thebeardslastcall

Yeah, basically it's a more stable way to farm without exploding the currency with inflation. Helps limit themselves from overdosing on their drug of choice, counterfeit money, which would kill the animals and ruin the farm. Also when the farmer base is spread around a bit more it keeps the powerful people in different countries a bit more linked and bound and less likely to engage in overt warfare with each other since they share the same farms.

Unfunded liabilities are what seem to lead to these persistent needs for a debt ceiling raising, since they need to be able to keep borrowing more and more money to cover the obligations they've already committed themselves to, but didn't have the money for yet (borrowed or taxed). The debt is owed largely to the Federal Reserve, then China and Japan are the next biggest.

You keep saying special pleading. It's not that we're ignoring your point of view, but that we're rejecting it as not making any sense and with multiple challenges to your point of view you've done nothing to help explain your point of view in a way that accords with reality and what people actually physically possess (or based on what rules and logic you possess something non-physical that you clearly in reality can't control or contain). If you raise your hand and then I raise my hand I haven't taken control or stolen your hand or lowered your hand. Your hand and 'raise hand' idea and possessions, so much as you possess yourself, are fully intact. I haven't stolen or taken possession of your body. I've raised my hand. Not binding means when I raise my hand it doesn't bind to your hand and have any impact on whether or not it's raised or whether or not you can lower and raise it again. You haven't lost the idea or lost possession of your hand either. I haven't stolen anything you actually possess. You're claiming possession over the idea "raise one's hand" and we're saying reality doesn't accord with that claim to ownership since we can raise our hands and do so without removing your possession over your body or your ability to raise your hand. You're suggesting you lost possession of an idea because I raised my hand or that I 'stole' your idea by raising my hand and that I should not raise my hand without your permission or you'll attack me. That's a violent and aggressive notion and not something we agreed to. Without agreeing to copyright rules does this seem like a sensible way to view ownership and to behave to you (attacking me for raising my hand without your permission)?

I don't think you seem to get what you're asserting. You're not claiming ownership over an idea, you're claiming ownership over other people on the basis of an idea. If you raise your hand and then I raise my hand that doesn't give you ownership or possession over my hand because I 'copied' your motion with my property. The physicality of your idea, initially, is your body and then I 'copy' your 'idea', which is now my possessed version of what you did. You keep suggesting an idea is something you possess and don't seem to get you don't and can't possess concepts as some single or physical entity like a hand. If ideas were possessions like you're talking like they are life would be long since dead and never would have gotten going in the first place. You didn't produce my body, my mind, or my hands. I'm not saying it should refer, I'm saying it does refer to physical things. You express your ideas and contain your ideas with physical matter, which is what you possess. Concepts and ideas are just abstracts or patterns that aren't themselves owned, but represented by motion of possessed physicality. Yes, you're claiming ownership over my body, which is what I'm rejecting. You don't possess my body and if you try to that's acting violently against me. You cells are acting a lot like mine, a similar or the same pattern in many ways you could say, does that mean if I was born before you that I own you or that you owe me? Or that your parents own you since you copied the pattern from them? If I raise my eyebrow in a particular way and then you do so as well in the same fashion do you then owe me or do I now own your eyebrow?

What do you mean they own their labor? Seems like an imprecise statement that leads to a categorization of ownership that is off. I'm guessing you're going off the standard more precise statement 'products of their labor', but that's referring to physical objects, not ideas. You own your brain regardless of whatever ideas or concepts it has or doesn't have, thus an idea is creating a new arrangement in your head that produces an 'idea' pattern of behavior. You own that which originally produced and contains the pattern, but it's a leap of ownership to then claim possession over everything that has a similar pattern just because you consider yourself to be the original source of the pattern through your creativity or labor.

