Self contradictory. To make murder legal REQUIRES law. Outside of law it's a matter of morals. Immoral men will murder regardless of law.
Thus, the first requisite of freedom is general competent armament. For those few men without morals to be made to think twice, or never again.
So you arm yourself to defend you from your neighbours. Then bands of armed robbers appear, and you have to team up with your neighbours to make a common stand. Then armies appear, and several neighbourhood have to build a common defence strategy... and you have your old State again. Your approach is EXTREMELY naive and doesn't work. I really do not like the current implementation of states, or states altogether, but "splitting up" just isn't going to work. What we really need now is a totally different approach. My approach has only been hinted at. One doesn't put the whole of a philosophy in a few words. I said that competent general armament was the FIRST requisite of liberty. Not the only one. Common cause, whether in defense or in industry, does not in itself even suggest a state. People can and will come together in common cause for many reasons. There is NO reason that such groupings have to be involuntary or permanent. And splitting up is PRECISELY what is needed. Extreme decentralization. Centralization is the power to destroy from the top. Decentralization makes that impossible. Don't believe me? Look to the history of Afghanistan. Or America, for that matter, before it completely forgot it's roots. If one man or a small group controls the area, all you have to do to take the reigns is supplant them. This is more often done by subversion than violence, but either works. When every man is independent and armed, who do you go to to take the rei(g)ns? |
|
|
|
Self contradictory. To make murder legal REQUIRES law. Outside of law it's a matter of morals. Immoral men will murder regardless of law.
Thus, the first requisite of freedom is general competent armament. For those few men without morals to be made to think twice, or never again.
"Whoever desires to found a state and give it laws, must start with assuming that all men are bad and ever ready to display their vicious nature, whenever they may find occasion for it."
--Niccolo Machiavelli I'm guessing Lohoris would be the first to found a state if ever we were absent of one. Since murder would then be legal (which would just make it killing, technically,) it would be assumed that all people, everywhere, would begin systematically killing every person they came across, until everyone was dead. Somehow, I don't believe this is normal human behavior. I mean, y'know, unless you're the head of a state with billions of dollars worth of a military to dispose of in some way. Then it would just be a waste not to kill people. I had forgotten that quote. I was very young last I read Machiavelli  But the sentiment behind it has been the driving force behind organized religion and government for, well, forever. The belief in the face of evidence that one little group of power hungry leeches angels devils men are somehow able to compel the ravening masses and make them not violent, against the very basis of their nature. Democracy takes the fallacy a step further in saying that you too can become one of these Ubermensch, if you get popular enough. Yet the obvious failure is that men MAKE governments, and that men EXIST after somewhere between 1 million and 40,000 years of existence, most of which had no superstates. If men were by nature self and species destructive unless controlled by outside forces, then any EFFECTIVE government would have to NOT be men. |
|
|
|
Agree, it's like the whole purpose of this devices is to be as loud an annoying as possible.
What do you mean "like"? The manufacturers do deliberately design these machines to be as loud as possible. They once tried putting mufflers on them, but nobody would buy them because they thought the quieter motors were less powerful. They honestly think the loud ones are better. So that's what the manufacturers make. Which proves that capitalism only works when the consumers aren't complete morons.  Tsk... sound is energy too, and noise is energy lost. Such a shame. Nah, Capitalism works in the absence of belief. Unlike other economic systems. Besides, if they didn't make all that noise, you might have to hear the moron behind the trigger. |
|
|
|
also, if you have more money it is easier to circumvent the law.
Abolish law? so that murder becomes legal? srsly? Self contradictory. To make murder legal REQUIRES law. Outside of law it's a matter of morals. Immoral men will murder regardless of law. Thus, the first requisite of freedom is general competent armament. For those few men without morals to be made to think twice, or never again. |
|
|
|
Obvious troll / flamebait, please try again.
No, I am absolutely serious. Except that you are an idiot. Ad hominem, please try again. And calling me a troll wasn't ad hominem? Please kiddo. tu quoque, please try again. |
|
|
|
He is a traitor who deserves to rot in prison.
