They're all religious movements; they all espouse strict adherence to the state, and if you disagree: KILL THE HERETIC

I would have to see the politics of each; as of right now Cali as a whole is not a very good option to move to, it's over-regulated and the wealth disparities are wild.  If you don't have business there, it should be avoided: http://freedominthe50states.org/overall/california

But who knows, maybe a few of the individual states will loosen up its government grip.  I have my doubts but I suppose nothing is impossible.

Nothing, but on the grand list of things that shouldn't be taxed, income is the worst offender, next to assets, for the sole reason that they punish success; imagine if a parent punished their child every time they did something good, how productive will that child be in the future?

Consumption tax discourages spending which, while encouraging saving, is still a shady way to do so (a person should willingly want to save, otherwise it's a pointless practice as they'll inevitably blow it all somewhere.)  And a public property tax is more socialist dogma that insists people are much too stupid to simply stop buying from offending companies, but a "benevolent and good-intentioned" government can resolve the issue because, paradoxically, the people are smart enough to not only refuse to participate in a corrupt government with rigged voting systems (a prerequisite to actually being able to vote for the right people), but can actually detect "good people" to put in office (the same people who believe rule by fear and authority is the only way the world can work; good luck with that.)


You would still need taxes for security if done that way.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink

Grooveshark is better than Spotify, but it's basically piracy since the artists don't actually give consent to upload music to it, individuals do it themselves.  But as a result, there's a much greater selection; pretty much anything that exists is on there, I rarely don't find what I'm looking for, though I typically seek fairly obscure songs.  AFAIK there's no ads as there is on Spotify, but I'm using adblock so I'm not sure if that's the cause of it.

Neither have The Beatles, though.

Anything you do based upon your individual choice is libertarian; everything else, you do for an authority, fundamentally out of fear of violence being used against you, ergo libertarianism's opposite, authoritarianism.

I don't get neo-nazism; this is doublespeak intended to hide the fact that National Socialism is alive and well.  You got your nationalism--devotion to one's own nation and/or culture--and you got your socialism--public owns the means of production, government has its hand in everything which (according to the definition anyway) represents the public.  That's pretty much every nation everywhere, with varying degrees of severity.

Anyway, here's one of many reasons why bitcoin is necessary:


Considering the US gets a huge chunk of its money from inflating the national currency, this would be impossible without fiat.  I know some of us feel very inconvenienced by not being able to use cash, but when it's a decision between "I'm uncomfortable" vs. "I'm not paying for people to be murdered anymore," it becomes difficult to empathize with the former group.

A weird thing about the state is that it invents the issue of borders (that is, if there were no social handouts, incl. defense, but individually paid services, the only foreigners you'd get are people ready to work hard to make a living), and the only way it can fundamentally solve the issue is by failing to do what the state is intended to do.

The alternative solutions--build a giant wall and/or shoot anyone who doesn't belong--are either more expensive than they're worth or just outright inhumane, and never actually solve the problem, just prolongs it.  Oh, I can hear it already: "Ah but you see, Mike, what you don't understand is, muh roads."

She wasn't fired for her religious beliefs, she was fired for purposefully ignoring orders.  I would've fired her too; if I ask you to do X and you do Y, you have made yourself useless to me, ergo unfit for employment.  Then she lies about why she was fired, claims it was because she was religious, pulls out the discrimination card, and expects to be paid for not working there anymore like the business is her ex-husband.

In other news, feminists are outraged that businesses aren't hiring enough women.

Jesus Christ, I'm getting ripped off.  It's a shame I only get two choices of broadband companies 

I've always wondered why kickstarter and indiegogo place time limits on the funding of projects; what's the rationale behind it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism vs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will Is essentially what you're referring to.

The short answer: no, you were not "programmed" by God's hand, you were "programmed" by your parents, who were programmed by their parents, and so forth.  You have free will, but very little of it, if any at all, before self-actualization, after which you understand what your programming was and how you can change it and thus experience freedom (of life-altering decision; nobody can experience freedom from the laws of science, for example.)  Those who have yet to do this often believe life is a straight line that they can hardly deviate from, which is true from their perspective but false to the post-philosophy individual.

The longer you look, the more you'll realize, God plays less and less of a role in our lives, until you reach a breaking point where you understand that God played no role anywhere; God is only a placeholder until we discover what's really behind the world's phenomena.  One such discovery--the crucial role of the parents in shaping the world--has yet to hit critical mass understanding, and so individuals are often in-the-dark about why they are the way they are; thus, they attribute this to a divine plan: "God made me this way and determined my life to be this way and to deviate makes me uncomfortable."  The uncomfortable bit is usually the fear of your parents in childhood, the fear of deviating from their needs and desires in lieu of your own.  To have free will, then, is primarily to choose whose needs and desires you will accommodate and to act accordingly, whether your own or someone else.  In an environment without "freedoms", e.g. a dictatorship, individuals are programmed to cater to the state's desires; to practice free will in this situation--to decide to cater to your own needs and desires rather than to another, or even to cater to another competing state--is punishable.  This fear of punishment by the state is the same base fear one experiences as a child in fear of their parents; it comes as little wonder why people in general respond so positively to law (of course, there are many anarchists here who do not, for obv. reasons now that this knowledge is presented.)

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman


Nothing here about giving poor minorities free things.  You could at least try.