Maybe they don't cover it more because it isn't news as it happens so regularly and the media isn't about news, but entertainment to get ad money. The problem with the black lives matter thing is that they're pointing their signs at the wrong people. Instead of pointing it at the black people doing most of the crimes they're pointing it at politicians and cops as if they're the biggest source or primary problems in regards black murders. The biggest problem with everyone playing the race card is that it perpetuates the no responsibility culture that plagues these troubled communities and prevents them from taking the personal responsibility they need to get themselves out of the crap they're standing in. You can debate all day and night whose fault it is they're standing in crap or you can just start walking until you're out of the crap, because you're going to get yourself out by just getting walking much faster than by blaming everyone else for it and waiting for someone to drag you out. People don't serve their communities by looting innocents when they get upset by some killing by a cop or by pretending that the guy was innocent when he wasn't. The media isn't at biggest fault for not covering all the killings, but for making it all about race when they do. Racism culture by the media and others just promotes disempowerment.

I don't know what you're talking about. It's not like the idea is some physical object you possess that waltzed on over into my yard like a lost dog that I'm 'stealing' by keeping. You own your neurons; I own mine. You don't own the idea. An idea is like a word, a pattern that people can mimic, not some possessed physical object. If you don't want others to use your idea keep it to yourself or only use it in the presence of people who have agreed to a certain set of rules of behavior in regards to certain classes of defined patterns. Monkey see, monkey do. Human see, human pay to do or get beat to death?

There are no public places in a free society and when you trade with people and cross property lines you agree to a rule set, a process which is currently absent due to people just falling back on the government's processes since the government interferes with their ability to setup their own rules and enforce them in an agree upon way. Some areas can do this to various degrees, but the government is always want to step in and screw up the freedom and to inhibit people making their own rules. So most simply don't since they're not accustomed to the process and it's inhibited by government. In a free society it's "This is my land, you can come onto these parts under X terms, which includes not having sex here". Problem solved. In a free society people can organize themselves much better as well and won't be as mixed in regards their standards, like where they choose to do explicit things. You own your brain which stores the idea in your head. You don't own the replicated idea in my head (or my computer's). Intellectual property is a bit of a misnomer and has people extending their ownership onto others. My property did the labor to replicate the idea based on input broadcast by you. If you don't want your idea copied don't broadcast it. If you broadcast it to places that haven't agreed to terms then they can copy it without owing you anything. This doesn't mean it isn't in their interest to support you, but that they are under no obligation to do so. Ideas are broadcast and copied constantly and all the time and we label some based on our ideas of labor and creativity as being a grade up and deserving of copy protection, but that doesn't create ownership over the idea once it has been 'broadcast'. Assurance contracts and new IP standards in a free society would help resolve some of these issues, but without the rules agreed to then you can't make claims to ownership over me and what I do with my body, even if that includes mimicing something you just did, regardless of how much or little effort and creativity you put into that action. The implication is of course that you can attack me for hearing and repeating your idea. People, in the precarious government situation, feel forced to piggyback and make use of the system to protect their ideas since without a free society other means of protection are harder to acquire. Government makes it an ugly situation. In a free society some people would also be disappointed that their creativity and ideas don't have the value they wish upon them because they have no just means to monetize those ideas without attacking other people. That's just the tricky situation we live in in the digital age of a sudden burst in ability to copy ideas while at the same time needing work and creativity to create the ideas that are difficult to guard without injustice. What some people don't want to accept is a trade that was profitable in another age is no longer profitable now with different abilities in play and they need to do something else to make money in the market. History has shown us that people hate being out-competed and having to adapt to a new trade, especially when they're able and willing to use force to keep their positions and prevent the market from moving away from their business trade. One of the biggest points of anarchists is that governments inhibit and prevent justice as opposed to delivering it. This includes the process of turning creativity and work and ideas, which have no inherent market value, into profit in a society. I can work hard and creatively and come up with ideas all day long,but that doesn't mean anyone owes me for them or that I can attack them to get the value I place on them. Profiting from creativity and ideas requires a system by which to do so and the government IP and Copyright systems are currently pretending to be those solutions.

