the mythical beast that abuses children but wasn't abused himself. The difference between a person who beats up children and a person who doesn't beat up children is simple: the brain of the person who beats up children was damaged by abuse beyond the point of self-repair. Those of us who were abused (yelled, beat up, or sexually) but didn't buy the bullshit "for your own good / it's a necessary evil" are the ones that got saved from repeating the cycle of abuse. (Note: I want you all to notice how closely the excuses for belief in child abuse resemble the excuses for belief in statism.) |
|
|
|
Another person who can't form an argument. What's the point in arguing with someone who thinks using violence to get their way is perfectly acceptable in life? You're just an arrogant imbecile and nothing more. I have to agree. Whoever said "Another person who can't form an argument" in response to an argument (I saw the argument, and I concur, it is an argument and it is valid) is clearly trying to derail and discredit ideas he can't meaningfully respond to. |
|
|
|
They are their own property at birth. If ownership is defined as exercising exclusive control over a scarce, tangible resource then children own their bodies as soon as they develop a nervous system capable directing the actions of their body. This would place the beginning of self-ownership prior to being born. That also shows why parents can't be said to own their children. Only the child can control his own body and parents are restricted to persuading, threatening or physically coercing the child into taking or refraining from actions. This is prima facie evidence of who actually owns the child's body.This is true. However, don't get your hopes up and think that "my children are my chattel" believers will be persuaded by this evidence. |
|
|
|
|
For the record, user blahblahblah is on my ignore list -- I can't read what he says, and that's deliberate -- because not a few hours ago he exploded on a gratuituous tirade of verbal abuse and insults (standard statist response to being out of arguments).
|
|
|
|
I only took one glance at this and immediately knew what it was about though I read through just to be sure, the problem with these 'corporal punishment' advocates is they assume they are correct in what they are teaching their children, they aren't, in a lot of cases I've seen parents use violence against their children they are nothing more than power tripping cuntbags. You should check out one of George Carlins video where he rants entirely correctly about how children should be taught to question what they read and how parents won't teach them to question anything because they're afraid their own bullshit will be questioned as well.
This is all it is, it's power tripping, in most cases the parents are wrong and children are far more intelligent than adults are ever willing to admit, haven't you ever wondered why in a lot of criminal cases etc. involving children or in documentaries about children there often isn't a child to be found? Or for that matter if they are talked to it's usually with a bloody parent hovering over them making sure they don't say anything they don't like. It's a bit like with how stupid parents blame video games for their children's violence yet what they do is leave their child alone for ages, never talking to them and so the child only really has a video game to go on when it comes to what the real world is like.
If you need violence to communicate words then you're a fucking moron who shouldn't have had kids in the first place, ever tried speaking to your child? Or are you so thick you can't form a coherent sentence?
You are brilliant and 100% correct. |
|
|
|
Welcome to global government.
And anyone that would use that statement would not have passed the psych evaluation that is required to get any sort of clearance within a government agency. Hello Puppet. That is exactly what I thought. :-) OP =  |
|
|
|
|
In my view, Bitcoin is the giant rabbit hole where fiat currencies go to die, as you all buy Bitcoin with fiat, but generally don't sell Bitcoin back for fiat (unless you need the money, like, now).
In other words: Bitcoin might be the first instance of good money driving out bad money.
|
|
|
|
(:
this is just the beginning
K, so what's your theory here? like my other predictions, I will explain my reasoning after it happens. I don't want this to look like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Bah. I smell bullshit. Send me a private message with your theory, or write your theory and SHA-256 hash it, then when your theory is fulfilled you'll post the text and instructions to hash it and verify the authenticity. |
|
|
|
history is littered full of currency crisis. the average age of a currency is 30-40 years. people always resort to whatever is stable at the time of collapse.
will bitcoin be stable?
Since stability of a currency derives from the currency's properties, and Bitcoin is non-inflationary and non-centrally-controllable, I would put some solid money on the hypothesis that Bitcoin will be more stable than other currencies. |
|
|
|
We get a similar thing in the UK as well but we call it 'Remembrance Day' it amazes me that people actually have the balls to ridicule others for not wanting to go out and kill a fellow human being.
Livestockholm Syndrome victims bashing non Livestockholm Syndrome victims  The story of Uncle Tom is particularly illustrative, because it depicts exactly that -- one broken man trying to keep the other men as broken as he is. |
|
|
|
(my employer and government work together to take money out [...]
To be fair, it's not that they "work together" -- it's that the government threatens your employer with punishment (caging, bankruptcy, aggressive violence if necessary). I wouldn't qualify that as "working together" any more than I would qualify a rapist and his victim as "making love". As one of my favorite philosopher says: the institution named "State" survives, only because people willfully pretend that the gun in the room isn't there. |
|
|
|
(:
this is just the beginning
K, so what's your theory here? |
|
|
|
|
Agreed with you. Statists have a need for absurd rituals like these -- they need to be told constantly how these murderers-for-hire in costumes are "not really murderers-for-hire, but rather heroes". Otherwise the truth rears its ugly head and destroys the mythology behind these mass murderers.
The truth does not need to be repeated to be believed. Only lies need that. Preferably for about 12 years, with severe life-changing punishments for those who refuse to parrot the lies back in "tests".
|
|
|
|
Verás, la única forma efectiva de hablar con un estatista, es pedirle que te pruebe todas las ideas disparatadas que el tipo considera "verdad" pero que jamás ha analizado racionalmente. Y claro, cuando le haces esto, el estatista te comienza a tratar de cambiar el tema, para que su ignorancia "no se note". Entonces ahí le dices "a ver, no me cambies el tema, termíname de comprobarme si lo que dices es cierto, y ahí si quieres conversamos de ese otro tema, pero ahorita no me hagas la de la sabandija y no te me quieras escurrir como jabón, que esta cosa que dijiste anteriormente no tiene base alguna". Por ejemplo, ahorita el estatista te estaba diciendo algo como que "pero si el mercado está matando de hambre a todo un continente", idea loca y disparatada que no tiene ningún fundamento. Cuestiónasela y hazle que te demuestre si semejante disparate es cierto. Como él no podrá (porque es un disparate absurdo sin bases en la realidad), te tratará de cambiar el tema. Ahí le dices "nono, tú dijiste esto, antes de cambiar el tema, o me aceptas que estabas equivocado y estabas usando una mentira para apoyar tus creencias, o me compruebas que semejante disparate es cierto, o lo siento, pero no te acepto que introduzcas ninguna idea nueva en la conversación hasta que resuelvas este problema que tú mismo te has creado". Y ahí el estatista te hace esto:  Y con eso le ganaste. Fácil! Los "argumentos" de los estatistas, como los "argumentos" de cualquier otro religioso, sólo pueden continuar mientras sus patrañas pasen sin ser cuestionadas y se les permita agregar nuevas patrañas a las anteriormente dichas. |
|
|
|
En ese caso, supongo que vives en medio de la selva, sin iluminación en el bosque, sin asfaltado, sin educación ni sanidad publica, nadie recoge tu basura ni tienes a quien llamar si tu vecino indigena decide robar en tu choza, etc etc.
Siempre la misma historia y el cuento de nunca acabar, cuando alguien sugiere organizar la sociedad sin recurrir al robo organizado político, sale un mequetrefe que dice "ah, es que tú quieres vivir en la jungla, andáte a Somalia". Estupidez que presume la falsa premisa de que los Estados son los únicos entes mágicamente capaces de construir cosas o entregar justicia y seguridad, y dichos servicios sólo se pudiesen obtener con el dinero robado que le llaman "impuestos". |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
