Search the Community

Please make a video on this worthless shit stain. The videos speak for themselves

Land ought to be rented out to owners of property residing upon them for naturally we are all co-owners of the earth. For the sake of Justice, an initial one-time 50% of an established equal land value to be paid into a General fund by current owners of landed property. I.e. if I had a house 40% paid off I would owe 20% & the other owner 30%(of the land's value only). Afterwards for the sake of being able to live free, land rent ought to be 20% of the land value to be paid after current property owner’s death by the fortunate that inherit the renters property. Renters that die without anyone to inherit their property shall be auctioned off to the public & added to the General Fund. Natural resources sold by land renters shall pay 50% of their profits into the General Fund. The General Fund shall be distributed monthly & equally to all citizens 21 years of age & over for social security. Unclaimed funds shall be added back into the General Fund after 31 days. A simple plan as such would end hunger, homelessness, petty crime & add security for the wealthy in society. Special circumstances easily handled by civil courts. Equal opportunity would be a reality & expensive social programs unnecessary. If you can, tell me why this would not work.

Scenario: Boy meets girl They date briefly and then don't speak for a year They reconnect and date for 6 weeks. They break up and boy says increasingly threatening and disrespectful things to girl for 2 weeks until girl threatens to contact boys family and police. Girl 'blocks' boy Boy shows up 3 months later wanting to date again Girl declines and says that she is willing to be friends Boy is visably frusterated with girl but requests girl message him sometime Girl says she will do so in the distant future. Boy gives girl tight hug that doesn't end until she pulls back Boy leaves at 5pm Boy returns at 10pm and walks into girls house It happens that girl was walking toward door and boy is stunned when he opens door Boy steps back and girl slams/locks door Boy refuses to leave and demands girl comes outside Girl requests that he leave but does not call police as suggested by friend Boy stays outside girls house for 3 hours Boy returns two days later at 8am Knocks on door Girl asks who is at the door Boy gives fake name Girl recognizes boys voice and calls police Police tell boy to leave girl alone and not to return to her property Boy returns the next morning knocking on door demanding girl come outside Girl calls police and police have boy agree to a restriction of contact order requiring boy not to attempt to contact girl directly or indirectly One week later boy contacts girls friend requesting girl to contact him Friend reports boy to girl Girl reports boy to police Police decide to charge boy with harassment 5 months go by Girl receives email from defence lawyer and calls 3 times over the course of a week with one response at the end of the week in the form of a voicemail informing girl that lawyer is going on holiday 2 weeks later police officer knocks on girls door at 8am unannounced and tells girl that if she doesn't get in touch with lawyer the case will be dropped Girl leaves additional voicemail for lawyer informing lawyer of police officers warning Girl is contacted by lawyer a week later who claims that police have not given her the entire case file as justification for not having any idea about the timeline of events and evidence of harassment Lawyer asks girl if girls actions leading up to breakup justified boys harassment and refusal of girls request to not be contacted by boy Girl is shocked and appalled that lawyer would ask this question when girl requested boy leave her alone on numerous occasions and his disregard for girls freedom is the reason for concern Not to mention the harassment started months after the relationship ended Girl feels that lawyer does not understand why she feels vulnerable about having to confront boy directly if the justice system fails to protect her right to her property and self One week passes Boy is meant to go to court in 2 weeks Boy adds girl on Instagram Girl takes screen shot of notification Reports incident (though inclined out of initiative to protect her freedom she was also instructed by police to report any attempted contact) Girl has to wait 5 hours for police to come to her home to update file Considering that the boy is going to court and has been told multiple times by girl and others that he does not have the right to demand contact with her, his persistence indicates that the justice system is not solving the issue of the girl being harassed and having her freedom limited by living in varying degrees of fear What should the girl do?

Hello. I am a fairly intelligent white male and find myself fairly ostracized by society. I understand the MGTOW movement via living near a college campus for a while, and inner cities to that previously ( my sexual market value was low in both places, despite Stef's arguments. I think his age and location have insulated him from the degree to which younger women in the US have been propagandized and advertised to pursue one of three categories: the non-white, the weak (read SJWs that are rail-thin), and the dirty ( skeezy men )). Much like the last show's caller, the guy who moved to Cambodia, I get the idea of being low to middle income in America (relative to an area, NYC obviously having heavy competition). Women seemed to really get off on having some dumb-ass or clearly deficient person to have around, and really seem to get excited in my opinion when some decently put-together person comes along. It seems like they get off on the nihilism of knowing they can always throw themselves after the next person who comes along, or pump out a kid and latch onto the government. I get the impression that associating with someone who can hold a conversation and is intelligent is fundamentally off-putting as it conflicts with their narcissism (the better looking ones). Obviously, the more attractive women are agreed with by the desparate white knights, which greatly decreases their incentive to have good contact with reality, speaking probabilistically. The basic dynamic I see is that they would rather associate with someone who is easy to control than not. In any case, the underlying intent of my post is to query the wider group as to whether they think rage is a reasonable response to this. In my personal experience, I once attempted to hold a woman to account for being dishonest and was attacked by a swarm of sycophants and white knights. It shared a disturbing parallel to a childhood experience where a best friend in grade school, a female before puberty (I'm male), whose parents were wealthy and professional (medical) but leftist wrote me off abruptly for being middle class and plunged into an exploration of who I viewed as fairly abusive, underhanded people who played the class card very hard. I suppose a related tangent is along the lines of the degree to which white western women have totally abandoned their own kind, and feel no shame about doing horrible things to the people who work insane hours and give up years of their primes in study carrels to dig through fascinating but dry details of how to get an iPhone (fundamentally a sex toy for girls) to work. I get the impression that Stef, as an actor originally, and hailing from the great white north, misses much of the experience of the rest of us, sailing above on an early hit of wealth, acting training for interacting with people before learning the tech stuff, etc. Just fishing generally for ideas. I suppose, with Trump and whatnot, to what degree are we being cowards in suppressing our rage for fear of career and personal life problems. I've lost a couple jobs and relationships already from sticking to FDR-type principles, but this one about confronting women about their unethical behavior is I think an edge case even for the free-thinking community.