I don't think that's what people are saying. They aren't saying they'd steal simply if it's easy. They're saying it's not stealing and it happens to be very easy to do. If I hear you play a song and can then easily play it on my own guitar it doesn't steal the song from you, you can still play it all the same. If I sucked at playing guitar and had no skills I wouldn't be able to do that and it would be a non-issue. Now that computers are ubiquitous everyone has lots of replication skills basically, which suddenly shifted the bar and people's expectations with a sudden reduction in difficulty it now has people trying to force difficulty back in with a legal system. Now some type of copy protections would work if everyone in a group agreed to the system that was going to be used so that they could all play by the same rules. With everything being forced based on an illegitimate government and the copying being so simple and easy and profitable people are highly incentivized to take advantage of their new 'copying powers'. People have been replicating others for all of humanity and longer, it's the essence of life and intelligence in many ways. Computers popped us forward at an unusual rate in those regards, which disrupts the social norms that held up before that learning progress was made. I'm sure early apes were disrupted by advances in intelligence when they suddenly found other apes able to learn from them and out compete them. I'm not saying you should never pay for things you can get for free as there is a value in paying for things even when you didn't 'have to', but under the current system it's a sketchy situation. A sensible and functional copyright system can only emerge from a free market and society and not one where there's a forced government and social contract and criminality is rampant by design. If you value what you got and want to support the person or people you view as the creator(s) then pay them, but don't be under some illusion that people aren't 'copying' bits and pieces of other things and people all the time as a natural process of living. Who gets to decide where the line is drawn and who are you to say that person isn't also in many ways copying others in writing those words and notes? What is this public domain you speak of and who gets to decide on its bounds? How exactly are you deciding where to draw these lines? How does the evolution of copying skills advancing through time play into your calculations? Animals can copy each other, humans more so than others and now even more so with computers and that's going to change the value and expectation equations. If I see you look to the sky and then look up for myself did I steal your view or do I owe you for showing me there's a beautiful moon above to see? If someone plays a song I overhear and it doesn't add value to me, but jars me and sounds awful do they owe me? What about people who spread lies, or negative value information, that gets copied, do they owe people for their harm? Insanity of an unfree society under a government is we're trying to interpret and hold each other to the rules of the game without an agreed upon or steady or comprehensible rule book.

It's impossible not to.

There's a big difference between not telling him the truth and telling him a lie. You'd simply not tell him your bank numbers. Lying distinctly puts people in the enemy camp as you're giving them data you believe to be bad, which is a potential harm against them. Lying is usually done defensively, when you think telling people the truth will do you harm. Whether or not you have qualms with lying to people and under what conditions, I think any generally decent and honest person prefers honest relationships where possible as they're better in many ways to dishonest relationships. So you could lie to get the job, but you're admitting that you're moving into hostile territory, possibly for the long haul, and even helping these 'enemies' by working for them. It's certainly not a preferable situation if there are any alternative jobs of relatively close pay, but with the totally corrupted market many people are working for immoral people and doing morally bad or questionable actions on the job and to get the job, which seems to just degrade the whole situation further. You don't have to fight for morality, but accepting and working many of these jobs is basically yielding the fight. It's not easy being moral in a corrupt society without sacrificing yourself, which isn't a good option either. So if you're going to go into a questionable territory know what you're doing at the least as the move will define you. Living a corrupt life is certainly worse than a few lies, but imagine what it would be like if more people were honest and they saw the tide shifting? I can see why you're having trouble with this situation, it's no fun sacrificing yourself for principles.

There's no difference between a King claiming rule over land and taxing it by force and a government, which is basically just a group of lords, claiming right to rule lands. Fact that the players are a bit more in number and shifting and people get voted for just obscures that it's still the same immoral game. Them 'giving' you a vote for some limited scope within their rule is irrelevant, as if a King letting you vote on your dinner meal gives them the legitimization to own and rule you. Common democracies are no more legit than kings and they're way more insane due to all the competition for power and division of power. Governments 'own' in the same way successful thieves 'own' what they've got.

