Human nature is malleable.

I'd put together a team and start producing video games, comic books, animations, and other media of this nature; no sense in wasting the mil on a car and a house, you can get a reliable car for ~10k at most, and a house doesn't have to be huge, I've seen many simpler homes out in the country go for 75k or less; I could always rent out a home too and just not worry about it.  Bills aside, that leaves me with a huge amount of leeway to focus on building a company which, if successful, will grow that small fortune into a large fortune, as well as providing quality entertainment for all to enjoy.

I did just for kicks.  It'd be a very good lesson for people as to what the real effect of a minimum wage is.


Fair enough; the best solution is to stop interfering with the lives of individuals.  If a man feels he is worth $1/hr, so be it; if he feels he is worth $100/hr, so be it; who are we to tell him his "minimum worth"?  It assumes he is as an animal, or that we are as gods: either he is too stupid to make decisions for himself, or we are so beyond him we should dictate his wages.  People aren't animals, people can reason, and if a man reasons $1/hr as his ideal wage, so be it.  The only thing a minimum wage does is create unemployment, as anyone who is not worth $7.50/hr (or whatever has been decided) is not going to get to work, and thus cannot get the experience necessary to be worth more than $7.50/hr.  Now you've created a dependency class; this is fundamental in our welfare/warfare society, as these people will literally go along with whatever you're doing so long as you feed and clothe them.

A right is an excuse to steal from others (unless it's property rights, more aptly named "property".)  If your "right" involves forcing people to do anything against their will, you have to make a moral decision:

1. "People have the right to not be stolen from, attacked, or enslaved."
2. "People have the right to steal, attack, and enslave for 'social good', the definition of which is at public discretion."

So, how is a "right" to education theft?  Well, it revolves around either of these two concepts:

A. Teachers should work for free
B. Society should be forced to pay teachers

To have a right to education means people will become educated at any cost; it's like saying you have a right to own a house, the economy doesn't respond to this whatsoever, it doesn't mean anything except for an intent to steal from home-owners or from the public to build everyone a home at the taxpayer's cost.  There is no possible way to have a "right" to a house which doesn't involve forcing individuals of a market to act in a different way with the threat of violence.  We must either mug the teachers or the public to pay for a person's "right" to education, and since mugging teachers severely cuts the amount of teachers we'll have in an economy, we typically opt for the 2nd option, as it's more subtle; people don't notice a few dollars and cents added and taken from their purchases and income, though it amounts of a very big number over time.  This way, we can overpay for really awful schools and allow colleges to overcharge several times for tuition just so we can work at a substandard job.

But never to fear: people who advocate a right to education can solve this problem simply!  All they must do is become teachers and give away classes themselves, thereby ensuring anyone who wants an education can receive one; for some reason, I sincerely doubt anyone who actually thinks this way is willing to adhere to their principles.  Meanwhile, I'll be waiting for the right to a civil society...

Why the handicap?


When has this ever worked?  Both the part about a government staying minimal, and actually stopping people from murdering each other.

I haven't touched Facebook for years; is it still the same Farmville-spamming dramallama it was when I left?

It makes sense: evil people are supported by evil people; why would evil wish to oust evil?

Yes, and the real valuation of the dollar can fall to abysmal levels.  If we asked this same question concerning gold, it would be an entirely different issue.  Fiat currencies aren't a special logical exception; their worth always falls to zilch, so the above question is correctly answered as "Yes, so long as bitcoin outlives the USD, one can be worth $1 billion."

You may believe the argument to be ridiculous, but so long as you concede that the argument is factually correct, your feelings on the matter are negligible.

I don't see why God would have an issue; he's ruined far more lies in far worse ways.

There is no such thing as "freedom from"; this implies you have no control over yourself and must control the actions of others, which is the precise opposite of freedom.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpCUKIzDYpQ

You don't have a right to not be prosecuted.  You have a right to not subject yourself to prosecution.

I was bullied in-person all throughout school--real bullying, as in actual physical pain--and yet someone who literally subjects themselves to being bullied online is what we're worried about now.  Those people who committed suicide over cyber-bullying, I guarantee this, had years upon years of child abuse saved up from neglectful parents and those fucked up government schools to the point where cyber-bullying was merely a straw on the camel's back.  I didn't begin to contemplate suicide, I fought back, made stronger friends, protected myself: said no and meant it.  I didn't have a choice; the obvious option was to simply remove myself from the school, but since I was forced to go there and the bullies were forced to go there, my options were limited.  These are the conditions of real bullying.

When you get cyber-bullied, here's the steps you take to stop the abuse:

1. Stop subjecting yourself to the abuse
2. There is no step two, that's it

You can ignore the person on Facebook, you can block them from contacting you on IMs and emails, you can blacklist the bully from contacting you, you can choose not to engage with people who engage with the bully etc. etc. etc.: your presence on the Internet is under your full control.  Even this website lets you ignore people; it's to the point where if you get cyber-bullied, you literally have to be asking for the abuse, which isn't too uncommon for someone who is very much used to being abused elsewhere.

