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!

Just tell him that it is not free. You can't just go live in the woods, if you're caught you will be arrested for trespassing, poaching, and a myriad of other wildlife violations. So no you're not free. And you can't just leave because of boarder guards in other countries. The argument is an emotional one adopted from and used by teachers, usually, who know full well you can't just quit school until a certain age.

@crazymilk I'm not sure there is much to expand about it without just creating a overly wordy rehash. My basic premise is to try to get them to understand that through the exchange of labor for money, when purchased by a public entity, has been done for all to use without paying more. If the person doesn't understand basic property rights, there is no hope in saying any of this to them, and they are probably hopeless. Most people know its wrong to expect further compensation for a job already done. We could role play or just ask specifically what you want to hear about ill get back to ya

I think it would also be highly variable on the reason for the attack. If it was because he thought your hair was stupid, I'm sure a selfdefense claim would be upheld by almost any arbiter. If he attacked you because you said you were going to kill his kids next time they walked on your lawn, you might be going about things the wrong way and while that would not excuse a physical encounter, it seems that you are some what culpable in the altercation. As far as punishment goes I feel that it must be administered by the "victim" as soon as the attack is launched. There can logically be no down time in punishment between action and reaction. Otherwise this could open a Pandora's box into a very gray area in which people might just attack one another at anytime if they were previously wronged. I feel that we have plenty of non-lethal self defense mechanisms these days to repeal most attacks regardless of size/power disparities.

I take the position as follows, "no I didn't build it, but the people that did were PAID to build it, and have been compensated already." This can take you to the topic of either slavery or voluntary exchange of labor and time for money, either of which will reveal that property has been exchanged and it does not matter it's source.

You can point out that they are only paying taxes because it is illegal not to, but many people are so resistant to the idea that they come up with any excuse possible to dodge having to admit it is wrong to enforce taxes. The main thing is that I hear a lot is that there is no other option. I can try to get them to listen to molyneux but that works 1:5 times at best.

Yes I'm familiar with the DRO model. While not being forced one has the option to live "rogue", as one big chatty forehead said. We has that option currently, I could live as a hobo. I'm just looking for a way to explain why taxes are bad without having to do a whole DRO summary for someone.

I was talking with a coworker and he mentioned an interesting point. I was pushing the taxation is theft idea and he rebuked that it is not because we sign a w-2. Aside from the immorality of the law requiring a w-2 in order to be a legal employee, how is it any different than a DRO model? I am not required to have a job in either system. Both systems cost me money. I must agree beforehand to both systems. I don't necessarily believe they are the same but that point is somewhat sticky.

My grand father died a couple weeks ago. He was 88, and had been ill since having a stroke 3 or 4 years ago. I was never very close to him. I have probably spent a total of 1 month of my life around him at family functions, I am currently 27. The last time I saw him was 2 years ago for lunch while I was vacationing in Arizona. I live in Minnesota and its not often I can just drive off or get on a plane to go much of anywhere. I have one memory embedded in my vision of him. I should start off by saying he is extremely religious. When I was around 8 I was playing NES at his house in Arizona while on a family vacation. It was a Sunday morning, and time for church. I thought I was on vacation, but apparently you can't get a vacation from God. Everyone was loading into the cars, except for me. My grandpa came into the room and smacked the controller from my hand and grabbed me by arm and pulled me up and said I had to go. Up until that time I had no ill feelings towards him of any kind, but that day is something I've never forgotten. I feel as though he just used us as a prop to look good in front of his fellow church members. It was scary for me at the time as I did not understand why I was being, what I felt as, attacked. I never talked to him about it later in life because I did not want to look like a non-forgiving asshole in front of my family. But I think that it wouldn't have mattered what I felt or had to say because he would have put religion first anyway. So now he is dead, and while I have empathy for my family, I can't find the emotion to really care. I'm not sure if I should just act as if I'm as sad as the rest of my family, who aside from my immediate family I do not really ever see. (I don't even see my immediate family all that much either, but that can e for another time.) Should I just try to blend in? I also feel like I should stand up for my inner child as say something, but I'm not sure to whom I would say it. I should also mention that there is a funeral on aug 19th, to which I have taken off work and already bought airline tickets for me and my girlfriend.

The only thing I've EVER heard that could even be slightly convincing is as follows, "if you believe in god and he is not real, not thing happens. If you believe in god an he is real, you go to heaven. If you do not believe in god and is not real, nothing happens, if you do not believe in god and he is real you go to hell." 50% chance nothing happens, 25% hell, 25% heaven. For me I will take my 50% and life my life as I see fit.

I stopped viewing about a year ago. It was just so obviously wrong to see one station give this view point and another station two channels over give an opposing view point, of the same situation. Fact are facts are facts. It seems like our whole society is geared towards public displays of negativity. For instance the police. They pull you over for breaking the law, and then ticket you. There is a huge public display of it. It's not like anyone knows who you are sitting your car with flashing lights and sirens behind you. It's all a show to get you to feel bad in front of others. They issue you a ticket to appear in court, public court, where you will be lectured by a judge, possibly even in front of a jury of your peers. It's not enough they take your money, they want to shame you. I feel like this goes a long way to show a decayed society. Just think how much better out road would be if police also pulled people over for doing good things, like letting someone in front of them so they didn't have to wait 10 minutes for an opening. Or if someone actually stopped at a yellow! In general people would drive significantly better. Which goes to show that humans base learning and behavior on rewards more than punishment. Take this to a media source and you see the public shaming at a much higher level. You see the "jury" expanded to thousands if not millions. It is definitely a tool of the statist mindset to show this on the news, sort of like the head on a pike outside of town.