carlip

I started watching this thing with my friends about 3 days ago, we were commenting about how this is proof that democracy as well as socialism is a failed model, just based on human nature. What I speak of is the "Twitch Plays Pokemon" stream. It is a modified gameboy emulator running the first pokemon game. The player commands are taken from a chat room which anyone can join and send commands. The whole thing is broadcast live via the Twitch.tv network. It's a really interesting experiment show casing a great multitude of cultural development in a very short span of time. The growth has been explosive over the last day and a half. Well over 8 million views in just over the 5 days it has been running! about 50,000-73,000 active participants at anyone time. Here is some more information: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/twitch-plays-pokemon Here is the live stream: http://www.twitch.tv/twitchplayspokemon Here is the Reddit page: http://www.reddit.com/r/twitchplayspokemon/

"Every picture of you is of when you were younger." -Mitch HedbergIsn't all science historical science once it has been observed? Admittedly I couldn't watch this whole thing, I didn't make it much past the opening statements. Ham is a so far out of touch with reality I just was not able to put myself through his fallacious arguments anymore. Feed Ham to Stef, Dawkins, or Hitchens.

You need to think about the internet like a road. Tor browser is not 100% secure, nothing is. The govt agencies has nearly infinite resources and all the time in the world to track people. If you get online via a service provider your data packet could be monitored since you are using their road, no matter what car you are driving Tor, Mozilla, or otherwise.All the govt needs to do is pass a law making it illegal to mine bitcoin without a license, then limit all traffic coming in and leaving the US. Which I am sure someone would come up with darknets and what not, but the risk would add to the cost of bitcoin. All I am saying is that if the govt is interested in it, they will weaponize it, like they do with everything.

The government has allowed bitcoin because when they take control of it they WILL be able to debase it as well as track every purchase you make. This is the stuff of hitlers dreams. All you need is 50%+1 of the nodes and you can control which bitcoin transactions are legit, thus being able to fake them. If the govt wanted to, they could track everyone's computer to see who is running "illegal" nodes in order to take control. All the framework for this is already setup by the NSA.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html Fallacies You might find some interesting discussion on http://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/

http://existentialcomics.com/comic/1I found this comic while browsing the web. While I cannot say I agree with all the premises laid out, it was an interesting read. The guy obviously spent a great deal of effort on it and I think it is worth getting him a few hits for the pleasure I got from reading it. I hope you enjoy it as well

I have a cousin who posted this on face book. She has a 5 month old son and a 4 year old daughter. The father is in the military.http://www.scarymommy.com/the-big-fat-fuck-you/ What's worse is the number of comments describing other mothers have the same thing going on.

My roommate said "he's fine there" and went back to sleep, after I explained he was passed out in a running car, in our driveway, with loud music playing. My initial thought was to drive him home and have my GF follow. But I have no clue who the guy is and I concluded it was not my job to take care of drunks. I just don't think calling the police was the proper choice, but neither was letting him drive and risk hurting someone, and letting him keep us up was not happening either. I too am upset the state got a free case handed to them, from someone who claims to be a libertarian of all things!

Last night a drunk guy my roommate knows drove 3-4 blocks from a bar to our place. He pulled in the driveway, got out of his car and tried to walk into our house. All the doors were locked so he returned to his car parked in the apron of the driveway. I went outside to see who he was and what he thought he was doing. After talking to him I let my roommate know he was there, drunk, with his car running and music blasting. My girlfriend and I could hear it from inside with all the windows shut. After we finished watching breaking bad she decided that she was sick of all the stupid drunk people we have to put with and she called the police. The police came and did what they do. He was taken to jail. My problem is that I know how much it sucks to get a DUI and be in jail. I've been sober since the police decided to tazer me while trying to bring me to detox for "my own safety", that was 10 months ago. I just don't feel it's right to only use the police when you are bothered. My GF has even suggested that we wake up our neighbors at 1am to warn them before the police give tickets to our street. I told her I wasn't very happy with her choice but she continues to defend it, and with what she sees as good reason. She works in a brain injury support home and many of them are there because of DUIs. Part of me is mad at her hypocrisy but part of me understands why she did it.

I think you're both missing a step here. In the rape example, if a man wants sex he cannot use the golden rule to commit rape, unless he wanted to be raped by someone which would not make it rape anymore because he desired it. Sex would be the effect of the action, but the moral choice of using force to get it is where the problem lies. And the same for the guy wanting to be hit. Does he want person 2 to hit him because he is bigger than person 2? So what if a bigger guy than person 1 comes along, does he still want to be hit? That example goes somewhat deeper as there are likely more variables.

All well and good in light of a state existing, but I would venture to guess that these cases are most likely murder cases. And I would further guess that the murders would have been committed by people in such a position to want murder because of state influence. Either drug violence because if state created black market or lack of education in state schools creating a poverty class who find crime more lucrative than work. These types of people would do great things a free society and already exist for insertion into a volunteerism type frame work. So it's not a huge issue overall because they are already doing what they would anyway. We need to focus on the other side of the topic as to end the government, promote a free market, all while opening the doors to coopertition based education.

Tasmlab No that was a great explanation. Yes I meant W4 or w9 or which ever W form you get stuck with. I've given up on this particular individual as he just claimed "you're dumb, having no government would never work", that was the end of me donating my time to his dissolved mental state.

Limiting a companies right to sell material created under someone else's right to free speech? No thanks. I thought we were about free market principles, don't like it? Don't buy it. Get other people to not buy it and soon it won't exist. There is no point in producing something that people do not want to consume. The material might be objectionable, but how do you know there isn't a group of child abusers who are aiming at banning the kind of ideas we follow?

Well considering that corporations as we know them can buy government, I'm not sure that's a very good approach. A good deal of young people have a Marxist view in which corporations are bad, which could set them even further from our view. As far as a one stop shop for a variety of services, well that's already the idea, if you can afford it. It's a tough spot for us to be placed in. We took off our blindfold and can now see the wall coming. I don't blame people for being worried about the end of government. I think the best thing we can do is just let it all go. Anything our dear leaders try will be like trying to plug the hull of the titanic with a biscuit.

It seems like some of you are looking too far into the comparison, a statist will not do that remember. W/govt: option a) have a job pay taxes Option b) no job, economically destitute W/O govt option a) have a job, pay DRO Option b) no DRO representation, no job, economically destitute All the statists I interact with seem to believe that if a law doesn't specifically impact their life, then the law must be good. It's impossible for them to see how govt making a company to use W-2 is coercion. I'm just trying to see if anyone else has this problem, and it seems at least one other person does. All the rest of this thread is just grandstanding about how much you think you know. I want to know how you're implementing it!