Magnetic Synthesizer

36m ''you can't make him do this stuff'', and ''dead souls'' Doesn't this go against free-will? If despite all your attempts he will never to choose to do that, how is it any different from a lack of free-will to do so and a deterministic limitation?

Posted on #ancap_discussion of r/ancap linked discord

Or employer could move to somalia

... was to allow the masses political freedom. I kid you not: this essay is of great interest. > The death or the Roman Republic may be ascribed with equal truth either to the fault of the masses or to the failure of the great. The system of civil and political liberty could be made to work so long as it was not extended beyond men whose folkways accorded with it. But, it ceased to be workable when once it had come to include strata of men for whom liberty was as nothing beside political authority, who expected nothing from the one and hoped everything of the other. This posted quote below, so far as I've read, can be summarized as such: Liberty started at the top between men capable of maintaining what they had and sought to maintain peace among themselves for common interests. Sooner or later, the plebs (strata of men for whom liberty was as nothing beside political authority) (''freedom doesn't give me anything, but I can exchange it for a play in the political lottery'' -molymeme interpretation of leftist gime gime behavior) were included in the political machinery; we're given voting power, and due to their irresponsibility and the cowardly dovishness/carelessness of the top, the spirit of the law was amended to protect them from their own freedom to ruin themselves, and so regulations to limit choice were introduced, in the spirit of the law had become ''notion that it is the business of legislative authority to prescribe or forbid anything whatever'' > Weaker characters, of men who had not previously enjoyed complete autonomy as regards law, could not be made subject to the cruel consequences of mistakes, which would be more frequent. It became necessary to temper and humanize the law. Public authority, in the form of the praetor, was brought in to protect individuals. Regulations multiplied under it. > In this way, there was introduced into Roman society the essentially erroneous notion that it is the business of legislative authority to prescribe or forbid anything whatever > Anyone who put forward a proposition of a nature seemingly advantageous for the immediate future was blindly applauded, even though his proposition subverted the entire permanent edifice of order. > It was the tribunate [a political body first created to protect the plebs from arbitrary tyranny] which habituated the people to the idea of a saviour redressing at a stroke the social balance. reads like ''muh equality'' ---- > We ought not, therefore, to feel surprise at the wide measure of support accorded to kings in their attempts to substitute their own authority for liberties which benefited only the few and were an oppression to the many. Amazing analysis: (one is the desire to exercise power over others; the other is disinclination to have power exercised over themselves.) J. S. Mill, in a famous passage, threw into contrast the different political tempers of the peoples of France and England: Before finishing this essay. I will add a few observations: There is a vast swath of humanity naturally incapacitating the realization of freedom. There are some ''[slave] master minded'' psychopaths who quote consider as moral absolute the obedience of everyone to them *aggressive* ''You will do as we say'' *aggressive* -some global tyranny agent (won't bother to dig it up again, it's in a mark passio natural law video) ideas in circulation: -Spread freedom by word (conversion tactic) -Defend freedom by borders (segregation tactic) -Spread freedom by opening borders (brain drain being best argument I can find, but it seems the parasite infusion is overriding in weight) (liberating potential tactic) -Spread freedom by genetic engineering -Spread freedom by segregating it on a global basis wherein there is class of rulers and class of subjects (segregation tactic) -Spread freedom by annihilating the class of subjects (elimination tactic) -Spread freedom by annihilating the class of rulers (elimination tactic) Now of course there are those who wish to subjugate; and it seems that at a high level of competence and differential ''predatory virtue manifests'' ex: I hate noobs, I hope they all die'' (proceeds to dominate to the top of the scoreboard) There's probably a natural construct of triggers that go something like this : wow, I am so much better than my fellow man, I should genetically replace them to augment my species! Away with the old! Onwards with the NEW! In conclusion: ''So long as the people, consisting of freemen participating in the work of government, comprises none without some individual interests to defend, so that all feel an attachment to subjective rights, liberty seems to them precious and Power dangerous. But so soon as this "people with voting power" comprises a majority of persons who have, or think they have, nothing to defend, but are offended by great material inequalities, then it starts to set no value on anything but the power which its sovereignty gives it of overthrowing a defective social structure: it delivers itself over to the messianic promises of Power.'' Here's some music:

