taxcattle-nzl-lf078305

In my lunch break today I had an opportunity to listen to the debate. Maybe I am just an uneducated buffoon, but I found it extremely difficult to follow Peter's arguments due to his use of overly la-de-da language. His position appears to be (it is hard to tell for certain) that while he sympathises with the libertarian position on the state of the world, he disagrees with core libertarian principles of property rights citing "structural violence" as a reason while these cannot be permitted. In listening to him and following up afterwards, I have so far only been able to equate "structural violence" with "lack of choices" such as may arise through societal prejudice or perhaps manipulation by those in a position of power. This lack of choices is in his view a form of coercion, claiming that limited choice through circumstance is the same as no choice through statist monopoly. I find this an interesting argument, but thinking about it a little I find myself unsympathetic to his solution. He seems to be prepared to accept active coercive power (the willing and concious power of centralised authority) to counter what can (most generously) be described as passive coercive power. The difference being that the former requires the active participation of actors, while the latter is passive, environmental, and a matter of circumstance. I am not convinced by his arguments, but I accept that I might have been if I was in a position to understand them better - perhaps if he had used simpler language. Can anyone come in to bat for Peter?

I am happy to reformulate my response by deleting "business" from it. If you are looking to make a change in your life - especially when looking to make a decision while under duress - it can easy to assume that any change will result in a better situation, it can also be easy to hesitate due to uncertainty and fear. Here are some questions I would be asking in my "plan": 1. what do I want to do professionally? What do I want to be doing in 6 months, 12 months, 2 years. 2. what means would I have to support myself? Am I burning capital, accumulating debt, or do I have to tolerate some crappy job to pay the rent? 3. if I am looking to first develop ideas to start a business, how long can I continue to support myself as identified in 2? 4. I'm interested in a software development, but have identified that I need to grow my own technical skills. Do I know how I'll do this? How long do I expect to be in a learning phase before being able to capitalise on these skills? Can the courses I am currently doing help provide me with skills (sounds like science/engineering?) - at what cost? 5. what is my risk profile? Am I young with little/no debt, and no wife/kids? Therefore do I need a backup, or can I just get on with it? Bottom line for me is: if you can analyse your situation objectively, and see where you want to go and what you need to do to get there (questions like 1 - 5) then back yourself.

Your program is looking for kernel sources. Can you provide more information on the specifics of what you're looking to do.

Do you have a business plan? Do you think you need to have some (developed) ideas about what you want to do before making a change?

I've heard it said that the difference between China and the western liberal democracies is that while in the west there is "rule of law", in China there is "rule by law". The commentator was definitely drinking the WLD koolaid when stating that, but I do like their pointing out the huge difference that particle makes. Where there is government there is rule by law. It's simply a tool of control and manipulation...and all perfectly legal!