prolix

Hey, I love cat pictures...

Bump?

Hello All, I wrote, recorded and published an album of musical numbers for your listening pleasure. The lyrical and artistic themes on this work are heavily influenced by this community. So, I hope you will enjoy music written for you by someone like you. http://angtta.com/?page_id=387 http://www.cdbaby.com/Artist/Angtta https://play.google.com/store/music/artist/Angtta?id=Aw6ywhhnqpk53dkduyywzp6kc3y http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_srch_drd_B00NA8VPQM?ie=UTF8&field-keywords=Angtta&index=digital-music&search-type=ss https://itunes.apple.com/us/artist/angtta/id915253037?ign-mpt=uo%3D4 https://soundcloud.com/angtta https://www.facebook.com/pages/Angtta/625708277543010

Good stuff... You forgot http://www.lyfeparc.com/

Well, people should know where you head is at and how you behave elsewhere regardless of what you pretend to be here...

Hey wigins, let me quote you from Joe Rogan's message board where you perpetually hurl vitriol at Stefan; http://forums.joerogan.net/showpost.php?p=17231912&postcount=984 Is that you or is the username just a coincidence?

Ah jeeze dude...

Yea, I get the "government grows like cancer" perspective. But I was stressing the angle of libertarian-minarchism as a transition towards no state at all. Like MMJ laws per state leading to national legalization. It is a transition, if it will be at all, moving from abject statism to a free society. And I think a libertarian minarchism is part of that transition. Now, I am 100% anarchist. Just pointing it out... You totally got my 2nd point tho. That a free society is just the beginning of fixing society, but we gotta fix society before we get a free society, so, this is the tough up-hill part...

Is it so hard to look like you want to look 99.9% of the time, then, when you fly dress like your ID. Otherwise just get a new ID. Also it is not hard to get 2 ID's. Just say you lost one, boom, now you have 2 IDs for your 2 sexual identities...

No. In regards to a libertarian minarchist state it is problematic. Like "I wouldn't belong to a club that will have me" or "The club for people that hate people; we can never get a meeting together" or "the political group that is largely apolitical". But I am not differentiating here...

Majority of Americans are libertarian. Problem is the majority of americans are also apolitical; so they don't vote or they just vote whatever. Thus, no wonder they don't get represented in the capitols. Also it doesn't help that there are never any viable candidates or party, including ron paul, for libertarians; hence most vote left/right if they vote at all. I understand the position here on politics, voting, government etc. but come on, wouldn't it be kinda cool to have a viable libertarian party that was effectual and we started to move towards a libertarian minarchism? I know anarchism is the goal. But isn't minarchism the lunch stop on the way to a total anarchist free society dinner? Like, if you get poisoned, and you take the antidote, there is still that transition period where the poison is active over here and nullified by the antidote over there and your metabolism is in the process delivering the antidote for a certain period of time. Technically, if tested, you would test positive for poison at that time. Same with minarchism, technically you test positive for statism at the time, it is not ideal, but as a possible transitional state of affairs it is quite appealing. Either way, it would be nice. And this kind of reminds me of the zeitgeisters. If you can't get to anarchism without passing through minarchism, which I think is valid, then you can't get to Star Trek zeitgeist utopia without passing through a free society first. You need to have a free society first, first before you do the work to have a Utopian-esque society. It is funny. People always characterize anarchism to be utopian. Look at what they are saying. The simple idea of not solving problems with violence, like animals do, would be utopian. The idea that not doing something so destructive as the state would be some unreachable zenith of social perfection. I disagree. I would propose that it is just the beginning prerequisite for utopia. Like, if some homeless-jobless-mentally disturbed dude was covered in shit. Right? His own human shit. And you washed him off. As you should. For him to exclaim "I am now the perfect man!" because of the recently removed fecal layer, well, that would be quite absurd. He still has much work to do in order to even be a sufficient man, let alone a great man or a perfect man. I mean the idea of utopia being "perfect", or "unattainable" aside. I view utopia as an ideal not an impossibility. And it is an ideal we can only start to strive for once we have a free society. As opposed to the view that a free society would be a utopia itself. I reject the latter. Another analogy; if you only stop beating your wife, it doesn't make you a good husband, you still have work to do to be a husband at all as opposed to an abusive sociopath...

