Xdreamist

It comes down to what Vox Day commented here on his blog, see comment 56: Q: "What does it take build a counter platform?"VD: "A very rich man willing to lose a lot of money indefinitely." http://voxday.blogspot.com.au/2017/08/youtube-restricts-extremist-content.html I'll repost something I said a little while back about the costs of YouTube: "It's a very tricky situation. The losses stat is a very interesting thing to note. From one of Sargon's latest videos (I recommend watching it all, it's interesting): https://youtu.be/hz1dfDTH6Dk?t=1383 (Stats from 23:03 if it doesn't timestamp my link properly) "YouTube, is not profitable. The annual cost of running and maintaining YouTube, is almost 6.5 Billion dollars - And the annual revenue generated by YouTube, is only $4 Billion..." $2.5 Billion annual loss? And I imagine the most experienced company in the world when it come to hosting media content is doing all it can to cut costs already... I just don't know another platform could compete, and that could swallow a yearly loss like that, should there be a mass migration. They're almost running on charity as it is, unless I'm missing something? Plus users are getting more and more savvy to ad-blockers, surely. I always wondered how the hell YouTube could be make profit from that much HD content being chucked on there every day, taking that much server power / space and networking infrastructure, always more, more, more. And apparently, they don't. They run at a loss."

It's a very tricky situation. The losses stat is a very interesting thing to note. From one of Sargon's latest videos (I recommend watching it all, it's interesting): https://youtu.be/hz1dfDTH6Dk?t=1383 (Stats from 23:03 if it doesn't timestamp my link properly) "YouTube, is not profitable. The annual cost of running and maintaining YouTube, is almost 6.5 Billion dollars - And the annual revenue generated by YouTube, is only $4 Billion..." $2.5 Billion annual loss? And I imagine the most experienced company in the world when it come to hosting media content is doing all it can to cut costs already... I just don't know another platform could compete, and that could swallow a yearly loss like that, should there be a mass migration. They're almost running on charity as it is, unless I'm missing something? Plus users are getting more and more savvy to ad-blockers, surely. I always wondered how the hell YouTube could be make profit from that much HD content being chucked on there every day, taking that much server power / space and networking infrastructure, always more, more, more. And apparently, they don't. They run at a loss.

As title says; Pretty sure I heard it on an FDR video but can't remember - I'm fairly sure it was something like 60 times more likely to be left-leaning than right-leaning, if Atheist? Does anyone remember hearing something like that, and if yes, do you remember the study / source? I can't seem to lay my hands on it. Cheers!

I understand how you feel; Australian's have a compliant slave mentality to Government. It makes me sick. We're literally not allowed to carry any item of defense on our person. If you really want to bother with pragmatic instead of ethical arguments: If we look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate ...I'm going to add actual "homicides", and count all the "undetermined" gun deaths as potential homicides (and no, I'm not concerned about suicides, it's 100% within every person's agency to take their own life - Or accidents, which would be a pointless statistic to include when attempting to determine acts of purposeful violence) - which gives us the following numbers per 100,000: Australia: 0.19 Switzerland: 0.3 USA: 3.64 To easier compare: Australia = 1 Switzerland = 1.57 USA = 19.15 According to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland In Switzerland, with the latest statistics posted, with it's population of only ~8.2 million: They have around 420,000 fully automatic assault-rifles (machine guns), and 320,000 semi-auto rifles and pistols, kept in private homes around the country. ...From that alone it's very obvious that the legal gun ownership rate has VERY little to do with the homicide rates in a country. I don't understand how that could possibly be rationally debatable. As far as the US goes, here are some useful facts: http://americangunfacts.com/ If you want to look more into how the 1996 laws effected gun trends, I'd suggest looking up the studies done by: Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran - Enhancing Evidence-Based Policy: Principles and Practice from a Case Study of Australian Firearms Legislation Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran - Mass Shootings in Australia and New Zealand: A Descriptive Study of Incidence Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi - The Australian firearms buyback and its effect on gun deaths

Got a laugh at this hashtag from the comments: "Welcome to the White Male world ladies. You supported people with minds that hate and now that hate comes back to roost on your doorstep. Enjoy having your opinions and thoughts invalidated - because you know "WHITE!" " #AndThenTheLeftCameForMe ...Says it all.