The same could have easily been said about Thomas Jefferson. |
|
|
|
I hurt my hand, so it's hard to type. Tried to be brief and failed. You cannot compute the damages specifically until the units actually are being delivered unless the mfgr. actually GUARANTEED a delivery date. From the point they actually start delivering, you could. If they breached the contract with you then that would be a reasonable starting point for your computations.
You probably missed the discussion about what the UCC says on delivery times. It really boils down to whether the delay is within what a judge/jury will view as reasonable. In the case of a contract, the delivery is guaranteed. You cannot make a contract and accept payment for an uncertain delivery, unless the contract explicitly sets out the conditions in which you do not have to deliver or do not have to deliver within a reasonable amount of time. When you promise to deliver, say, by October, that is part of the terms of the contract. So, damages start on November 1, and certainly last until they deliver the item. If there is no delivery at all, that is a bit different question. In terms of the market value of the item, the price for which such items are sold speaks to that too: http://www.ebay.com/itm/261224738700?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649You're right, I did miss some of it. Thought I had read the entire thread  Ah well, live and learn. |
|
|
|
Regardless of the merit of the above statement, grnbrg is correct. The court would only award damages from the time of actual delivery, as substantiated by other deliveries. My wife is a lawyer, so I asked.
I am afraid you got something wrong. No reasonable person would expect damages for the time after it was delivered. So, I am not sure what you mean by "time of actual delivery" in this context. I hurt my hand, so it's hard to type. Tried to be brief and failed. You cannot compute the damages specifically until the units actually are being delivered unless the mfgr. actually GUARANTEED a delivery date. From the point they actually start delivering, you could. If they breached the contract with you then that would be a reasonable starting point for your computations. Now you might be able to infer damage due to lost opportunity prior to that, but it would be a separate issue. I need speech to text, dammit. This hurts  |
|
|
|
Anarchism covers what youre getting at.
The meaning Anarchocapitalist actually conveys is negative, implying an easy interface with today's ultraconservative, entrenched power structures and a willingness to compromise on the use of privatized violent coersion to control resources you deny to the appropriate commons.
Read Rothbard and Konklin. your understanding of anarchocapitalism as stated here is completely fallacious. I have found no other stated anarchist philosophy with LESS willingness to use coercion, except possibly mutualism. Will read. The notion of capital relies on the assertion that "this capital is mine and nobody else's. Appropriation by a workforce, for example, interferes with that assertion. Can any sort of noncoersive strategy (private police, chains, higher limit on wages) be used by the capitalist to maintain control? Using robots makes the question moot. In the meantime, we still have the employee/wage slave archetype toiling away, wasting life, in the real world. I'd like for you to explain the shortcomings of Anarchism without modifiers compared to an anarchism that utilizes a heirarchy of ownership in a way that justifies the extra ten letters. I will try, as I have asked the same question. Right now, I can't type well due to an injured hand. But the gist of the reason for the modifiers is that anarchy itself is so often interpreted to mean chaos. Thus you kinda have to let even other anarchists know where you stand. Unfortunately, there are a few major and a million minor variations of anarchic theory. Less than there are of statist theories, but still problematic. As for agorism, and it's cousin anarchocapitalism, the REAL point of contention between social anarchists and agorists is the definition of property, not the division of labor. Agorists in particular envision the world as about six billion potential independent businesses. My finger is killing me. I'll get back to you later. Get well soon. I might suggest a voice to text program in the meantime if you feel up to it. I find that the name anarchocapitalist will turn nearly all other anarchists and some capitalists off. Perhaps it would be better all around to drop the modifier and the prejudice it brings as a possible misnomer and let such subideology stand on its own, and add to.the sum of anarchist thought without polluting it with the trappings of capitalist ideas. While we cant just grow 50ft tall and alter the ideological structures ourselves, we can use our own language to identify ourselves and our solidarity in more fitting ways. I may try text to speech. But then again this shouldn't take long to heal. I actually prefer the term agorist or voluntaryist. The economic side of the socialist anarchist theories simply doesn't work. I want to start a thread regarding several of these points. I've been working on a book for several years. So of course when I'm basically ready to go I screw up my hand I came to my conclusions regarding governance pretty independently, then found that others had arrived at similar conclusions and had labled them. You kinda have to go with what is to work towards what might be. |
|
|
|
Anarchism covers what youre getting at.
