john cena

http://www.infowars.com/black-lives-matter-supporter-releases-fk-paris-rap-song/ This is what I assumed this thread would be about. The video has since been deleted, but it's nothing short of what you would expect.

Great fact checking! I copied this from a socialist friends facebook page rather hastily out of complete disgust, you got me on that one! As for the rest of you, wow I didn't expect to spark such a lively conversation! Concerning Christianity being violent like Islam.. Please look away from the statist controlled churches. They not being of Christ is no different than state sponsored science being bunk like climate change.. Sure the statist controlled version is violent and irrational. Do you forget that Jesus was merely a philosopher? his statements are that of observation of the universe, not religion. You can find it all here, https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jesus No violence. No initiating the use of force. Very elegant for 2,000 years ago. If you're an atheist, replace "God" with "Truth" and you will be mind blown! Jesus was an anarchist. Maybe I'm reading too much into the words? Maybe not. "It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves."

"Trump also refused to rule out warrantless searches as part of his call for increased surveillance" "I think that now everybody is feeling that security is going to rule." “Certain things will be done that we never thought would happen in this country in terms of information and learning about the enemy,” Trump said. “We’re going to have to do things that were frankly unthinkable a year ago.” I think it's time for a part two on him pretty soon.. http://www.rawstory.com/2015/11/trump-crosses-the-nazi-line-maybe-muslims-should-wear-special-id-badges/#.Vk4JHAqE0wQ Is this necessary security or a tyrannical power grab?

I am not saying to use the court system, because I know it will never work. Let me give you an example. A large pool of investors opens a highway business. They do not use police at all, but rather electronic means of enforcing traffic rules, and ostracism as the enforcement method. Numerous road safety and efficiency as well as road surface longevity improvements are made. Now, the roads can out compete the state. As more and more people use this system, the need for government roads decreases. It is especially critical that travel time is decreased, which would divert commercial flow, which in my opinion should pay the bulk of fees for the highways, since they cause the most wear and tear by far. (But that's besides the point) At some point the company would grow to such size that they would be able to lobby local governments to sell them the roads, possibly in exchange for public access.. I am really curious as to why this does not happen more. If the government is doing such a terrible job, why is the free market not out competing? You may say that we pay for the roads, but we do not really directly pay for the roads. They are largely paid for by borrowed money.. How does the mere illusion that people are already paying for roads result in this monopoly? Are all of the engineers/investors literally just missing this?

Sorry I may not have explained it well enough. Extremely concisely, I wan't to create companies that profit from dismantling government programs and replacing their market share. That was my main point in this thread, that we as individuals should pursue vast amounts of wealth through this means. Would the "most moral" person in a totally free society be the richest? The person who has given the most value to others? I say we can spread these ideas just as effectively through these means as with child raising; although child raising is surely needed to keep it sustainable. Like stefan.. A stay at home dad with so much mulla rollin' in that he gets to just record philosophy all day.. THE DREAM@!

You are saying that the constitution is not voluntary? What would have to be done to this document to make it voluntary? Since the constitution only allows laws to be created that combat the initiation of force, you seem to be saying that if a murderer does not consent to being killed by the person he is attacking in self defense, then the rights of the murderer superseded the rights of the man defending himself. I see nowhere in the constitution where it claims to be a monopoly, that is the difference here. Would not all DRO's protect against the initiation of force? Assuming they do, you seem to be implying that whenever someone forms the FIRST DRO, it is automatically a government. How do you propose that we achieve anarchy then? If I see someone initiating force on a peaceful person in a hypothetical free society, YES I would go up to the strange aggressor and say this, preferable with a weapon in hand, and prevent the violence from occurring. Isn't the point of this project to break FREE from statism? What is the point if we are BOWING to outside statism? The first thing they really need is a massive wall with 10,000 .50 cals all the way around the border.. THEN build a nuclear plant, in SECRET! Fool the customers into thinking they're buying geothermal energy or some bullshit! This is the free market we're talking about! Billions go a long way in traditional defense, which works as long as you don't have a major air force coming for you..

It all depends on the type of programming. If you're doing website design, basic arithmetic and some algebra will do, although you don't have to solve any equations, but just learn to write them for the computer. If you're doing something like game engine design which would be a top level job, then calculus or above depending on how advanced the graphics are. If you're a content designer for a game though, you might not need much math at all. It really depends on the type of application you're making. But really though, you can go to Wikipedia and copy any formula you need and simply convert it to code. You will never really have to do much math yourself. I programmed for almost five years just for a hobby The answer is, you can determine what application to write based on your math skills, however more math is mo' money; just not necessarily the only way to get more money.