Nice job man. Music isn't too distracting, it has a good pace, and it's well-articulated.

Fantastic article. Only issue with it is the wording of the concluding sentence: "We'll discover that the real victims of modern feminism are, of course, women themselves, who have been left lonelier and less satisfied than they have ever been." "Real victims" conjurs the thought of "moreso than men". I don't agree with that at all. At the risk of running in the "oppression Olympics" - men initiate dating in more than 90% of instances, and male life drive IS a reflection of the sexual gatekeepers. I know women are shovelling down anti-depressants and feeling less satisfied more now than ever, but the power to change this is in their hands, at the expense only of their immediate social convenience. The lack of empathy to reflect and call BS on such obvious and rampant misandry everywhere, does not get them a "real victims" badge. The exception being, those brave few who will call this stuff out (never met such a woman in person, who openly would lay critisisms on their gender in a social situation) - AND still have to wade through the cess pool when dating, of males conditioned to be jerks to get any attention. ...Guilty pleasure, comment from the article: "25% of women in the United States are on antidepressants or other psychoactive drugs. This statistic is frightening because it means the other 75% is walking around untreated..."

I don't know if this recent video is what reminded you of the podcast you're thinking of (not sure either, sorry) - but the recent discussion with a Christian below reminded me of what convinced me to leave the religion of my parents: The acceptance that Christianity (and by extension other religions) is ultimately "Might is Right". (Supposed Creative Power = Over-ride of all basic ethical principles.) From the question around 16:40 on, specifically mentioned at around 40:40.

Just one suggestion; Exaggerate your head movements, to show the instructor that you're properly checking the right angles. The biggest worry I have, sitting on the passenger side with new drivers, is that I'm not convinced they're aware enough of the possible errors of the other drivers on the road (their lack of indication etc.) If you can set the instructor's mind at ease with your obvious awareness, he's less likely to be anxious, which as Lars said - Will rub off on you.

Podcast #2814, first caller, somewhere in their discussion on Education. It was something about being a negative outcome predictor for learning. And something about it being like a brain-virus, IIRC. ...I don't know the referenced study sorry.

Just an update on things happening in Australia, it's pretty big news here but I haven't seen a thread on it so, here's some back-story (and some things I think are related): On September 15th, Edward Snowden, Julian Assange and other speakers held a conference in NZ to talk about, among other things, Snowden's revelations on how the New Zealand, Australia, Canada, USA and the UK Governments collude on spying, and how they to ignore every single guideline of the privacy laws against their own citizens: The Moment of Truth: (Starts at 22:00 mark; Snowden at 1:00:00 mark) ...Just two or three days before this conference is due, Australian Government decides to heighten it's "Terror Threat Level" to "High", a ridiculous gesture to scare the public, and frame in Australian's mind How Much They Need Their Security Agencies: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-12/australia-increases-terrorism-threat-level/5739466 It has not gone down as yet: http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/Securityandyourcommunity/Pages/NationalTerrorismPublicAlertSystem.aspx ...One week later, police call a suspected Islamic radical on his mobile and ask for a meeting at the police station - this someone who has posted pictures of himself in camo and a balaclava, in front of an flag of Islam, on FaceBook, apparently along with images of ISIS members. His posts include: "Lets not put the focus on other things. The main message I'm sending with these statuses and photos is to the dogs AFP and ASIO who are declaring war on Islam and Muslims" ...They do not approach this obvious radical with basic precautions - and both police officers end up being stabbed, with the man being shot dead. http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/terror-suspect-shot-dead-after-two-police-officers-stabbed-in-endeavour-hills-20140924-10l5d4.html Never Letting A Tragedy Go To Waste, Attorney-General Brandis has pushed for new National Security Laws, which effectively could make the whole of the Australian internet monitorable legally - makes whistle-blowers and journalists unprotected and liable for prosecution as law - and this is now followed by a push for 2 years of internet data retention. http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/consumer-security/parliament-bullied-to-pass-national-security-laws-says-greens-senator-scott-ludlam-20140924-10lir9.html The Greens party, some independents, and the only Libertarian politician with a seat (David Leyonhjelm, LDP), push a for modification to limit this massive over-reach for power - a futile gesture as both major parties, without exception (to my understanding), both voted in favor of the new reforms. Probably most revealing video on the attitudes of the current Attorney-General (by the commie Greens, but helpful to understand what's happening): Final Words as new reforms go through: Some other related videos: Data retention now the latest push: A year ago, the Australian security advisers refusing to even name the agency that's censoring websites off the internet, let alone what they are blocking. (Around 08:00 mark).

