Silk Road forums

Quote from: kmfkewm on June 02, 2013, 08:52 am

Quote from: koonta on May 31, 2013, 04:31 am

The pedobears have got brazen now they have Tor,the cunts think they are mainstream.I hope they all get caught.

Ive had a bit of a delve in to the deep web,real deep, and what i saw scared me.I used to wonder if snuff,rape and torture movies existed and Tor answered all my questions.You can get anything for a price.

People are so cruel.

PS koonta, by having 'delved really deep into the deep web' I assume that you have 'stumbled upon' CP. Guess what that makes you in the eyes of society? If you guessed child molester, step forward to collect your prize! Now I know that you probably are in denial and wonder how you could possibly be mistaken for 'one of those people', but the thing is that you have seen the forbidden images and now you are given the mark of the beast! You are in the same boat as all the others who have downloaded CP, part of the scum of the modern world! When you attack people who have downloaded CP, you are throwing insults into a mirror, and only your own denial will keep you from recognizing this fact.

I always love when people say "I think we should totally fuck over everybody who has downloaded CP, because I went and downloaded some CP, and it was fucking gross!". It just reeks of hypocrisy, and the saddest part is that the people who say things like this never even realize that they are calling for their own selves to be fucked over. You know the only difference between you and half of the people locked up for CP  possession and receipt? You used Tor and they used Limewire. There is not a moral difference between you, in many cases there isn't even a sexual preference difference between you. The only difference between you and them is that you used Tor and that they used Limewire.   

Seriously, if you hope that all of the people who downloaded CP get caught, how about you start by turning yourself in? But no, you are special right? Of course it doesn't apply to YOU! Don't worry, you are not alone, the world is full of special people like you, throwing stones with one hand while sinning with the other. Be grateful that you sinned with Tor instead of Limewire though, it is very likely the only thing that will prevent you from getting your teeth 'knocked the fuck in'  while walking down the tier.

I dont think the level of criminality is the same with people who produce the videos as compared to the people who watch them but the punishments should be harsh for both sides as to deter people from doing either.

Its just a nasty business with really nasty people.

So it is exceedingly obvious that the penalties for producing CP should be steep in most cases, as the act generally causes great damage to the victim. The only exceptions are for things like teenagers taking pictures of themselves and other things like this, as in these cases there is not a victim from the production and any penalties given to the producer will simply compound damage of the only person who could be construed as a victim.

It is not apparent why there should be penalties for the consumers. There are two primary arguments for this. The first argument is revictimization, the notion that every time somebody views an image of molestation, it is like the molestation happens all over again. Taken literally this claim is quite obviously bullshit. Interpreted as a metaphor for 'every time somebody views an image of molestation, it causes some damage to the depicted child' the claim is less absolutely obviously false, but it is still not inherently true. In fact, I am willing to bet that in the vast majority of cases the vast majority of children depicted in CP have absolutely no idea whether somebody is viewing the images or not. In many cases, the only person who knows that the image was viewed is the person who viewed it in the first place. Certainly in cases where the depicted child is incapable of determining that their image has been viewed, we must conclude that the person who viewed the image had absolutely no effect on the child. To claim otherwise is essentially falling back to the magical definition of revictimization.

The second argument is called the market theory of child pornography, and it is much more convincing than revictimization. The argument is that child pornography is produced by producers for the sole purpose of providing it to consumers, and that if there are no consumers of CP there will be no demand for CP, and therefor the producers will stop producing CP and therefor less children will be molested. In some cases I can agree entirely with this argument. Certainly it should be illegal to pay for children to be molested, financially funding child pornography should not be legal. In the past this argument made a hell of a lot more sense than it does today, because decades ago almost all consumers of CP paid for it. Today almost all consumers of CP do not pay for it, rather they obtain it for free off of giant anonymous networks, usually P2P networks like limewire. The majority of CP offenders do not socially network with other offenders, or even expose themselves to the social networks of CP offenders. In modern times it is very rare for anybody to financially support a CP industry, and in fact the financial CP industry is so tiny that it is only responsible for a fraction of a percentage of the total CP distribution.

