ProfessionalTeabagger

Terence Kealey destroys the myths of government funded science. A good antidote to the excitement over robots on comets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzvr2Co-S5s

Here's the alpha-male version.

I hope Ken can come back. At least he is open about the terrible things he believes.

Why are troll posts like this tolerated?

It's just the same old fallacies. If taxation is not coercion and the roads are not a monopoly then he should have no problem with the same services being provided privately.

You conflated the capacity for a baby to reason with the capacity for a species to reason.

No Ken. Fuck evil, not fuck your enemy. Here's the difference: YOU = My enemy is evil because it is my enemy. ME= Evil is my enemy because it is evil. Do you understand the logical distinction? Do you understand why I can never be like you no matter how hard you push?

The most recent call-in show. http://cdn.freedomainradio.com/FDR_2849_Sunday_Show_23_Nov_2014.mp3

I have felt this impulse. It's not wrong to indulge it a little I think. There may be others there too afraid to speak up and they might be glad you did.

The numbers Aaron puts forward are startling. However I would hate to see serious and possibly profound discussions bookended with ads for the latest Ninja turtles movie. I would like to see Stef do a video ("Why I don't do advertising"?) were he goes through his reasons one by one and addresses the reasonable objections of people like Aaron. I'm pretty sure he meant there's no practical need for charity because the advertising is so effective.

It's in the comments of the video.

A state is a coercive monopoly of force.

I'm sure there'll be an app to get around it soon.

If there are threats then we'll have weapons and constant updates that meet the challenge of those threats. If there are no threats (a "perfect " society) then we won't need them. People are smart enough to know that they need to keep up with external threats. Warfare certainly pushed technological advancement but it also hindered it. The degree to which technology did NOT get advanced because of the destruction of people and wealth is something we can't calculate. Those brutal training practices are perfectly ethical if the solider volunteers for it. The USSR hurt their population for the sake of military conquest much more then the US but they still lost. So the willingness to hurt your population is not necessarily an advantage. The NAP and UPB allow for effective self-defense.

Defensive weapons technology would likely be massively profitable in a stateless society. Everyone would pay to be heavily defended and they'd always be wanting to upgrade. Imagine each individual armed instead of just a centrally controlled military. I am Northern Irish and I'm old enough to have seen British soldiers constantly ducking behind walls and down alleyways for fear that there might be a few crappy rifles pointing out from the windows of people's houses. Imagine those soldiers going into an entire armed society. We'd wipe the fucking floor with them.

Saying it's their continent doesn't make it so and there's no way they could conceivably have mixed their labor with that amount of land. They have no claim on the continent so if they attack you, you have the right of defense. This is problem with all these kinds of scenarios; once they are analysed they all fall apart.

Structural violence of the free market? Hey PJ! The free market has no "structure". That's why it's free.

You have to describe how it would be the initiation of force. How do 1000 people own a huge continent?

You might be interested to know what Stefan thinks the nature of evil is.

I'm very sorry for your abuse. It was not freedom that condemned you, it was your parents neglect and abuse. They did not respect your property rights or take responsibility. You think the state saved you? How do you know the state's actions didn't actually make your life worse? The state claimed responsibility for you along with your parents and they both failed. Millions have been kidnapped and tortured and murdered because of violations of privacy and/or property rights so to take one example of privacy actually helping evil is not valid. Claiming that not agreeing with your fascist dictates is aligning ourselves against you is a false dichotomy. It doesn't follow that because we're against your advocacy of initiatory violence that we are therefore is collusion with murderers, rapists and thieves. We can be against those people AND you. In fact you ARE those people because you've stated you will commit murder, rape and theft to get what you want. There is no "the people". There's no agent called "the people" and no "will of the people". That's a superstition. There's just people. Instead of grandiose speeches you should make a valid argument.

I sorry but what you saying is preposterous. If "I support the use of violence against you to get what I want" is not rude then nothing is rude.

What trick? I would ask for a definition of "harms way" BEFORE I agree to any premise that you use it in. No one asked you to define meanings every time you make an argument. I just asked for a definition of "harms way". It's actually NOT quite obvious and just asserting that it IS obvious doesn't help. "Harms way" could cover almost anything including being born. It's quite a general term. Define your terms.

Well you've kinda got the haircut for that. It's probably best not to tell your enemies your plan. That's villain mistake 101.

Just to let everyone know it turns out this guy posted this already held the opinion that we on the forums "have no real discussions on their forums because anyone that forms their own thoughts and opinions is voted down... Total dick move.