Sorry is this is an existing thread already: The Cognitive Dissonance that Ben Affleck is displaying in this video! ...I think you'll struggle to find a more clear example. *His brain * "But... Tolerance... Tolerance to all...!!!!(...But. Tolerance to Intolerant people... They're saying that promotes Intolerance?!?!)...Erm. ERMMMMMMMMM... ...RACISTS!!!!!Whew. Saved!)"

Another good article on this:https://time.com/3432838/emma-watson-feminism-men-women/

"I don't agree. I'm sorry I used a relatively ambiguous word like answerable. Being answerable to somebody is a positive obligation..." ...Ahh cool, I see what you mean. It's just the semantics then that I was confused on. "If somebody's about to go on a trip, they plot their course. If they find a section of highway is deep under construction where there's constant traffic jams, they'll choose a less efficient surface road route. The other day, I was a passenger in my dad's truck. I told him he wanted the left lane as we were eastbound on Alexis Rd because I knew the right lane was busted up due to recent ice. If it were only one lane, I would've recommended an alternate route." This circumstance supposes that it's a "trip". But if it was an everyday travel for employees between the towns in question, suddenly a 25 minute stretch to take the alternative route around the rural properties between towns, instead of the 15 minute highway weaving between them, is a lot more bothersome, and you're going to care much more. And if there were multiple plans to build this highway, all of who need the capital raised to start building the road, you're certainly going to want to back the one that has put his reputation on the line in regards to keeping any tolls very low, and for a long stretch of time. That's in essence all I'm saying here.

No need for tolls, kick-starters or anything like that. ...There's an assumption here then of having initial capital sufficient to start a highway on the project owner's part; and investment of his own money until the advertising covers the initial cost, and starts making him money. Or sufficient reputation to enable backing from a bank. (Unless I overlooked another possibility?) ...Neither of those are in any way wrong, but with a program funded by voluntary backers, anyone with a sufficiently researched plan and the correct advertising pitch, highlighting benefit to said backers, could do such a project - coming from merely self taught studies, costing them very little initial capital. Basically, anyone motivated and smart enough could do this, regardless of previous humble economic means. And the highway owner could absolutely attempt advertising as well, to generate more capital, and maybe get experimental as to the balance - of how many people use the highway, and see advertising, when they're not trying for alternative paths that don't use tolls. You might find it's more profitable not to have tolls at all. But I would argue for the initial start-up, that a toll is a solid and predictable return, that investors are going to put more faith in.

