anoncowherd

12 ms·

61.
by anoncowherd 13y ago
>> It allows the UK to monitor "in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom" which seems a little broad! You're right, that is a bit broad. "In the interests of the UK's ruling class&qu
62.
by anoncowherd 13y ago
The mainstream media is a tool for controlling us. As a random example, a tragic school shooting happens, and the media will be chock-full of people demanding more gun control, with maybe a couple of voices of moderation in between. It only
63.
by anoncowherd 13y ago
Good to see someone here making economic sense, instead of thinking we can all get something for nothing for ever and ever.
64.
by anoncowherd 13y ago
Wow :D I've seen quite a few outbursts brought on by cognitive dissonance, but yours definitely takes the cake. Maybe you'll eventually wake the fuck up in some kind of gulag near Seattle.
65.
by anoncowherd 13y ago
>> you're refusing to truly reconsider property rights as a use of force, and appealing to instinct rather than actually thinking about the problem You're skirting around having to actually hear what I'm saying and let
66.
by anoncowherd 13y ago
>> The part where you have to do semantic contortions in order to make it a true statement. If anyone's guilty of butchering everyday language in order to make an obscure academic edge case, it's your redefinition of extorti
67.
by anoncowherd 13y ago
Still with the mental gymnastics. Which part of "taxation is extortion" was not clear?
68.
by anoncowherd 13y ago
>> You need to try harder if you want to convince people their government and their freedom is a lie. Where did this idea come from? :p .. You're on to something, by the way. It's almost as if you were already kind of convi
69.
by anoncowherd 13y ago
>> But it _does_ work to our benefit. No it doesn't. It works to the benefit of the ruling class, which, coincidentally, is the group of people who set the system up in the first place, and still control it today. Sure, its membe
70.
by anoncowherd 13y ago
>> I have had poor results with both methods, though I have gained the all-important sensation of "doing something" while truly accomplishing precisely nothing tangible. At least now you know it's a waste of time and ef
71.
by anoncowherd 13y ago
>> What are your thoughts with regard to the amount of personal information that Facebook possesses? "Fucking disgusting" >> Regardless of whether they are good or evil, what do you think the potential implications a
72.
by anoncowherd 13y ago
The system is working fine, it's just not to our benefit.
73.
by anoncowherd 13y ago
>> The Appeals Courts, the Supreme Court, the executive (can pardon) So basically you're saying the watchers watch themselves? But this is exactly the problem I was pointing out. It's just not going to work, ever, and the US
74.
by anoncowherd 13y ago
Reform government surveillance, huh? So we just need better government surveillance then? With checks and balances and all, but how well have those worked in the past? Did Bradley Manning get his "due process"? No? "-B
75.
by anoncowherd 13y ago
>> So nobody should be able to own land they aren't using for anything and I should be able to just go and occupy it? Cool. Why would the same rule not apply to you? In other words, you can't just "occupy" land,
76.
by anoncowherd 13y ago
Yep, bullshit as usual.
77.
by anoncowherd 13y ago
Right. I wasn't actually confused about what's going on, just wanted to point out it doesn't make sense :p
78.
by anoncowherd 13y ago
>> Therein lies the problem though, even if we accept the NAP, we can never agree on what is force or violence and what is the initiation of force No it doesn't. You're only making a problem where none really exists. Compl
79.
by anoncowherd 13y ago
>> my assertion is that this is not a "lifeboat" scenario. property "rights" are, at their absolute core, a use of force. Nope. Our "rights" are an idea , but one that's aligned with our "intui
80.
by anoncowherd 13y ago
>> Please stop coercing him using appeals to emotion and false authority. It's paternalistic and condescending. Tell me, do you think that when say, 330 million people are systematically punished for attempting to keep their p
81.
by anoncowherd 13y ago
>> I know that we don't agree about morality but god-dammit my one moral principle should still be the basis of everything Ah yes, "we just disagree on morality" is a classic avoidance-technique for a Statist that refus
82.
by anoncowherd 13y ago
This is their definition of 'voluntary': http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/voluntary done, made, brought about, undertaken, etc., of one's own accord or by free choice - Coincidentally, it's
83.
by anoncowherd 13y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6871663
84.
by anoncowherd 13y ago
>> The question isn't whether or not the NAP is valid; it's what the fuck I actually do in real life. What a particular person does in real life has no bearing on whether a particular moral principle is a good idea. You ma
85.
by anoncowherd 13y ago
>> What happens when one person pays another to kill you? It's a free and voluntary exchange. And you're dead. Everyone is better off, right? Right? I'm sensing a reluctance to process ideas here. Bad stuff is going to
86.
by anoncowherd 13y ago
As I mentioned already, it's certainly possible to complicate things to no end. But what exactly do you think you've accomplished with this message, besides prompting me to refute bullshit distractions? >> Is it force for
87.
by anoncowherd 13y ago
I'm not sure what that distinction might be, and I doubt it would be real anyway. Basically the idea is that everything should be voluntary, which is really hard to disagree with whilst being sane.
88.
by anoncowherd 13y ago
>> The claim is that without specifically defining force and initiation, the NAP is useless And I pointed out that you don't really need any specific definitions for "force" or "initiation" (and that bickeri
89.
by anoncowherd 13y ago
By the way, voluntarists and anarcho-capitalists are one and the same.
90.
by anoncowherd 13y ago
>> I mean all those that subscribe to the NAP: minarchists, 'right libertarians,' voluntaryists, and 'anarcho-capitalists.' What exactly is your claim about them, then? I should stop guessing at ideas to refute and

More ›