Here's a good spot to post this: https://imgur.com/a/y0d33

As I understand it, there is both naturally occurring fluoride which is healthy in that amount, and non-naturally occurring fluoride that's essentially bought from China, for the most part, as toxic waste and dumped into the city water supply and passed off as the naturally occurring stuff.  Studies have been done on this compound and have shown that the benefit of having "healthy teeth" (and by that I mean people are getting what's called 'fluorosis' from too much fluoride which fucks up their teeth, and there seems to be no study showing that nations which do fluoride generally have better teeth than nations which don't fluoridate) does not outweigh the health loss and decreased IQ.

Ignoring all of that, libertarians generally understand this better than anyone else: if they're forcing you to take it, it's not good for you.  The argument as to whether we should fluoridate or not is a red herring; they sell fluoride pills that those who think fluoride is good for them can take, it would be far more efficient--as is anything in this world--for individuals to decide for themselves what they will put in their bodies.  There is no debate about that; the debate is between whether or not we actually need to force everyone to do it or not do it, to which the decision is obvious to anyone who still has the ability to empathize.

No; what's more likely to happen is that businesses would begin to sell these drugs in manageable doses (i.e. not at 91% purity, but something marketed as the perfect dose for an enjoyable night for example) whilst street dealers lose their jobs, assuming the government doesn't put some stupid restriction on who can buy what such as a license.  Or perhaps something else would happen; I can't predict the future.  What we do know is that the War on Drugs is not actually stopping anyone from taking drugs, or taking them inappropriately; at best it can scare people into not doing them, which has not proven effective, and at worst it limits a person's knowledge of how to actually take a drug thus leading to more overdosing, not less (which was the argument presented by the mother in this article), due to what is known as the chilling effect (e.g., nobody wants to talk about it because they're afraid they'll become noticed by an unfavorable party, such as the DEAs.)

The fallacy you've committed is known as a false dilemma, where you present a limited amount of choices--either imprison a huge chunk of the population in the name of protecting our children, or letting people overdose because everyone is, by and large, too incompetent to take a drug properly--as the only two possible options that we must decide between, when there is in fact more options; you can read more about it here: False dilemma

It's necessary to the extent that children need parents to survive; point is, so long as the majority of mankind is stuck in perpetual childhood under father warfare and mother welfare, there will never be a popular opinion that government is not necessary.  We know adults can function without their parents, and we know libertarians can function without government; the worry is that others won't be able to function without an authority figure in their lives, which is a legitimate concern as children raised to be good only with the threat of violence if they acted otherwise, will become criminal once there's no consequence for breaking the law (ignorance of real consequence from the people they've harmed, i.e. the sociopaths.)

Government has a limited number of roles that can be successfully handled by individuals acting out of self-interest; government predicates on the notion that individuals cannot solve their own problems, which is true for many (not least of all due to public schooling.)  The people who advocate government as an absolute necessity have not yet themselves realized their own potential as sovereign individuals and the influence they have within an economy; they've yet to hit a philosophical awakening, a place many of us have come from and lived in at some point in time.  But I would certainly say a 'libertarian' statist is closer to this awakening than the conservative, and far closer than the "liberal" zombies.

In the same way a corporation is not a person of itself, to ask what is wrong with a faith is a diversion from the reality of the matter: what you want to ask is what is wrong with these individuals, who happen to agree with each other on a number of things due to similar upbringings.  A man does not become overtly violent the moment he follows Islam; however, individuals raised violently may become involved in this religion, and so it is explained how individuals of X religion or more/less violent than individuals of another religion; the religion is a buffer, it doesn't exist, it only serves to hide the sociopaths of our world through dilution: it's hard to say X group is all violent, and we make the mistake of saying "Well we can't blame all of these people for the actions of a few," perhaps not toward religions or cultures a society despises but more so for their own, when what we really should be doing is classifying these people as a group on their own: we do not have a problem with Islam, or any given faith; we have a problem with sociopaths.

Thus we cannot blame a religion for behavior; the religion does not dictate behavior, it is not a living entity, it is a concept, a product of individuals who agree on a similar set of principles.  If we acknowledge these people operate under a banner, we inevitably get what we have now: a series of nation-states where evil is socialized so as no one person can be blamed (e.g. if America drone-strikes innocents, there is no individual we could ever truly point the finger at; some say the president, some say banks, some say "illuminati", but ultimately it's paid for by the "American people.")  This is how religions, nations, cultures and SJMs (etc.) all tie together: they all act as a shield to protect an individual within a collective from persecution for his actions.  Knowing this, it's a fool's job to insist there is something wrong with a faith as there's always the "exception" within the group who is not as bad as the others, or sometimes downright virtuous (the cornerstone to our collectivist shield.)  This leads to great fights between those who dislike the particular collective (in this case non-Islams, probably predominantly Christian) and those who like/participate in the collective (Islams or supporters of them.)  And vice versa; there's loads of examples of Christians doing naughty things that Islams will always point out, but, as said, the good individuals of a collective always outweigh the bad, so it's impossible to ever call one collective bad without being labelled "intolerant."  So we should see it for what it is: one big group of virtuous people, one small group of vicious people; doesn't matter what beliefs they have, if they're vicious, they're vicious, and I don't associate with vicious people.

Anyway, to answer the question: violent, oppressive childhoods lead to violent, oppressive adults; nix self-awareness, they do only what they're programmed to do, the programmers being their parents for the majority of it (the rest being largely environment.)  Nothing more to it.  If you'd like to see less of these people, make sure you raise your kids as peacefully and rationally as is possible, tell your friends to do the same, and let the vicious people kill each other off.

This thread reeks of lamb.

Futuristic my fucking ass; these are rehashes of the same shit we've been suffering through for the last 10k years.  If mankind is intelligent and rational enough to employ these forms of governments, we don't need them to begin with; we'd solve problems without resorting to "might makes right" and "minority schminority".