Oh god. I'm going to make enemies on this board already at this rate. I'm sorry if you're finding me annoying, but I have to respond if I'm seeing an issue. This is an effect. Different from "please me, or I take action against you. Yes, it is. Doesn't change that it can still be defined as "being answerable", do you agree? You "answer" to your customer base's wants. There was a time where the city was where it was at. As our wealth grew, suburban malls became the preferred method of shopping and entertainment. Now, the internet has made it to where geography isn't as important in such mattes. You don't even know what our dependence on roads will be in the future. Agreed, and thus the opening of the original post: "One of Stef's answers was that we maybe won't need highways at all, who's to say; I agree we'll probably need them less and less, but often people are stuck in the current system's mentality, and this answer is not good enough for them. So my goal here is to formulate a reasonable, planned out answer, as it seems to be an incredibly common question ask to an Anarchist." All the more reason to regard it as a private owner of property engaging in voluntary trade with other people. I'm sorry if I implied otherwise. Could you point to where I did...? That way, the conclusions will be sound and not limited to just roads. Went into specifics of this situation, as "my goal here is to formulate a reasonable, planned out answer". I don't think "people want to go from A to B" is reason enough to say a road owner would be a slave to his customers anymore than "people need to eat" is reason enough to say a restaurant owner is a slave to his customers. ...Dare I claim "Strawman" when you jump from my position of "answerable" to the term "slave"...? If, as I said, it's a voluntary condition stipulated in the original project proposition, it's adopted with the self-interest of beating competitors - and then it's not an anti-capitalist, "selfless" philosophy. It's just good business. And at any time he could break it, as he owns it; It's just that investors have the assurance of a very public breaking of his word, which will damage his chances for future projects (who wants to go into business with someone who publicly told a huge lie?) It's putting something personal on the line, to increase customer confidence.

I feel this either doesn't answer my question of contract with who ...Yeah, you're right, my bad, it's no "contract". That's a poorly chosen phrase. "Assurance", maybe...? ( "Bribe"...? ) ...or ignores the comparison I made to restaurants without actually addressing why it should be ignored. Anybody can walk into a restaurant. That doesn't mean it is public property. Nope, not public property, as it's making no-one but him money (and whoever he hires on occasion for roadworks) after the initial time period. But at the same time... Nor does it mean that the owner has to answer to the customers. This line, seems to conflict with this... If he doesn't meet their expectations of good, safe food and service at a reasonable price, his customers will simply stop lining his pockets. ...That, to some degree, is able to be defined as "answerable", isn't it? "Please them, or don't succeed"...? Potential investors in the two towns might also know that such a road (particularly if it's winding around any sort of private properties on the way between these towns) will only have so many efficient paths available to it. The thought of "if he overcharges, they'll stop using it" like a restaurant example, isn't as valid to them. You open up a better restaurant next door / down the road to a competitor, people have to walk / drive a few extra seconds maybe twice a week, to get a better service deal. Whereas a competitor road springing up might have to take a large detours to forge a path around the large private rural properties, lengthening the time it takes to reach the same destination - causing great inconvenience if it's a common route, regardless of if they'd rather the price it takes to use the alternative or not. So it's in their best interests to support someone who'll both "get it right" the first time, and offer low charges for a long amount of time in doing so. The owner of such a road would have a constant source of income, that he has to manage very little upkeep on. He's also held in high regard by people in the towns, enhancing other business opportunities, and having an inheritance to pass to his kids, which in their day they'll be able to raise the price to whatever they feel is reasonable, without breaking any "assurance". To my mind it seems a smart business move, but, again, not an essential facet.

Welcome to FDR. I like your name. Haha, cheers...! Contract with who? No offense, but his idea is too rooted in how things are right now. Your plan seems to want to be one of property and "public property" at the same time. A road in a free society wouldn't be public property any more than a restaurant is. If the owner fails to maintain their road/restaurant, people will simply stop going there. This is a good thing for the consumer since "public property" would not be maintained via the same incentives or maintaining private property. A homeowner repairs his roof, a road owner repairs his livelihood. ...My Idea behind a promise of limitation placed on charges for the road-use, was to make the plan seem even more desirable to potential investors in the towns such a project would link - the thought of a low cost highway project that will both yield them both initial money from investment, and then very low cost travel. Such a bonus incentive is (to my mind) more likely to find the required amount of backing funds from locals to go through. And if the highway was still yielding profits to the owner alone after the backers agreed returns are met (rather than a board of investors to pay and answer to) - the incentive for maintenance for his highway has not been removed. It wouldn't have to be an official document with "the public", but you could say your original proposal that you'll put a big signs off to the side your highway entrances, promising the maintenance of that low charge for the specified time. As Daniel says; Competition will be fierce - this bonus incentive might weed you out from other offers. The project also heightens the trust in your project builds, and scores you brownie points with your local community in the form of reputation, which might be helpful in gaining the funds for similar projects in the future (always nice). In this way you're only held to your word; by how much you value the goodwill of the people in your community. (It's also easier to pitch to socialist types you have these conversations with...) ...But I agree, it's not a essential facet for the rest of the business plan to be viable.