The meaning Anarchocapitalist actually conveys is negative, implying an easy interface with today's ultraconservative, entrenched power structures and a willingness to compromise on the use of privatized violent coersion to control resources you deny to the appropriate commons.
Read Rothbard and Konklin. your understanding of anarchocapitalism as stated here is completely fallacious. I have found no other stated anarchist philosophy with LESS willingness to use coercion, except possibly mutualism. Will read. The notion of capital relies on the assertion that "this capital is mine and nobody else's. Appropriation by a workforce, for example, interferes with that assertion. Can any sort of noncoersive strategy (private police, chains, higher limit on wages) be used by the capitalist to maintain control? Using robots makes the question moot. In the meantime, we still have the employee/wage slave archetype toiling away, wasting life, in the real world. I'd like for you to explain the shortcomings of Anarchism without modifiers compared to an anarchism that utilizes a heirarchy of ownership in a way that justifies the extra ten letters. I will try, as I have asked the same question. Right now, I can't type well due to an injured hand. But the gist of the reason for the modifiers is that anarchy itself is so often interpreted to mean chaos. Thus you kinda have to let even other anarchists know where you stand. Unfortunately, there are a few major and a million minor variations of anarchic theory. Less than there are of statist theories, but still problematic. As for agorism, and it's cousin anarchocapitalism, the REAL point of contention between social anarchists and agorists is the definition of property, not the division of labor. Agorists in particular envision the world as about six billion potential independent businesses. My finger is killing me. I'll get back to you later. |
|
|
|
If you were unhappy with your pre-order not making you any money between then and now, you could have asked for a refund.
With all due respect, and I know you have done a great job in running the Twitter feed and keeping the community up-to-date, you are a shill. A paid-for-and-bought shill. Tell Ivan I say "Hi." Forgive me for adding you to my ignore list. I would recommend you return to the safety and sanctity of your Butterfly Labs shout-box and continue to drink the koolaid with it's participants. Regardless of the merit of the above statement, grnbrg is correct. The court would only award damages from the time of actual delivery, as substantiated by other deliveries. My wife is a lawyer, so I asked. |
|
|
|
You, your source material, Rudy, and Ron don't, according to me, get to to exclusively decide how an agenda driven 'standard english' works. Nor was I trying to. "freedom" has a meaning, agreed up on for many, many years: freeˇdom /ˈfrēdəm/ Noun - The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
- Absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government.
The white moneyed slaveowning wifebeating powdered wig imperialist bastards who agreed on that can kiss my ass. These meanings do not sufficiently convey the depth of the subject matter they are intended to encapsulate and limit.
Then you're trying to cram too much meaning into the word. This is why new words are created, to hold the excess meaning, when the old word is insufficient to convey the concept. Or clarifying words can be added, for instance, your concept of "capitalism" is more properly "State capitalism" and edges into the "new" words "corporatism" or "fascism." "Anarcho-capitalism" is much easier to write than "free market anarchy with strong individual property rights," but it conveys the same meaning, because capitalism is a free market system, with strong property rights, and adding "anarcho-" to that indicates that indicates that it is an anarchy, and thus all rights are held by the individual. Anarchism covers what youre getting at. The meaning Anarchocapitalist actually conveys is negative, implying an easy interface with today's ultraconservative, entrenched power structures and a willingness to compromise on the use of privatized violent coersion to control resources you deny to the appropriate commons. Fighting it? Why dont you go plant a garden, Batman?
If there's a point to your rambling, let me know. Sure thing Batman. Your crusade of crimefighting might go better if you did something other than prop up capitalism, like planting food. DO YOU EVEN PLANT? Or do you hire immigrants to do it for you? ZING.[/list] Read Rothbard and Konklin. your understanding of anarchocapitalism as stated here is completely fallacious. I have found no other stated anarchist philosophy with LESS willingness to use coercion, except possibly mutualism. |
|
|
|
Terrahash, will you be providing a heatsink design assembly for your modular boards, or is cooling the chips up to the buyer?
from the discussion in the klondike thread, I believe they are going to include the heatsink. I have no affiliation so I ain't sure. |
|
|
|
Things were much worse during the Great Depression, and we recovered from that.