Another thing to consider, when determining how much to work, is the whole point of him financially helping you is so you can be more of a parent to your kid. So you might want to limit your work in a way that won't interfere with how well you raise your child so you can be there for them as much as possible and not turn into another working parent that's absent from the child's life. Many people underestimate the value of their preference and just go to work for money instead to the detriment of the child if both parents are full time workers. You're dependent on the father, the kid is dependent on you. There's nothing wrong with dependency if it's functional and useful and desired by both sides for the betterment of lives. A child should be dependent on both parents, that's why dual-parent households do better than single parents when it comes to child raising. It's the plague of feminism that tells women it's bad to be dependent on a man, which has done a great deal of harm to many families. Just something to keep in mind.

In Bernie's world the state is your family, forget blood and genes, we're all equal. Very dysgenic policies, which are unnatural and won't hold.

It's weird and strange that what the crazy socialist is saying doesn't make sense? It would be weird and strange if it did add up somehow. It would be weird and strange if there were rich guys hoarding unicorns for us all.

You had me until the Firely season 3 bit, then I realized what you were proposing was too good to be true. The other stuff is totally realistic though and why we should support Bernie! [/sarcasm] There's the crazy guy running or who ran for president offering everyone free ponies. People could tell he was a joke. Bernie Sanders is practically offering everyone free unicorns and they cheer him on like it's legit when it's really insanity and they're blind stupid to it all. It's basically "All other decent countries give all their citizens unicorns and we here have a right to unicorns too! The rich are hoarding all the unicorns from us! Elect me and I'll give you your deserved unicorn like everyone else in other countries is getting!" Democracy as practiced is a plague and they're eager to spread democracy to all the world.

Generally the President's administration likes these kinds of errors because it makes them look better than (falsely). I've heard Peter Schiff state multiple times that the Federal Reserve won't raise interest rates this year because he thinks they can't due to the poor state of the economy. What's sad is how few people connect the immorality of the whole situation that the FR needs a good economy to raise interest rates directly implicating it in making the economy worse, or stealing from the economy, with control of the interest rates. You can only steal food from the livestock when it won't kill the herd and hurt your overall and longer term ability to steal. The healthier and more abundant the economy the more they can steal (via raising interest rates). The fact that it has gotten down to zero means they've harmed the economy pretty badly and it's lingering on the brink.

You still.

You can't make arguments with someone that rejects logic and reason. I was simply noting that morality is based on that which he rejects, so he has no means of getting it. He defines morality by God, by illogic or anti-logic, as a base, so there is no where to go from there.

Morals are based in and on reason,reality, logic, and life. Religion is not. Religion denies these things and is a parasite on life.

That's a good way to look at it. Whether you eat a more carnivorous, omnivorous, or vegan diet, refined edibles are bad. Whatever food you eat you want to make sure it's unrefined, unprocessed, and high quality whenever possible, which means if you're eating meats that the animal ate a healthy diet too (like grass-fed versus processed grains for cows and preferably was able to move). I like the "If it can't go bad it's because it already went bad". If even bacteria won't eat the McFries it's because there's no food left in them in any reasonably digestable state.

Fixed. Fake things are immune to contradiction. You're still trying to use logic with someone rejecting logic Will. He's just trolling at this point.

That's a fair concern given what I said. I haven't avoided info on the topic in the way I make it sound. I think I'm presenting novel info and info in a novel way. The second part is what I wish at times to avoid corrupting by specifically avoiding certain things during certain periods of writing so I can make sure I maintain my unique way of presenting ideas without drifting too close to current writings and ending up repeating their stuff instead of my own ideas and perspectives.

Anarchy is the only functional democracy. 100% unanimous votes for everything. I call it sovereign democracy. It's not a republic, which you can't keep.

I make a compatibilist determinist argument against randomness in book ,which I look forward to eventually finishing and sharing. I make what I think is a more logical and philosophical argument that cleanly shows why randomness, as I define in the book, isn't possible, but that there is still unpredictability to reality and reasons why we'll never get rid of it. The 'weirdness' of quantum mechanics I think basically comes down to the depth of reality, not any breakdown in determinism. I haven't read Harris' book or view and am not inclined to before I release mine, but will be curious to read it later perhaps if he makes interesting points that I may have missed.