I've had an idea for the free-market "highway" scenario, after the question was put in the video "Government: An Unnecessary Evil". One of Stef's answers was that we maybe won't need highways at all, who's to say; I agree we'll probably need them less and less, but often people are stuck in the current system's mentality, and this answer is not good enough for them. So my goal here is to formulate a reasonable, planned out answer, as it seems to be an incredibly common question ask to an Anarchist. I think this is the right section to post in, let me know if not. (And the idea may have already come through the forum before, so my apologies if I'm re-treading old material.) Proposal: A kick-starter type program over the internet could fund this project, and be sold as a solid and wise investment for backers. Not saying it has to be that website, but there could be similar sites as it grows more prevalent. The person putting forward the idea maps out the planned highway, shows which towns would be linked under this plan. Shows all costs involved in hiring of work crews, machinery, materials for the road, traffic lights, electronic systems, maintenance for the first 5 years, or however long they calculate they'll need with traffic volume, etc. - and has a "goal" to be reached to fund all this. Once this is reached, construction will start. The creator's plan involves that at the entrance to this new highway, there will be a dedicated lane for a toll booth at both sides, with an automated checkout service like they have in supermarkets, in which you can make a quickly make a once off payment, and continue on if you're a temporary visitor; or set up a scanner bar-code to place on your window with credit attached to it, so you don't have to stop at a toll booth after the first time through (They already have these on highways in Australia; I'm thinking a much more efficient way of charging via scanner could be found with a cryptocurrency system.) There will also a electronic pulley boom-gate, that can very quickly go to any section of the first 100 meters of highway, travelling along the top of the lane barriers - with another boom-gate and a turn-off at the 100 meter mark, that allows a driver to turn around and travel back parallel past the highway, to the entrance that he came from; which I'll explain in a moment. As a reward for their investment in the Highway, backers are guaranteed that they will receive a 300% return on their investment (or whatever is stipulated on the program), with the "amount until highway backers are paid" to be displayed on a electronic billboard sign at both ends of the highway, counting down live as the scanned tolls are individually added. This total amount, if they've promised backers a 300% return, will be 3x the total amount for the cost of the original kick-starter type program (a bit over if needed). The backer stipulates beforehand, that as a part of the contract with his backers, he will drop the prices of the highway to mere cents per car (or an equivalent in cyptocurrency) after this goal has been reached, for the first 25 years of the highways life, and the profit from there will be his, with the cost of maintenance from then on being his responsibility also, and to come out of this own profit. Not following this drop in price after the reaching of the goal, will constitute a breach of contract, and the reputation system advocated in free-market, will be trashed for that owner. In this way, backers will have a program that will continue for as long as it takes for their 300% take on the investment to be made, guaranteeing that the owner of the highway won't make any money unless they are paid out first, increasing their confidence in the project's validity. There will be warnings that the highway is not usable without paying a toll, and directing new / temporary users to the tollbooth lane. If someone attempts to use such a Private highway without setting up scannable tolling account or once-off credit, traffic lights go orange, and a boom-gates covered in warning lights and a sound signal (like a train crossing) starts to slowly lower in front of traffic at around the 100 meter mark. Once traffic has come to a complete stop, the boom gate on a electronic pulley will whips down the length of the barrier-top that it's mounted to, stopping at the side of the car that hasn't paid, and lowers the gate directly in front of it. Any traffic between this car, and the boom-gate at the 100 meter mark, is allowed to continue, and once this is gone, the offending car has the pulley boom-gate released. It is then allowed to continue to the re-lowered 100 meter mark boom-gate, where an electronic billboard will direct them to take the turn off back to the entrance. After it does so, traffic will resume. The entire process should take about 45 seconds. So; Does anyone see any glaring flaws in such a plan? Feedback appreciated. Cheers!