I get mine through painting

Governments regulate nothing but people; reason being, nothing responds to rules or the promise of violence like people do.

The first thing Bitcoin will teach you is this: trust nobody.

This is hilarious   But that effectively sums it up; option 3, being the refusal of self-destruction, will never be found on a ballot.


I'm glad you like it; it's one of mine   The logic is sound to me now, though it wasn't perhaps a year ago, before I'd begun to really explore philosophy; it reminds me of a quote by Aristotle, "I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law."  He's not my most favorite philosopher, but I believe he makes a valid point: the law doesn't make sense to a person who is unaware of why the law is there to begin with, and so either the unknowing individual should be educated on such matters (schools conveniently leave out philosophy from the core curriculum, so I've noticed), or the individual must be threatened into following the law, but if it's the latter case, why bother with law at all?--it leaves the person out of the function of law-making, which effectively cuts society in two, creating the disparity between the rulers and the ruled.  It delves into this form of lawlessness that we're all too familiar with, the kind Hitler and the Kim Jong lineage have showed us, where the law is so supreme and sacred that it melts away into the tiny portion of people who create it and thus, no longer represents any form of the philosophy, just the passing whims of whichever dictator is in charge at the time.

Anyhow, the way I see it, if one man is intelligent enough to pass law, and most of us are beyond the idea that some men are gods, it should reflect that we're all capable of following and acknowledging commonly agreed upon laws without need for a supreme being to guide us, and yet we're still here, still following man-gods out of fear of the unknown, as though we've made no improvements since ancient Egypt.  Strange times.

They've been disabled since the hack; I believe they're still disabled primarily for security reasons.  Would like to change mine now, I've never gone this long without an avatar change

That's a good point you're making; I didn't learn that America was an empire (nor was I really aware of what empires were at the time) until I'd gotten into my college U.S. Government course, where my professor keyed me in on the fact.  I believe this is intentional; as the methods of ruling become even more deceptive, I'm finding that the reasons why the state must own the schools is specifically to instill this modified version of history; it's best when your cattle are unaware of their ultimate demise, especially when they're so intelligent otherwise and about other things, otherwise they might get to thinking (as folks like you and I have taken to) that their owners don't have their best intentions in mind; ignorance is strength, and there's no force greater than an angry, unknowing nation of 300 million finding anything at all to put their blame into, anything at all but the source of their anger; they're designed not to figure it out, and it so far has been a success.

You're pathetic.

I'm afraid I only respond to calls to reason.

It's worth pointing out that this is about the ratio between people who have killed in God's name and people who have killed in Satan's name.

You must either trade fiat for them or work for them; it is money.

Why wouldn't you be able to sell what you have?

The same tune has been sung for every empire in history   If it's not the US, it's somebody else.

When government gets in the way of progress, side with progress.

Armory is the best, but if you're looking for something lightweight, you could spring for electrum.

You bring up a good point; history is written by the victors.  The scenario presented is very common throughout history; when an empire needs a massive military to conquer other nations, they borrow far more than they could ever hope to pay back, tax with the only hopes of paying off the interest, and devalue their issued currency for a transfer of wealth from the users to the state; this is certainly not going unnoticed today, even with the intentionally complex system, and I have no doubt this wasn't nearly as hidden in his day; then again, there was no need to, since the people of this time period were, on average, very simple.  However, Fawkes's intentions, even if the history is fabricated to some degree, are clear; even if he wasn't intending to restore a monarch, if it's true that he was intending to kill one, he would still not be accomplishing anything great, since a new monarch was bound to have taken the throne anyway; once a state is deeply ingrained into the minds of its people, it's fruitless to attempt to root it out through killing the figurehead; they just seek another monarch who will, especially after the point of no return, continue the last monarch's plot.


It seems as though it's a warning to rulers who perform poorly that nobody forgets what could happen; reminds me of this quote:

"I don't think we should be governing ourselves. What need is a king, and every now and then if the king’s not doing a good job, we kill him." -- George Carlin

That's quite the accusation; can you present evidence of this website or its owners actively defrauding its users?

Reading dank's posting history is a trip; he starts off completely normal, then somewhere just totally shifts personalities.

Glad you think so; PM me if you ever need guidance

Good luck out there

In other words, Fawkes did not represent anarchy, he represented terrorism; thoughts?