My opinion is that in addition to standing on very weak ground, the market theory unjustly shifts responsibility from producers to consumers. If somebody wants to rob a bank just because they know people will look at the video footage, should we blame the people who watch the video of the bank robbery? It isn't a perfect analogy because not many people are really interested in watching video footage of bank robberies, and bank robbers generally have a different motivation than being seen on video, but fundamentally this is the same sort of thing. Do we blame the person who commits an act of aggression, or the person who will watch an act of aggression if one is committed? If the person committing the act of aggression refrained from doing so, there would be no act of aggression to watch in the first place. Clearly the person to blame is the one committing the act of aggression in the first place. Perhaps terrorism is a better analogy. Terrorists will attack civilians largely because they know that people will see the attacks and be afraid. For example, look at the Boston bombing, that was very largely televised and reported on. If people wouldn't have watched the bombing take place at that location, you can be assured that the attackers would not have bombed that location. Does this mean that the bombing was the responsibility of the people who watched the attack on television after it had occurred? Should we outlaw reporting on terrorist events, to discourage terrorists from attacking us to spread terror throughout our societies ?

about the only argument I can see here is: should someone who views/purchases CP be held to the same accountability level as someone who personally commits the act? and since that is not a "security" question, I dont feel I should elaborate on it.....

I don't understand the desire for people to stop posting in this thread until a moderator moves it to a different subforum. To me it just seems like it is not at all a big deal. None of us can move the thread, until it is moved it is here, there is no reason to ignore it simply because nobody who can move it has moved it yet.

I think the autism might explain a bit why you hold to arguments so mind-boggling to us "neurotypicals".

I agree. Neurotypical people are more empathizing and Autistic people are more systemizing. You cannot help but have emotional reactions to the subject of child pornography, which of course severely impairs your ability to think rationally about the subject. On the other hand, I cannot help but to logically analyze child pornography as a system, without having a strong emotional response to it as I lack in empathy. Your natural inclination is to see the big picture of child pornography, which includes lots of abuse at various levels, and therefor you desire to burn everything to do with it to the ground. My natural inclination is to see the components of child pornography and classify them by various criteria, including the damage they do to people, and only to desire to remove the components that are damaging.

You keep coming back to the (facetious, I guess) "quantum entanglement" nonsense. You're getting hung up on the language. Viewing images of children being raped does not LITERALLY cause a new instance of rape upon that victim. You're failing to parse the use of metaphor. We mean that it dramatically deepens the IMPACT of one episode of victimization. It turns one horrific episode that can be forgotten or worked through into a public humiliation that never ends and can never be forgotten. That's what we mean when we say it re-abuses the victim.

Of course it does not literally cause children to be raped, although it is hard to tell if anybody actually believes it does or not. Certainly a lot of people use language that comes across as saying every time an image of CP is viewed, the depicted child is molested all over again. I would very much like to think that modern civilized humans understand that this is impossible, but when they keep claiming that this mechanism exists it is extremely hard to conclude that they don't actually believe it. But even assuming that it is used as a metaphor it is simply a dishonest metaphor. Once I saw somebody arguing against ephebephilia and they used an image of a 10 year old to show what ephebephiles are attracted to. I pointed out that ephebephiles are in no cases attracted to 10 year olds, and they gave a similar response to me as you are right now. They said they were not using the image to be age accurate, but rather as a metaphor for 'ephebephiles being attracted to defenseless children'. Using this logic it would make sense for me to post a picture of a female baby and claim that this is what average males are sexually attracted to, because it is a 'metaphor for males being attracted to females'. You see the dishonesty?

In either case the humiliation caused by CP to the victim is still not the fault of the person viewing the CP, it is the fault of the person who produced the CP and initially published it to the internet in the first place. When somebody views an image of CP there is not even really an ability for the depicted child to know that this event happened. If they have had CP with them in it published to the internet, they will always have to wonder if somebody is looking at the image or not, even if nobody ever does. So the pain caused to them is caused by the person who took the photograph in the first place, it exists independently of anybody viewing the image or not. When somebody views an image there is no inherent information transfer to the person depicted in the image, without any information transfer there cannot be any change in the child's emotional state linked to the viewing of the image. In most cases the children who ARE aware that individual people are viewing their CP, are only aware of this fact because they are part of restitution programs where they ask to be notified by the police of each such incident so that they can sue the viewer for financial restitution. Clearly the people who take part in such programs value the financial gains they make from people viewing their CP more than they value not being made aware of, and therefor not having emotional reactions to, people viewing their CP.