I do not dispute any claim you made in your first post, merely your conclusion that this is a "non-solution". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute_resolution_organization We can use this definition: I don't see how this follows. Sure law may not be the most accurate word, in the same way as the usage of the word taxation. I am merely arguing that this is not a government. 1. "§10. No law shall create victimless and/or consensual crimes." This rules out anything being a crime that is not theft, assault, rape, or murder. 2. §7. No law shall abridge the right of persons to the control of their own bodies, nor interfere with voluntary consensual or contractual relations among adult persons, or the right to form cooperative ventures of any kind. Does this not imply the ability to form other DRO's on the same piece of land? The government does not claim to "own" any of the land. It does not claim a monopoly on the use of force for the land. If you go there now, they have no capacity to remove you from the land; they do not own it any more than any settler who goes there. Help me understand if you will, how would this constitution fundamentally need to be altered in order for it to become a DRO according to your definition?

How do you intend to create a DRO without writing a words on paper? How is this any different than a contract with a DRO? For example the American constitution always assumed the state owned the individuals labor, hence literal taxation. This one does not. How much closer to the non aggression principle can you get than the non aggression principle reworded? I didn't mean to cut you out- it seemed that you did the same to me. We are just not on the same page here, no worries.

Is it not inherently sexist that she wrote this article about micro aggression and left out any instance of it happening against men? Can these women really not see the hypocrisy here? Aggression: hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; Another case of propaganda adding a prefix to a word and taking all negative connotations of the original word except without any of the actual meaning, in order to attack the opposite gender. If that's not sexist, then sexism doesn't exist.

Just my 2¢, https://www.freelancer.comis a great place to start being self employed. You can select from any number of skill sets. Basically, it's eBay for outsourcing work. I myself do work through them programming. Some people make fantastic money, it all depends on how many jobs you do and of what quality. I see jobs anywhere from $20 to $20,000 in the Java development field, but anything is possible. If you did pursue graphic design, you could work and earn small profit while still learning on that site by completing jobs for down to $20, like making small logos. You can build reputation just like eBay and as you progress make more and more money. It's really the capitalist ladder at it's best. I don't mean to sound disheartening, but you don't need to be thinking about a dream job at the moment, you have a daughter to raise. I don't mean to take a job you absolutely hate, but something you relatively enjoy and are good at is what I would pick if I were in your situation. As your daughter gets older and you don't have to spend as much time with her, definitely pursue your dream goals though. I say this just to prevent you from sitting still in a fog of inaction due to waiting around for an opportunity that may not manifest soon enough to get the money you need to home school your daughter, as this seems to be the most important factor in the situation. I do wish you the best.

I don't mean to sound rude, but it seems like you haven't actually read through the constitution. It seems to me that this actually IS a DRO disguised as a government, that was the point I tried to imply in my earlier post. No law can be conflicting with the non aggression principle. No, there are no taxes by our definition, but to a common person who thinks that this is a government and not a DRO, taxes is a buzzword. It's actually donation based. So in reality, this is not a minarchist state, it is a DRO by definition. The constitution is specifically written so that another government with NAP based laws can coincide with Liberland in the same geographical area. Note the following sections: Logical guarentee of self defense against the state: Further, this clause implies that another government can operate within the same boundaries: Just because America calls itself the land of the free doesn't mean we aren't fascist. Just because they call themselves a "government" to cloak themselves from other evil world powers, doesn't mean they actually fit the bill. This is what I think people are missing! See the thing is, the river is NOT part of disputed territory. I don't see a hydro plant being possible anytime soon, albeit croatia might sell water rights for a lot of cash.. I'm sure the government wouldn't turn the chance down.. What they REALLY need is a nuclear power plant built, THEN everything else would fall nicely into place. Water distillation, electricity, electric transport. It's a tiny place, no need for a gas station really, except maybe on the river for boats and possibly for small planes. They could also make their own cryptocurrency, which would most likely highly appreciate in value, similar to bitcoin. I wouldn't be surprised if the government funded itself by this mechanism in the future.