Well guys. The answer has already been found scientifically, mostly. I am reading the bestseller '' thinking fast and slow'' of applied psychology. It is clear that cognitive faculties that we associate with ''reason'' involve a different mental process that we get tired form using it (and averse to using it). It is very possible to live without using it. Perhaps some people completely forget about it and it is simply a learned habit of their mind to not use it. Please read that book. I sincerely think these people either need some emotional manipulation to want to reason or they have a too deeply ingrained habit to be worth engaging with (which is where I'm at). In fact this is so logical, it's like seeing a ball roll on the floor: WHY WOULD YOU EXPECT ANYTHING DIFFERENT? The process by which they FAIL TO ANSWER THE QUESTION and seem OBLIVIOUS TO IT is blatantly obvious. It is a huge act of uncaring to whoever or whatever they engaged to give these bs quick automatic response processes. This is the kind of artifact that comes out of it, especially if you're stupid. r/physical_removal

The best explanation for why people are irrational is ''thinking fast and slow'' by Daniel Kahneman.

> these people would put us in concentration camps if they could. and in response to that, the same I would.

I met a very kool ancap and we started a montreal meetup group. If you want to meet individually or in larger groups, check out our discord https://discord.gg/5sj26B9 (just click on the link!). I am advertising once again for the purpose of finding more ancaps.

So this is turned into a request for help, since I can't find my file otherwise I would've instead just used it. I have an essay to write and I am struggling to recollect sources for one of my follow-up arguments (that fathers are important). I use to take notes on Molyneux's shows but somehow I don't find any of the notes on this video. I could drop this argument but I think it's an important one. Has anyone else watched this video or a similar one from Molyneux and remembers or yet even better has notes on the best the key arguments? I should only take the best given text length constraints. I need it by tomorrow. I could just cite the book in the video.

I have an essay to write and I am struggling to recollect sources for one of my follow-up arguments (that fathers are important). I use to take notes on Molyneux's shows but somehow I don't find any of the notes on this video. I could drop this argument but I think it's an important one. Has anyone else watched this video or a similar one from Molyneux and remembers or yet even better has notes on the best the key arguments? I should only take the best given text length constraints. I need it by tomorrow.

''Yuri Bezmenov, ex-KGB agent, straight up said that once demoralization is complete these people will stare right at the truth and still refuse to change their position.'' Are we seeing this effect of demoralization from the left? How much of their disconnect from reality does it account for? How feasible is their healing? What portion of them should we not spend resources on to heal?

What is the difference between a democracy and a republic? they both have a democratic system of government. They are both democracies. Listing them as separate and not merged looks idiotic. It's like having monarchy and Xarchy, despite both having a hereditary absolute head of state.

So I was thinking to apply that above principle to give my convictions material life and them not being just a belief not acted upon (who can take that seriously when its their only way of evaluating one's convictions). and I heard from this show that in more ancient times people broke up familial ties over slavery and whatnot. Maybe it was hyperbole? So I wanted to know if this is been done before, and hopefully use that to moderate how wholeheartedly I will live so, or how I will instead try it out with some first-trier's caution/moderation. Or the guy that tries the same thing again, but different. Not a fan of Edison, still. To clarify, I want some links to material regarding these historical allegations.

