JohnH.

Tell them that you disagree. "Let's agree to disagree." "No, I disagree."

Looks great. Must have. PM incoming.

Don't MMA fighters use physical force with the intentions of hurting and/or damaging each other?

My favorite song about liberty is Bloody Revolutions by Crass. The lyrics are absolutely brilliant–anti-Marxist, anti-violence, and very much pro-freedom. "So don't think you can fool me with your political tricksPolitical right, political left, you can keep your politicsGovernment is government and all government is forceLeft or right, right or left, it takes the same old courseOppression and restriction, regulation, rule and lawThe seizure of that power is all your revolution's forYou romanticize your heroes, quote from Marx and MaoWell their ideas of freedom are just oppression now." Another great song of theirs is Big A, Little A. According to Wikipedia, the song is "a statement of the band's anti-statist and individualist anarchist philosophy." "Systems just aren't made of bricks they're mostly made of peopleYou may send them into hiding, but they'll be back againIf you don't like the rules they make, refuse to play their gameIf you don't want to be a number, don't give them your nameIf you don't want to be caught out, refuse to hear their questionSilence is a virtue, use it for your own protectionThey'll try to make you play their game, refuse to show your faceIf you don't want to be beaten down, refuse to join their raceBe exactly who you want to be, do what you want to doI am he and she is she but you're they only you." One last Crass song; this time it's Do They Owe Us a Living? When asked about the meaning behind the song, Steve Ignorant replied, "That line actually comes from a poem that a good friend of mine wrote. The poem is actually, 'Do they owe a chicken whose neck they wring for Christmas a living? Of course they do!'" "The living that is owed to me I'm never going to get,They've buggered this old world up, up to their necks in dept.They'd give you a lobotomy for something you ain't done,They'll make you an epitome of everything that's wrong."

44:56 for me.

Not "you people", just me. Others have explained to you the problems of primitivism. I don't care about primitivism, I'm more interested in why you hold complete strangers to a standard higher than you hold for yourself and why you continue to behave in a manner you consider immoral. Josh H, above, has, essentially, answered those questions already.

Each post, more natural resources unnecessarily used.

You continue to unnecessarily use resources to argue against unnecessarily using resources. I never suggested that you should go off and live in the woods. I can understand wanting to learn the basics of primitive living before jumping in. The issue isn't that, it's that you are here, on a forum that has nothing to do with primitive living education, doing the very thing you are against: unnecessarily using resources. You aren't here to learn about primitive survival, you're here to argue; you're here for pleasure. Certainly this doesn't mean primitivism is invalid. What it means is you are willing to behave in a manner you find immoral for mere pleasure. It also means you hold complete strangers to a standard higher than you have for yourself. Primitivism is for the people, not the primitivist.

I have a hard time taking you seriously when you don't live up to the standard you expect of others.

That was a pretty disgusting "discussion".

That's quite the gem.

I need help with an essay. We all know how government bureaucracies create a sort of infinite-loop in where they must do what they can to perpetuate the issue they are supposed to resolve against the interests of those genuinely wanting to solve the problem. There's a law, paradox, theory, or something that was created to describes this phenomenon. Does anyone know the name of this? I believe Stef mentions it in a video somewhere. For the life of me, I cannot remember.

I've always been a little weary of Block, this basically seals the deal for me.

I found myself thinking the same thing. There were a couple points–reasons for divorce and how the state was involved in his former employees business–that Stefan was able to call him out. Of course, when Stefan did so he said the issues were completely irrelevant. I don't know why he'd bring them up in the first place if they were irrelevant.

Where can I go to read up on the software? I can't find anything on http://www.thevenusproject.com.

There's something I've been noticing when talking to people that advocate a TZM RBE. When I asked a few people (on Facebook and YouTube) about the status of the program that will be used to allocate resources I was told that "third parties" and NASA "might" be working on one. This video that you posted talks about how we can create a modular cell phone. Who is expected to create it? "Third parties". This makes me wonder if in a TZM RBE it's the "other people" that will be expected to do all of the innovation. This kind of brings me to a second trend I've seen. I constantly hear TZM talking about "needs" versus superfluous wants. For example, in the debate Peter constantly mentions how people are needlessly starving because people are satisfying their "wants" with complete disregard for other people's needs. If this were something that he is genuinely committed to I would expect him, a leader of sorts among the movement, to be setting an example for others to follow. Just as Stefan is committed to peaceful parenting and the NAP, I would expect Peter to be committed to not wasting resources on his wants when other's needs are going unsatisfied. This isn't to say that I think these people are liars or something, but I have this nagging feeling that their sincerity is only in words. Because of these things, I often have to urge to just come out and say, "It's time to put your resources where your mouth is."

I don't think the problem here is the advertising industry. The real problem is the lack of emotional security and personal knowledge that creates a susceptibility to the advertising input. Treat the underlying issue and the advertising industry will be "forced" to adapt to the new paradigm.

I think Stefan may have mentioned this before: moving past the moral justifications for the State would probably be similar to how we moved past the moral justifications for slavery. If you were to go up to a random person on the street and try to argue for the morality of slavery they would look at you as crazy and most likely want nothing to do with you; if you attempted to enslave people, many would come to their defense. Once people recognize the immorality of an institution it becomes incredibly difficult to get them to accept it in their lives once again.

If this is a problem for a free-market wouldn't it be a much larger problem for a centrally planned "supercomputer" economy where the sociopaths need only be a bit computer savvy to get the resources to form their private armies?