Cities like New York have around 27,000 people per square mile, which works out to around 10,000 people per sq km. Now if a city that has more invasive laws than Nazi Germany can sustain a population that size, surely a completely free market (once utilities are supplies) would be able to achieve much higher densities. We can look at states like Puerto Rico where thousands of businesses setup their headquarters there just to escape SOME of the taxation on the mainland, surely many more would go to this place that has NO mandatory taxes? Once it's a country recognized by others at least, because until then it would make it next to impossible to conduct business with people there from inside a strict statist regime. That's the thing about an anarcho state that's actually advertised as an anarcho state, no government would acknowledge it precisely because it would be a huge incentive for businesses to escape there as a tax haven. This may be the closest thing we get for a very long time, that will still allow residents to interact with resources from the outside world. That all being said, I would move there immediately if there were a small community of like minded people, and hundreds of thousands of others are willing to as well. This at least shows us that there are many people behind the project, and I think something will come of it unless it get's bombed to absolute shit.

All taxes are completely voluntary in this society, as well as the laws are defined around libertarian principles. A copy of the constitution of available on the website. Now I realize this thread is pretty old, but I was intending to start one on the subject but I found this by a quick search and the OP pretty much summed up my basic question. Why haven't we at least heard Stefan talk about this? I mean it is in essence anarchy. It is not even a night watchman state, it is something less much less. I am contemplating putting in an application, and I am wondering how many of you here have done the same or are thinking about it? What kind of information have you provided on your resumes? I've posted on the Liberland forums but it seems there is no official capacity from the government to respond.. Which is frustrating but I guess is technically a GOOD thing! It really seems to me like the largest online community of anarchist would be taking peak interest in the topic of a new minimalist state being formed out of NOTHING, currently with over 20 billion in investments lined up as soon as the land is completely secured. If this project succeeds, who is to say we couldn't start an Anarcho state similar to it somewhere else in the world, or even change the government slightly there to make it FULLY simply the first DRO in the area? Also, for a size comparison, Vatican city is 109 acres, where the republic is around 1,000 acres.. Not huge, but big enough for freedom.

I was actually referring to all like minded peoples reading this message, not the general masses. Also yes, it is somewhat relevant to the person presenting the information, I would not say reflective at all, but I judge based on results not "I tried to convince them". Also the entire point of this post was to illustrate how we are asking for freedom, and we are not providing incentives for freedom, while government is doing the exact opposite and is gaining volume. I have spent hundreds of hours talking people out of statism, so I understand where you're coming from. If the amount of peacefully raised children is not quantified and seen to be trending upwards exponentially, then I see no real science to that opinion. Certainly I'm open to that solving the problem, but the evidence is not there that it is working nearly fast enough to subvert the next dark age.. I am certainly not satisfied at simply raising my child peacefully and casting them into the world to deal with the evils I neglected all my life.. That just seems like more Keynesian school economics running in the personal life to me.. Push it off to the next generation.. You are thinking too black and white here in my opinion. Just because lobbyists are not directly part of the government, does certainly not mean they aren't part of the power structure. Lobbying is how tyrants have gotten unjust power and defeated truth, why not use the effective method they have created against them, except with positive freedom minded market incentives on top for a sure win? I am just saying to use their own weapons against them, but in a logical way instead, until we can resolve the issue of abolishing government. Are you just providing constructive criticism or do you genuinely disagree with creating freedom incentive based corporations and lobbies?

Are you referring to China there? I would point to Hong Kong at #1 in the world economic freedom index. It could be said that China does suck wealth from previously free nations.. Hong Kong being the shipping gateway to all of china and a business capitol as well really allows industry to flourish in the entire country considering most businesses are based there. I think the economic freedom of the corporation and businessman will produce a higher GDP but lower standard of living for the common person as would be expected, and is seen in china. http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