A lone autistic man in a basement pleasuring himself to "ephebephilic but not pedophilic" videos of 12 year olds being raped may not feel like he is harming anyone. He didn't rape anyone. But it further degrades the victim. It worsens the consequences of the original crime perpetrated on them.

Ephebephiles are not attracted to 12 year olds, the lowest cut off age for ephebephilia is 14 years old and some sources put it at 15. I don't understand the mechanism by which viewing CP worsens the consequences of the original crime, perhaps you can explain it for me. Unless there is information transfer then there quite literally cannot be causative change, so if somebody anonymously looks at an image of CP I think it is pretty obvious that this causes no causative change to take place in the victim. The only cases where such a link can be established are in cases where the victim is made aware that individual people are viewing their CP images. This is usually because of police programs, and if this damage is truly what you have a problem with then you would favor legalizing possession of CP so that police stop informing formerly abused children every single time somebody is arrested with one of their images. Additionally, there are technological solutions that can ensure a lack of information transfer to the abused victim. If all CP is transferred with 'private information retrieval' it can be made impossible for *anybody* to determine that *anybody* has downloaded a specific CP item. Usually when I point this technological solution out to people, they change their tune and begin to argue that damage is done to the child even if nobody can know that anybody downloaded CP with the child in it, belying the claim of revictimization being only a metaphor. Another good point is that some CP features only children who are currently dead. Do you believe that after a child passes away it should be legal to view all CP depicting them, as it is therefor impossible for viewing of the CP to cause a change in the emotional state of the child? What about cases where the now adult child consents to allowing people to view CP with them in it?

How you can continue to post your views here, which as you freely admit are that of someone who indulges in CP, a pedophile, is reprehensible and beyond belief. I don't care for your convoluted, incoherent attempts at justifying the actions of yourself and the other sick fucks who are involved in the depravity of a child's innocence for their own sexual gratification. What a load of bullshit. Any sexual interaction between an adult and a child is an abhorrent act of unquestionable horror in the eyes of a person with a moral compass and a genuine concern of the child's welfare and safety.

I don't believe I ever actually admitted to indulging in child pornography, actually I would be quite surprised if I did. Certainly I have no interest in prepubescent children, so I am not a pedophile in any meaningful way, only perhaps in the eyes of the brainwashed masses. Of course I do fully realize that I am far from alone in being attracted to teenagers who are under the age of consent. There is a great deal of supporting evidence leading me to this conclusion. For one there is an evolutionary advantage to ephebephilia, as females reproductive value starts declining around the age of twenty years old, and peak fertility is reached shortly after puberty begins. This means that genes coding for attraction to mid to late stage pubescent people will be quite common as they are more likely to be passed on. At least they were more likely to be passed on until about one hundred years ago, when such relationships began to be seen as socially unacceptable in some parts of the world, after concentrated campaigning by religious and feminist groups.