Can you highlight at-least one grammar issue? I read a pseudo-random sample of sentences and I detected no error.

bad parenting is parenting that lacks in provisions to the child where other's bear the cost of the child. For example if you watch Stefan's video ''how to make a monster'' that is an example of bad parenting, and the people who died at the hands of this child have beared the cost'' but it could simply be parenting that causes crippling psychological handicap in later life that stop the person from generating more tax revenue than it expends, meaning it is leeching of of others. The tax expenditures on him are subsidies. subsidize as simply giving someone ressources that they did not produce or exchange (in a competitive market) for. environement, environement is everything besides scientific laws and besides the subject environement is said to be in relation to. Often, the subject is individuals. So everything outside the individual. chronic bad parenting is simply the degree to which genetic differences cause bad parenting when bad parenting is repeated each generation. So for example, in the case of chronic breast cancer it would be the degree to which genetic differences cause breast cancer when breast cancer is repeated each generation. bad genes are genes that promote bad outcomes.

http://backwordz.merchnow.com/ Buy their album to help spread the message of liberty.They want to have high early sales as they claim it's crucial for succeeding in the music industry. I invite you to watch their video and judge them and their arguments yourself. This band is purely ancap meaning will not drop contradictory bombshells like ''but you have to obey the state 100%'' or ''give me anarchy and I give you death'' Made of people dedicated to the goal of spreading the message of liberty This venue of actions to achieve a free market world is not populated with activists and is therefore likely to be unsaturated.

Because the question only asks you if it is or not between 50 and 100

Approximate premises: Genetics have the highest inertia (as in, in large part, they do not change quickly). Most of the Environment is not as inert (parental, social, economic variables) I found a useful analogy: Genetics determine the way newborns act to the environment and to proximate epigenetic variation. This is analogous to how the laws of nature affect how the matter and energy behaves in the weather relative to their environment (the other particles and energies). While a small change in the environment can have cause a tornado at the other end of the planet, (IN THE END) the laws of nature along with more permanent aspects of the environment determine the overall picture (rate of events, average temperature, rate and size of variations, universal patterns, stability). In the same way, a wild change of one individual's childhood can cause big consequences (being at the right place, right time), and the overall initial instance of all individuals in a group can shape a difference for a time. BUT IN THE END, the genetic differences mark how the group is. In other words, when two groups of variables effect each other, the most inert has the most power of determination as to what the long-run result is (because it's determination extends through it's changing of the other much more than the other's determination extends through the most inert variable) So in the short term, wide variations in an individual's experience can cause differences in the short-term that ripple consequences in the group. It is also possible that the wave of consequence set by the difference in the environment hits a wall, as in is unable to change certain things and eventually, the difference it causes dies out and returns to the mean. This would happen if social organization needs the continuous existence of certain bio-psychological predispositions to be maintained. Meaning that if you replaced all humans with chimps (and gave them the same memories of their position in the social organization) the social organization will rapidly change despite no change in the environment because it is akin to having changed the laws of physics of the weather (even if the arrangement of matter and energy is not changed). This applies to even small changes in genetics, as the difference between various humans. Now there are some variables of the environment that are even more permanent and inert than most of genetics. These determine long-run results over even more vast periods of time (we zoom-out again) where more permanent features of the environment determine long-term evolution and is untouched by the puny little tiny disturbances of environmental variations. This is more difficult with humans because animals have a lot of genetics and a very small memetic (google it, it's an excellent word) world. While humans have a huge eco-system of memes on top of the eco-system of genes. However, the eco-system of ideas can change VERY fast, while the genes take more time. While not being an expert, I've heard of evolutionarily stable strategy (ESS). Given the huge size of the human memetic flora, it is plausible that there exists multiple ESSs for one set of genetics by each using different memetics. In other words, it is possible that a population with a set of genes is capable of multiple evolutionarily strategicly stable (ESSs) combinations of that set of genes and different set of culture of ideas. This is important because if it's true, then one's efforts to change a society through intellectual dialogue are not futile temporary variations. This is important because it needs to be true, that a free anarcho-capitalist society can be evolutionarily strategicly stable (or, in other words, compatible) with the genetics of a population, for it to be achievable. If it is true, then one's goal is to learn how to steer the ideas of a population into the stable set (that tends to gravitate back to its stable point) that leads to the memetic-genetic combination of an anarcho-capitalist population. memetic-genetic combination refers to a combination of genetics and ideas in the context of intelligent life. I'm out of time now. No revision .

there are some differences such as being close to other servers one may be in, voice channels, and multiple chat or voice channels. I tried to start one 6 months ago, it still has some activity at zombie levels haha. (1 msg per day if lucky) https://discord.gg/5sj26B9

I've seen things suggesting Indians are very smart (indian engineer stereo-type) like in the movie who's name I don't remember. but then the national IQ is much lower. I've also heard from indians that some 'mainland?' indians are dumb. So this is very interesting. Still have to go back and figure out if immigrant's children falling back to their country of origine's mean IQ is true.