Introduction/rant: I'm going to start off by assuming that everyone who is a member of this forum would like to see the ideas portrayed here by the community propagate.. Probably naively, but I digress. My question is, why if our ideology of freedom is logically superior in all ways to a state, (provided you are moral) then it seems as if the only solution to this question, is that either the vast majority of people on earth are evil, or we as a worldwide distributed net of freedom minded peoples, all of them, have failed to purvey the argument to such a degree that it is not understandable by the public? Stefan for example talks a lot about how your parents growing up with an abusive parent doesn't give them an excuse to abuse as well.. Would this simple principle not expand to people using rational philosophy? It seems the dichotomy above must be true.. If we accept that the majority of people are evil, then we are a subject of deep nihilism for the future of humanity, neglecting some polar random shift in morality. This bleak future for our children is especially magnified if K reproduction strategists are really thriving. Since nihilism is no fun, (yes, that's my entire argument against it, deal with it) I'm going to suppose that the majority of people are NOT evil, and we simply do not lack the motivation, knowledge, or technology to reach the masses effectively. Therefore, we surely must fundamentally transform the way we do things if we ever want any kind of future. If you're losing against an enemy, the first thing you should do is analyze their tactics. (Thanks, Crysis) We usually refer to statists as using the initiation of force to control their subjects. While this is true at it's root level, like a fractal geometric equation, the result at the end user level after thousands of years/iterations of honing of said tactics is that to the average "citizen" the initiation of force does not even exist in the equation. If you debate a statist, they will not even know they are being stolen from on a daily basis! How can this be so effective? They use FREEDOM as the cover for their arguments! How can we let them use our own argument to discredit itself when the real deal is infinitely better and more moral? My actual Idea: People mostly talk about political action in the sense of protests, voting, or austricism. This community also includes child raising as a great way to forward the cause of freedom and philosophy. Those are great, especially the latter; but there's a problem: We are trying to get out of a master-slave relationship from the state, by acting as a slave. This will never, ever work. Genocide is just waiting in the mist of the future, for all of us anarchists slowly protesting an ever growing state, and this is not my opinion, this is historical fact. To end this quickly and righteously, I propose that we put ourselves on level playing fields with the masters, instead of attempting to pull the masters down to us. I mean EVERYONE. There is VERY LITTLE capitol left floating around in the free market, and people are getting less and less spending power by the day. The individual has less money than ever to devote to the cause of freedom, as I'm sure the owners of this site know too well. Can you stop for a second and imagine the amount of raw capitol currently being misallocated by states? Evil people at high levels of government will tolerate this huge reduction in economic output, in exchange for psychopathic power over military conquest and their own peoples.. However, greedy capitalists will not. Greedy capitalists just want another yacht, another ferrari, etc, even if we follow the main stream narrative here for a second.. You usually think about anarchic politics as bad for business.. BUT If people like Donald Trump can profit from stock going DOWN or businesses FAILING, WHY are no greedy capitalists tapping into this wealth the public sector is destroying? Why are there not lobbying groups to END public roads, funded by the largest construction companies ready to do the job? Why are there not armed protection agencies lobbying for reduced policing costs in order for communities to be able to pay for improved security and response time with private DROs? I'll tell you why: The majority of us are still partially in a slave mindset. We don't want to take responsibility for actually doing anything about freedom today.. How many of you actually own or operate within a business with freedom as an incentive? Even just scrap the above questions, why do we not fund a for profit joint stock company which exclusively lobbies to end government intervention in industries in order to privatize them and reap royalties from companies who take over? (The companies chosen freely by road consumers, not the lobby agency of course) This kind of freedom creates incentive for growth in sectors previously halted by state regulation from progression for centuries.. IE the road/car paradigm. It would put us on par with the slave owners of society finally, and start a self sustaining industry of profit from deregulation. Surely with guys like peter shiff, stefan molyneux, etc, around, there are people with the know how to do this, and we the people have the capitol. In addition, it's a sure business model because once the public sector is no longer in charge of the task, IE buildings roads, there will be huge vacuum in that sector of the economy for new road construction companies, since the state paid monopolies rarely do the job in a satisfactory way, and I think every american knows that. Lobbyists are a minimal cost for return on investment, as the private sector shows today.. Imagine the economic boom from ANARCHY LLC! Why are we not funding this?

It would be very interesting to see the effects on society that has, although it will probably never be allowed by the government. Getting philosophy to people in situations like this massive human farm is a tough one for sure..

So I was watching a TED talk, (Strange Answers to the Psychopath Test | Jon Ronsonand) and even getting mildly interested in it. I've always thought TED was a sophist cult, but here's the creme of the crop.. "Capitalism gives ruthless rewards to physhopathic behavior" "It's a form of psychopathy that's come to affect us all" https://youtu.be/xYemnKEKx0c?t=9m52s(Where he makes these comments) How are we ever going to convince people that freedom is the way when we have people on such a highly held platform openly saying that free trade is psychopathic? Do you think this man is legitimately evil and psychopath himself, or is he simply ignorant of the extend to which government force is the pinnacle of psychopathic power? What's a concise point to shut this guy down, aside from the moral argument from non aggression which he obviously denies?

Basically, we don't know because they don't exist and we've never seen a form of intelligence other than our own with the capacity for love. Unfortunately we may have to wait until shit hits the fan to come up with robot ethics..