Something to consider if you are thinking of voting for Donald Trump: http://reason.com/blog/2015/10/06/donald-trump-thinks-kelo-style-eminent-d And if you're not familiar with the Kelo v The City of New London, it's a landmark property rights case that I think all Americans should be outraged about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

To borrow a principle of quantum mechanics called the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle which says that position and momentum are mutually uncertain. Knowing the position will leave momentum in uncertainty, while knowing the momentum will leave the location uncertain. This strikes me as eerily similar to what happens in moral philosophy in regards to ethics and justice. I call it the MUP. The Morality Uncertainty Principle says that as the certainty of morality increases, the certainty of punishment decreases. The more you know about morality, the more objective it becomes- the exercise of justice and punishment becomes less known and more subjective. The certainty of morality is the uncertainty of justice, and viceversa. People expect specifically determined punishments and judicial action out of a specifically determined system of universal ethics. However, universal ethics contain no information about the actions to follow after immoral behavior has occurred - and this upsets people. So they codify their laws, try to write down specific criminal justice codes for each and every imaginable situation, and in the process of doing that they create uncertainty of morality. As a psychological note, the preference for certainty of justice over certainty of morality seems to be as a way of managing the anxiety that uncertainty generates in people. Not knowing what to do bothers people, and they don't want to think about it. By having an instruction manual they get to relax their upset sensibilities at the expense of a rational and universal set of ethics. In other words, if it feels good, it is good. But a minority of people reject this paradigm and are perfectly comfortable with the certainty of ethics versus the uncertainty of punitive action. The anarchists, philosophers, libertarians, and so on. It is the inverse way of thinking and even feeling. Back to the topic of certainty, this ambiguity of the right side of the equation is often used as an attack on universal principles. They think that if a violation of property rights, a violation of the NAP, or any other likewise principle is broken then it must be that justice and punishment must follow and this must also be objectively determined. No, it's not like that. Tolerance, forgiveness, mercy, pity. These are all possible outcomes of a violation of ethical principles. Total and utter justice and restitution is also possible for the same crime. It is this 100% to 0% uncertainty of follow-up behavior that bothers people deeply. Some philosophers like Daniel Denett go as far as saying that they simply don't want to live in a world without punishments. It is unthinkable to them because of their feelings, which is rather anti intellectual. The approach I have to the uncertainty of justice in the certainty of morality is one of intensity. The intensity approach is as such: The intensity of a moral problem is inversely proportional to the intensity of justice. Meaning that situations of intense moral duress like life or death scenarios lower the intensity of the desire to proceed with punitive actions. In the classic flagpole example, it is certainly determined that breaking the window to save your life is a violation of property rights - but the intensity of the moral choice was so high that proceeding to prosecute a man for it would be unthinkable since it follows inversely proportional intensities. But what if its the opposite? What if someone who is in no duress whatsoever, no poverty or hunger, someone simply breaks in your window and takes your stuff just because. The moral intensity is so low, so minimal, that the resulting justice intensity increases almost to the max. There is no good reason to break property rights in such low intensity, thus restitution and actions against him are perfectly understandable - but always with the low probability of mercy and forgiveness. Maybe you just don't want to go through the trouble and let it go. In the end, it is the shift from certainty of justice to certainty of morality that can effectively change society, and it begins with individuals capable of standing up saying "I don't know what should be done about this crime, nor do I want to".

My Thoughts: I was wondering if anyone has gone through this study provided below and what their thoughts were on it. My interpretation is that property rights (thus a sense of self and thus a sense of morality) is a naturally emerging phenomenon as spacial awareness is developed, i.e. it's all an extention of spacial awareness. From the study: Abstract: From the moment children say “ mine!” by 2 years of age , objects of possession change progressively from being experienced as primarily un-alienable property (i.e., something that is absolute or non negotiable), to being alienable (i.e., something that is negotiable in reciprocal exchanges). As possession begin s to be expe rienced as alienable, the child enters “moral space”, a socially normative and evaluative space made of perceived values that are either good or less good, and where accountability and reputation begin to play a prominent role. The aim of the article is to show the close developmental link between possession and morality . Source: http://www.psychology.emory.edu/cognition/rochat/lab/Possession%20and%20morality%20in%20early%20development%5B1%5D.pdf