Additionally, from a developmental point of view, full sexual characteristics and maturity are reached at about the age of 14 years old, as is clearly illustrated by the tanner scale. This means that from the point of view of attraction to sexual characteristics, there is actually no real distinguishable difference between someone who is about 14.5 and someone who is 20. Of course, the 14.5 year old will have more youthful characteristics, making them more sexually appealing, as non-prepubescent youth is a biological indicator of fertility. If a male is attracted to 20 year olds, it is almost a certainty that he is going to be attracted to 14.5 year olds. Although modern psychiatric terminology may attempt to say otherwise, classifying ephebephilia and teliophilia as separate things, the proof is to be found in the biological development stages and the ages that they are reached at. The only real argument for ephebephilia as something separate from teliophilia is in exclusive ephebephilia. All neurotypical males are non-exclusive ephebephiles. Of course some may not be consciously aware of it, and most have good reason to repress such desires, much as how many homosexuals fail to consciously accept the fact that they are homosexual, due to the social constructs in which they find themselves. Additionally, of course many will not admit their attractions publicly, even if they have come to accept them themselves. However, I do believe that most of us know that it is true that typical males are attracted to mid to late stage pubescent people. In my day to day life I have witnessed a very large number of friends and acquaintances (from many different countries) imply or admit such, and I find it hard to believe that this has been a statistical anomaly. My own experiences, combined with the evolutionary data, the biological development data and the historical data, lead me to confidently conclude that most males are non exclusive ephebephiles. It is especially hard to deny this to yourself if you view an image of a sexually attractive 14+ year old. For example, the following link shows a movie cover with a picture of a 14 year old on it http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3265443328/tt2072045?ref_=tt_ov_i . By the way, I have never actually seen that documentary, and from what I can gather is not very technically accurate with its terminology, despite apparently arguing for my position (I suppose 'are all men non-exclusive Ephebephiles' doesn't have the same attention grabbing power behind it).

My attempts at 'justifying' myself are actually extraordinarily coherent, it is the arguments against me that are quite obviously illogical and emotionally charged. And I already realize that a lot of people are quite aware of this fact, although they probably will not publicly agree with me lest they become part of your modern era witch hunt. I personally don't give much of a fuck at all to speak the truth to insane people, my security skills are such that I know you will not find me and I personally just cannot bring myself to give a fuck what irrational people think. I know this is a severe character shortcoming on my part, and will cause me a great deal of difficulty in functioning in our irrational world full of stupid people, but that is a burden I am quite willing to take upon myself.

False equivalency!!  Your completely off your rocker if you truly believe that!!  ANY association or involvement in anything related to CP is not only immoral, sick and deeply depraved, but is committed by cold hearted bastards with an inability to feel or have feelings towards others.

Well I have read multiple typologies of child pornography offenders and for the most part you have missed the mark. Of course there are some sociopathic offenders, but the majority of CP offenders are simply pornography addicts who have become desensitized to normal pornography. Many of them would not hurt anybody or actually act out their fantasies. I would compare it to the female rape fantasy if anything. A very large percentage of females are sexually aroused by fantasizing about being raped, but nobody really thinks that a large percentage of females desire to actually be raped. This separation of fantasy and reality is something that most people are capable of doing, and in the majority of cases those who indulge in child pornography are able to separate their fantasies from their actions in reality. Of course there is the fact that actual children are abused to create child pornography, whereas nobody is raped when a female fantasizes about being raped. Of course there is a difference between these two things. But so long as the person who consumes child pornography does not lead to any actual damage being done to a child, I quite honestly don't see the harm in it. There is no magical property of photographs that cause those depicted to re-experience the depicted events every time the photograph is viewed. There is no quantum entanglement connection between a previously molested child and the image of the molestation. When somebody views an image of CP, no damage is done to anybody. The damage is caused by the person who abused the child, and the responsibility for the damage falls squarely on their shoulders. When people bring child pornography consumers up to the level of child molesters, they are really bringing child molesters down to the level of child pornography consumers. They are saying that someone who has molested a child is just as morally neutral as somebody who has viewed an image of a child being molested. This is insensitivity to the child victims of child pornography, you minimize their molestations such that they are equated to somebody having viewed a series of colored pixels. Of course in cases where people pay for child pornography to be produced, it is a different story.

Additionally, they have obvious mental deficiencies and the inability to differentiate between right and wrong. Your ridiculous and lame attempt at suggesting myself and others of the same view have been influenced by Government propaganda relating to issues involving CP is just ludicrous.