I think there is plenty to discuss already. I created a new post on the general board entitled approximately, treating individuals based on who they are (regardless of responsibility for their initial person and environment). Basically if someone is born stupid, they are treated stupid and no we don't take care of them just because ''it's not your fault, it's not fair!'' It's not their fault they were born that way. I mean you could and there are some appreciable values at play in your behavior of doing so. I can see myself doing it for strangers after we live in ancap 'utopia' and the poorest person has an orbital habitat and 4 naval battle-cruisers on Earth's ocean. I will now also created a novel post explaining a new meta-perspective on the interplay between environment and genetics. We should keep all the resources to ourselves and to the allies of our values and ideals. We should not sacrifice ourselves for enemies. It is also preferable to help our allies instead of neutrals. (Careful how you read that because, for example, if helping neutrals (or enemies) helps your values and ideals (which are shared by your allies) then it's good. For example, if you turn an enemy into an ally by giving him resources (such as your time), then it's good. You better hope it's as environmental as possible and that any genetic determinism is nulled (but remains as a dormant vulnerability/susceptibility to the bad behavior if the social changes) by existing conditions.

[read text] People should be treated based on their future behavior regardless if they were originally responsible for who they are. (which is similar to being treated for having been responsible for something) For example, the worse lineages of multi-generation chronic bad parenting as adjusted to the environment (in other words that are bad compared to others in the same environment) should not have their children subsidized. Now you can donate all you want, but if you force me to pay for other's shortcomings because ''they were born that way and therefore it's not their fault'', I will object. I find it incredibly careless to subsidize genetic lines that cause bad outcomes. Once you alleviate that one person's situation, you enable those bad genes to spread in future persons which will suffer from it and, by your actions, you are partially responsible for that future suffering. Take it as an argument against affirmative action .i.e. discrimination in favor of the weak. I have values and I'm utilitarian about them. I love, hate people based on their alignment with them. I find any significant departure from this, self-defeating (quite literally). Regarding the poll, I did not add discriminating on not fully known individuals based on statistics of the group their in. Whatever you think, I will continue to treat wolves and others (including objects) based on their group statistical average insofar as I lack better individual data. Same with humans, at-least I should (which I visibly do not practice as much as others). I will also advocate for the strategic alternatives that best serve my values. I refuse to be paralyzed by lack of knowledge of every individual discriminated against. Stop Syrian immigration into Europe. I believe that given the lack of perfect knowledge, the most moral system of behavior results in imperfect courses of action because the agent lacks knowledge. I think people should get over their abstract perfections and develop a real solution as to how one should behave based on what one knows. This means stop screeching when an individual gets mistakenly tossed in the wrong end due to group prejudice. Virtue that is suicidal is no virtue at all. If you and others are virtuous, it follows that you want you and others to live instead of being dead. It follows that survival is logically part of your ethical system. As a source of value, virtuous things (as related to your values) in the future are important to how close the future will be to your ideals/values. You can go back to ignoring future consequences, but I will not respect that. Bonus issue: people who know little about certain subjects shouldn't engage and leave room and power to those who know more on the issue. Except the intelligentsia has betrayed people by siding with the rulers. There would be no grassroots movement such as FDR if people didn't have the arrogance to act on their lesser competence unless they listen this show by mere curiosity with no intent to ever act on it.

haha, it's invitation. I'm conflicted as to what to do with it It's almost like 10000 years ago in a small group of humans, where a new leader would finally fix the lacking hunting tactics or agricultural plans. ( almost = sarcastic)