I am in. My most recent album is all about FDR subjects. I am about to publish the full album to CDbaby any feedback is welcome .. http://angtta.com/salt.mp3 http://angtta.com/harlequin.mp3 http://angtta.com/ground.mp3 http://angtta.com/untitled.mp3 http://angtta.com/lapse.mp3 http://angtta.com/remorse.mp3 http://angtta.com/moderation.mp3 http://angtta.com/all.mp3 http://angtta.com/exit.mp3

I don't get it...

An error occurred You have reached your quota of negative votes for the day

I wish you would demonstrate how NAP is an untenable position. I linked you to the criticisms for the purpose of maybe inspiring you to make an actual argument, even though the criticisms on the wiki make very weak arguments, as opposed to just stating your emotional preference for moral-relativism on a board comprised mainly of moral-objectivists. I mean, please, think what you want, but if you want to persuade someone have an actual argument based in empirical evidence like the moral-objectivists have here. You are just not very compelling because you do not support your assertions as compared to UPB and NAP which have books of supporting evidence and empirical and logical supporting evidence. So what are you trying to accomplish if you are not supporting your assertions but instead repeating your preferences and biases?

Also I would suggest Dwain read the wiki entry for Non-Aggression- Principle ...

So,you don't even understand what the NAP is or what the NAP is used for. I site your posts, literally all of them, to support this assertion. The questions then becomes why are you trying to argue against something you do not understand and why are you doing it without any supporting evidence? Any chance you can not sophist around this question and not just restate your moral-relativist feelings in addressing my post?

No rulers allowed, only measuring sticks and tape measures are allowed in anarchy...

Subscribed!

Empathy, extend it to people less intelligent than you and they will tell you what they want....

That is a great song. I would suggest any Bad Religion song...

A quick agricultural history. I think the real danger is embedding Oil into the food supply...

"I suppose while noble in principle, it isn't the most rational of steps to take. I agree, in my opinion, it's not the smartest idea to rely solely on negotiation when dealing with a black guy. For example, my black neighbors are just now learning how to use apartment complex parking lot and one day they were all sitting and leaning on my car and one of them had a burger sitting on my hood. I said to them "don't lean on my car please" they clearly didn't understand what I was talking about, so I had to go and show them which car was mine and remove their burger from my hood . A week later, they made the same mistake, but this time out of spite. Basically saying "fuck you, I'm going to throw a part on your car". And as you may imagine I didn't just sit back and wait for them to party all over my car. I went over to them, smacked them and removed their party equipment from my car and told them "don't do this again". Now, I know some don't agree with this method of discipline, but at least in my case it just happens to make the most sense in terms of cost/benefit, considering the potential consequences of letting a black neighbor throw a party on my car."

1. He calls it "your little magical free market". Already he shows a bias. 2. If we have a free society. Then we have a society that has overcome the Initiation of Force (IOF) of the state which kidnaps millions of people. Not hundreds or thousands. Child slavery is an IOF. So an IOF will be responded to in a free society. So people, namely parents of missing kids, will donate and support such a venture. And without the state taking 1/2 your income, people will be able to set aside money for insurance and charity of such things. 3. He says in a statist society, finding sex slaves is a net loss. So thus in a free market it will also be a net loss. This is not correct because of what I pointed out in point 2. 4. He assumes that a free society will have "little communes". This is not a valid assumption. To think you have to violate property right to travel around a free society is wildly absurd. 5. If his child is taken from Washington to Florida, he will not be interested in paying to get his kid back? He will not be interested in getting re-compensation from the perpetrators of said IOF? 6. Under what authority could someone investigating an IOF intrude on others property rights? In a free society, if we can even have one then the NAP and responding to IOF will be top priority in such a society. Innocent people will probably let you look on their property for sex slaves, unless they actually have sex slaves. 7. In the video this guy actually refers to a free society transition as; "Taking the whole system and tearing it down" Ok, this guy is basically making a "roads" argument assuming that the state currently solves the problem and that a free market must be xyz pejorative things that support his bias. 8. This is like the analogy, "If you cut out my cancer, there is a possibility that I will get a cold or flu in the future, so let's leave the cancer in to avoid future cold/flus". Look, if a free society never solves the problem of child sex slaves to the tune of a couple 1000 a year, unlikely, but let's assume. It has still, by definition, solved the problem of a distorted market, millions imprisoned, millions dead in wars and so many greater horrors. Not to mention that the only route to a free society is to treat children with the highest regard. So the question becomes, where are all these children being taken from in a free society? A society, that by definition puts a premium on child well-being and adverting violations of the NAP. It simply wont be a problem. Not because of the magical hand of the free market, but by the very nature of the kind of society we are talking about...