Quite certainly you have been influenced by the propaganda of your times, only a little over a hundred years ago it was quite common and socially acceptable to marry and procreate with 12 year olds. In the 1880s in the USA a great many states had an age of consent of only 10 years old, and one state had an age of consent as low as 7. The propaganda originally came from feminist groups and religious groups, although in modern times it is carried on largely by the government and special interest groups. You see, the war on child pornography is worth hundreds of billions of dollars. A lot of peoples jobs depend on child pornography possession remaining illegal, both in the government and private sector. Additionally, in much of the modern world the age of consent is set at about 14 years old. In some countries, such as Spain, the age of consent is 13. Now, you may think that Spain is full of child molesters and their apologists, but I think that you have been brainwashed by your culture into accepting an arbitrary age as the minimum acceptable for sexual relations. From a purely biological perspective I would argue that age 14 is the minimum acceptable age for sexual relations, as that is about the age where full sexual maturity is reached. However, historically people have argued that the onset of puberty is the minimum acceptable age. 

What has influenced my point of view is reading about pricks like yourself who continue to justify their actions, whether that be making CP or downloading the disturbing images/videos available to them, and how they can be brought to justice one way or the other. You can post all you want and pretend to differentiate between what you claim are "different levels" of CP offenses, but at the end of the day, whatever part you play in the sick and twisted underground CP industry, is irrelevant in my eyes and a criminal offense, even frowned upon by those already inside for some horrific crimes.

First of all even the police agencies differentiate between the different levels of CP offenses. Doing otherwise would quite clearly show that they are fucking retarded, although unfortunately they manage to show this in several other ways already. Equating somebody who molests children with somebody who views images of children being molested, is to minimize the damage that child molestation causes to the victim. It is insensitive to the child victim and it is insensitive to the person who is ruined for having merely viewed some colored pixels in the privacy of their own home. Additionally, you are mostly incorrect in thinking of CP as an industry.  Additionally, in several countries it is not a criminal offense to download CP. In fact I believe even in New York it is not a criminal offense to browse child pornography sites, so long as the images are not saved to the hard drive (and no it doesn't count cached images, that is what the court case was about in the first place). In the Czech Republic it is legal to download and save as much child porn as you want, so long as you don't distribute it to others.

This confirms my opinion of you champ and demonstrates a level of arrogance and immorality beyond the comprehension of most. Your inherently conceited attitude towards CP and the welfare of those children in general is both disturbing and horrific. Here you go again with your insults towards others who speak up about the abominable acts these predators commit in an attempt to deflect the negative attention you seem to be attracting.

What you see demonstrated is perhaps arrogance. I mean, it is hard not to be arrogant when you are one of the few people who understands that photographs are not magic. I really do think quite highly of my ability to see through propaganda and cultural conditioning, but as I mentioned before it is both a gift and a curse.

Comment of the year!! It's pretty simple mate. I, like many others, despise anyone, regardless of a reason , who feels it's O.K to use and abuse any child in their warped and twisted fantasies with no regard for the welfare of the children involved. Only a sick and mentally disturbed individual would even consider engaging in CP in one way or another and how that individual could justify their unspeakable actions and be comfortable with their decision is abominable! . Just for the record, I have a Bachelor's and a Master's Degree from university, which has been documented in previous posts approx a year ago in case you thought I'd just made it up in a spur of the moment decision.

Nice, is your degree in criminology or what? Some social science probably. Regardless I don't think it is ok to abuse children, I just don't think that anonymously looking at CP without paying for it causes a magic quantum entanglement based remolestation to take place. Sorry for being so damn logical and sane!

I'm sure you'll respond again with some more irrational statements on events throughout History, comparing apples to oranges, or post some drug fueled rant on the justification of your actions. However, the facts are that you are involved in the CP industry and are prepared to defend it at all costs, irrespective of the children hurt throughout the process. Eventually, these decisions will contribute to the punishment destined to eventually  come your way.

How do you know I don't live in New York or the Czech Republic , and only view CP in my browser without saving it, or never upload it? Anyway I am not worried as I am a security expert, last I checked the NSA doesn't give a fuck about CP. Of course this all assumes that I view child pornography in the first place, something that I am quite certain I never claimed to have done. You see the thing is that I am able to differentiate between the fine details of a system. Perhaps it is because I am autistic, you see neurotypical people see the forest but they miss the trees and Autistic people see the trees but miss the forest. I think the problem is that you are looking at the forest of child pornography and you are seeing that it is full of hurt and abused children, and so you want to burn the entire thing to the ground. I am looking at the trees of child pornography, and I see that although we absolutely should cut some of them down, some of them are not causing harm at all, and cutting them down is simply an act of cruelty fueled by emotionally charged, illogical feelings.