Calling someone a victim of cyber-bullying is another way of saying, "Parents can't be blamed; put the blame on something or someone else."  I am tired of people pushing victim complexes onto others to defend themselves; just admit it, people who commit suicide from cyber-bullying indicate a long series of failures on the parent's part.  There is nothing to change about cyber-bullying; it's going to happen so long as the Internet allows two individuals to communicate with each other.  You cannot force people not to interact with each other if they choose to.  We should ask why people convince themselves that they must subject themselves to the bully; what bully could the individual had to be subject to growing up?  What could have caused the individual to have such little sense of self-worth that suicide seems like the only good option?  These are the questions you don't hear when it comes to these individual activist movements because it has been precluded that the problem could never be the parents, it has to be (flavor of the week) that's driving kids to depression and suicide!  Nevermind the fact that a psychologically healthy individual would have no problem dealing with a bully, let alone one online.

Other people would argue that we're too close to the socialist end of the spectrum due to the very anti-private means of production nature that is government laying its hand over everything.  I think both you and those other people are correct: you're looking at the same thing and interpreting them differently.  What's really happening is a centralization of the means of production into a few hands, and political preference on economies usually revolve around its decentralization back into the hands of individuals.  It's for this reason why the left/right dichitomy is false; socialists see libertarians and think, "These people are going to drive us to fascism", and then libertarians see socialists and think, "These people are going to drive us to communism" (and same effect with democrats/republicans, liberals/conservatives etc.); the two ideologies are really the same thing (complete centralization of the means of production), and neither groups are actually advocating for this to happen except through accepting central government and businesses which use it to their advantage.

So it would seem, the true difference in political thought revolves around pro-centralization or pro-decentralization.

The background check for gun ownership intrigues me; here's how it would work without political involvement:

1. Individuals refuse to purchase from gun sellers unless they subject themselves to a reasonable background check agency
2. Gun sellers refuse to subject themselves to a BCA which has unreasonable requirements for a sale
3. The BCA which provides the safest and least-restrictive guidelines earns money through each successful sale; the cost if the BCA is passed on to the individual through a hike in prices
4. Individuals who run illegitimate businesses risk social ostracism, with each infraction leading to a greater punishment; dispute resolution organizations handle these, who make money through collecting punishment fees
5. DROs which attempt to punish illegitimately are merely ignored; those which are best at their work get all the business.

However, there is a fatal flaw in this process: individuals can make their own guns, and they can now do so much more easily with the advent of 3D printing.  This means, whether you're doing background checks peacefully or through government, you cannot prevent the individual from having what he will own, as this necessitates regulation on who can own gun-creating blueprints/knowledge, materials, and printers or regulation on what can be printed on those printers, which would necessitate a steep decline in comfort and, principally, freedom.  So it really boils down to this, however you approach this problem:


The cost of upholding a background check on guns is made pointless as you cannot stop individuals from creating weaponry or stealing other's weaponry without Orwellian levels of monitoring; we are shown once more that, if someone really wants to do something and there are no victims, they will do so; it's only a massive inconvenience and waste of resources at best to impede a crime without victim.

OT, if Hilary doesn't understand this (proven by her sentiment for gun control), she's clearly not fit to rule me; besides, I have 22 years of governing myself, while she has none.  Until there exists a person with more experience in this than I, I would prefer to be unfettered.

It's hard because they're a business selling a product; if they tell even 1% of the NA/EU crowd to "fuck off", they risk losing millions of potential customers.  As a business, you don't want someone else coming in and taking those profits you could've made, nor do homosexuals want to use different products merely to accommodate; there is no guarantee of greater quality through doing this, and considering it's Nintendo, the odds are stacked toward Nintendo providing the superior product.  Segregation will look very bad on Nintendo's image if they decide to make a homo-friendly version, which limits the possibility of success they'll have even if they try it.

It's a really simple fix--more work went into preventing same-sex relationships than if they'd left it alone--so I don't see the issue in accommodating a minority for higher profits.  That is, unless the anti-homosexuals start making noise.  I'm not sure which group is more ardent about inclusion/exclusion.

"Introspection"

And as promised, here's a corresponding timelapse video to show how I went through creating it.

I'm a hardcore statist.  Answer me this, """libertarians""": who will build the roads?

Statists: 1
Libertarians: 0

Here's a simple cover I did some time ago.

Not true; these homes are fit for people who really don't have much (a good thing), but for anyone else who wants a home that's of at least minimal quality, home building will still be a popular profession, and architects can still be found designing printed homes and regular homes.  Besides, people are nothing if not adaptable; there's always more work that needs to be done.

If you can lobby, you cannot make it illegal.  If you cannot lobby, there is no need for a law against it.  This is one of the more clear-cut of how law is revered as a magical solution or how law is affirmation of what is already real i.e. redundant i.e. unnecessary.