This metaphor only goes so far, you did not attack any of my actual points. Are you implying that the programmer does not design the very fabric of the game you inhabit? Are you implying a programmer can not make a game where the collective benefits from good or evil? Sure, a human programmer working with finite resources cannot account for every instance of the game played, that is where the metaphor breaks down. However an omnipotent being with the ability to see all permutations of existence of the universe absent of time is not limited by this factor. Remember, time is fundamentally no different than the other three spatial dimensions, except in how your mind chooses to interpret it. How can you claim that the one who creates the fabric of reality does not influence day to day events when the very events themselves would not be happening if it were not for the creation? The degree can be debated in this point, however let's more onto my second point. Every single particle of the universe is fundamentally random. We can not predict the position and velocity of a particle at a given time, and thus cannot apply rational principles outside of mere probability, which is really unrelated to how a whole atom performs with other atom superstructures because of their unequal and ever changing distribution relative to each other. Therefore, every single particle in existence is capable of being altered by some "force" that is un-observable to us. Is this starting to sound eerily similar to the program again? Imagine being a fully sentient human being with all of the tools to observe the universe, yet held inside of a simple ram stick in a computer. Would these fundamental particles [EG bytes] not behave in remarkably similar ways, IE you can observe them, yet not predit them outside of a probability set? I am a programmer, so I may be taking this metaphor quite beyond the scope of understanding for this argument. I do not find it neccecary to sustain the argument, only beneficial in purveying my meaning behind the argument. I would prefer to argue from the definition of God as the root cause of existence. However for argument and learning sake, I'm more than happy to use your definition of omnipotent and omniscient, although I believe both of those terms to be a subset of being the root cause of existence due to their very nature.

You're assuming here that I am arguing A. that human intelligence is a proof for god, and B. that got is indeed intelligent. Define Intelligent: God in no way needs to fit the definition of intelligent in order for my argument to be valid, this is a strawman. I am simply arguing that either A. Logic and physics models are both fundamentally broken, or B. There is a sole root cause of all other causes, EG God. Intelligence or human existence at all is irrelevant to this. Feel free to show this as a false dichotomy, otherwise I don't see a way to disprove what I'm saying here.

Ah, it's north korea just for future readers.

Basically what you are saying there is akin to saying that a programmer has little effect on the reality of a game once it's released and being played by players. Are you really coming from there? Sure you have free will in the game, but only to win or lose the game and you can tap into rewards/traps predefined into the system by the programmer. IE this is why being moral is also the means to the best most productive society, by sheer coincidence of physics..? Maybe. If the universe were designed top down, every single action of every single particle (even the undiscovered ones) could potentially be manipulated by some unknown force, appearing to be completely random (IE causeless) to humans. Once again, physics shows that there is indeed a God because if there is no discoverable cause to the observed and constant effect of wave/particle duality on the quantum scale, logic and physics are broken while if there is indeed a God, we are all not insane and there is indeed a cause to the effects of all reality. According to leading variants of Multiverse Theory, each independent transfer of one photon causes a new frame in the universe and thus a parallel universe to be created. In this case, each of the smallest of units of energy transfer (the smallest possible base for a decision) creates an entirely new universe. If this is true, that would allow for omniscience to exist alongside free will, since free will may and certainly will (According to physics once again, if it can happen, it will happen) exercise itself in each and every possible permutation, omniscience is merely knowing the outcome of every possible combination of atoms in the universe; a feat only commutable with resources external to this universe, yet not impossible. Once again, revolutionary physics models make the case for omnipotence and omniscience not being mutually exclusive. If every permutation of the universe will eventually happen, then it is absolutely possible to be all knowing and all powerful across time, not only because of the infinite universe theory but because of the very fact that implanted into the design of the universe is ambiguity or uncaused randomness in each and every particle we can observe. This is a direct and measurable effect on matter and energy, ALL of the matter and energy in our universe we have detected so far. I have heard the "square circle" argument against God many times, [i do not yet have a physics degree, so I say in my opinion here. Very open to criticism] it simply stems from a lack of understanding of physics and especially quantum physics.

Also to more directly answer your question, yes she is absolutely being narrow, short sighted, and naive. These friends will not bring her long term happiness, and every moment she spends with them being happy is equating to a moment in the future where they will most likely make her unhappy, assuming they are generally immoral people as you say, or at least carry immoral philosophies; the hurt is almost inevitable. I had a similar problem, and it turned out in the end that the principles that I loved the girl, were more or less only important to her because they were important to me, and she had an interest in using me for almost half a year until her borderline mask finally slipped off.. Not trying to throw out any labels here, just giving you a worst case scenario from personal experience. If I had it to do over, I would try and see how much these things really mean to her without asking or probing directly into it. [if they are why you love her, if not I guess they are not that important, but if that was the case, I don't assume you would be posting about it here] If I had known, I would have saved myself a lot of heartache and a lot of wasted time.