Think about this: if the Fed can print money at will, why does it matter how much debt we're in?
Well, Keynes was wrong about everything else, too, except that in the long run we're all dead. |
|
|
|
I suspect the entitlements will "win" in the long run, in that they will be what topples the system.
Thank god for the baby boomers. The first waves are starting to retire, and you can already see the cracks starting. By the time the whole group is out of the workforce, the welfare/warfare state will be drained dry. I've heard that up north, deer can be killed simply by being drained dry by a swarm of mosquitoes. You're thinking ticks, i think, though i've only seen that in some documentary. Whatever. The imagery is even moar suitable. Parasites, at any rate. If you follow the course of the "greatest generation," you see that they're a really powerful demographic. They got some serious changes made back in the 60's and 70's, though not as much as they hoped, in the 80's and 90's, they influenced car and house design (to say nothing of all the other consumer industries), and now in the 00's and 10's whole industries are springing up to care for their failing health. Come the 20's and 30's, they'll likely be responsible for the fall of an empire. "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." - George Carlin I always liked "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public," which i always thought was E.T. Barnum, but turns out it's H. L. Mencken. And when i hear cars in the 80s & 90s, i reach for my revolver (which also wasn't said by the right guy -- it was a line in some play, apparently  ) Mark Twain, actually for the first quote, and that's Phinneas Taylor (P.T.) Barnum. Last one I'm not sure, but it sounds like "bad habit" by The Offspring ("When I show my piece, complaints cease, something is odd, feel like I'm god, you stupid, dumbshit, goddamn MOTHERFUCKER!") |
|
|
|
I suspect the entitlements will "win" in the long run, in that they will be what topples the system.
Thank god for the baby boomers. The first waves are starting to retire, and you can already see the cracks starting. By the time the whole group is out of the workforce, the welfare/warfare state will be drained dry. I've heard that up north, deer can be killed simply by being drained dry by a swarm of mosquitoes. You're thinking ticks, i think, though i've only seen that in some documentary. Whatever. The imagery is even moar suitable. reminds me of a joke by Dave Barry. A definition of politics? Let's look at the root. We have poly, meaning many, and ticks, meaning small biting insects! (yes, I know a tick is an arachnid. It's not my quote.) |
|
|
|
Anarchy is the non-patriarchal, non-monogamous, autark, selfsufficient, matrilineal community, which is not taxed and dominated by masters, rulers, strangers.
Only an agrarian, matrilinear society community could be free from oppression.
Do those two statements look the same to you? Don't forget, what you actually said was: So, only an agrarian, matrilinear society is truly free?
You're doing interpretive acrobatics, and then go round telling others about using dictionary definitions. And all that for what? So you can avoid confronting the truth that there's no such thing as "true freedom"? Hahahaha!  There isn't. That doesn't make it an unworthy goal. |
|
|
|
That would make more sense if the first guy had 2 coats. Taxes take 10%-ish, not everything you have. And not even all of it goes to welfare.
10 percent? Where do you live? Where I live, they take more than that before I even SEE the money, and that's not counting the 7% sales tax, various and sundry license fees, inflation, tarriffs, etc... A better, realistic estimate IF YOU ARE POOR is 50%. Worse as you go up. Fines to punish statutory "crime", tax to punish success. As for not all of it going to welfare, you're right. The vast majority, right now, goes to killing people. But social entitlements are growing exponentially, and even with the inflationary faucets open wide, they can't do both. I suspect the entitlements will "win" in the long run, in that they will be what topples the system. |
|
|
|
|
@PG... Is there anybody/thing that you DON'T consider to be a scam?
|
|
|
|
It's always hilarious when any organization talks about how Bitcoin can be used for illicit activity. The U.S. dollar is still the biggest medium of exchange for illicit activity on the globe and yet no one writes articles talking about the need to control it.
Really? Ever hear of a couple little organizations called The Federal Reserve and the Senate Committee on Finance? Or the MANY protocols affecting banks and money transfers? Such as the BS they used to snipe at Mt. Gox? I think the writing on that is so ubiquitous that you filtered it out. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