And as far as the claim that SR would suck without leaders goes, let's look at things from two perspectives. From a microscopic perspective SR has a set of leaders, from a macroscopic perspective the online drug scene consists of dozens of independent forums and sites that have sets of independent leaders. Nobody is forced to use SR, rather they use it because they find that it is in their best interests to do so. SR does not really have leaders, rather it has operators who provide a service. From a macroscopic perspective the online drug scene takes on a hydra formation. Different service providers compete in a free market, nobody holds a gun to a persons head and tells them they must use SR. Additionally, the hydra model is not the most efficient model there is. Ideally the online drug scene would consist of what is called an all channel network. In an all channel network, all of the nodes are able to communicate with all of the other nodes. Additionally, none of the nodes are more important than any of the other nodes. It is entirely possible for the online drug scene to take on an all channel structure, however the technologies that we are currently using go against this organizational model. Tor hidden services inherently require a centralized server, the centralized server is always going to be managed by a single person or a select group of people. The site running on the server is always going to be under the control of a single person or a select group of people. Freenet is much more suited to a leaderless organization. On Freenet it would be possible for us to have a forum that is entirely decentralized, spread throughout the entire Freenet network. No node would be more valuable than other nodes, and no single group of people would provide a service that is used by the larger community. This would achieve a leaderless all channel network whilst still allowing us to carry on with a forum similar to the one we have here. Reviews could still be left on vendors, vendors could still advertise their services, Bitcoin could still be used for transactions, etc. Of course this would require a significant reworking of the currently utilized system, and some custom software would also need to be made that utilized Freenet for its underlying transport protocol. There would still need to be providers of escrow services, but they could operate as independent service providers and compete for the market.

So it is entirely possible to have something very similar to a leaderless SR. It is just that the technology we are currently utilizing essentially requires a hierarchical organizational structure.

I suppose there are two things that are required for a free world. One of those things is anarcho-capitalism, however this by itself is not sufficient. That is to say that anarcho-capitalism is required for total freedom but does not ensure it. In order to obtain total freedom, we additionally require that militant libertarianism dominates the world. Anarcho-capitalism is an economic system, and it is the only economic system that is compatible with freedom. However, it is possible to have a world full of slaves even if anarcho-capitalism is the only economic system utilized. Private police forces could enforce laws that say black people are slaves, for example. Clearly this world would not be free, however it would still be anarcho-capitalistic.

First I will explain why anarcho-capitalism is the only economic system that is possibly compatible with freedom. In an anarcho-capitalist economic system, there is no taxation. Taxation is inherently theft. It is the violent redistribution of wealth, most commonly managed by a centralized government force. Under non anarcho-capitalist economic systems, people put forth effort to obtain wealth only to have large percentages of the wealth taken from them at gun point. Of course, the armed thugs who steal the money from the wealth producers use the stolen money to fund themselves. Thus they are very parasitic. In order to maintain the power to be parasitic, they also distribute the stolen wealth to some of the common people, in order to gain the support of enough people that they can continue being parasites. In the current economic systems utilized by the governments of most of the world, people are not given a choice in regards to many of the services they obtain. People are currently forced to fund organizations that they are against (ie: the DEA), they are also largely forced to fund select service providers (ie: police, fire, roads, schools, FDA, etc), in some cases they are allowed to use alternative providers but they still must fund the state selected providers, in other cases they are only allowed to use the providers selected by the state. This is state control of the market, it reduces peoples ability to spend their funds on the things they desire, it reduces the amount of capital that people have available for themselves, it forces people to fund things they are against and it is based entirely on violence, collectivism and slavery. This sort of market is against the better interests of all the people, especially the most productive people in society. This sort of system is also ripe for corruption; the politicians can get funding for programs such as the war on drugs because everybody is forced to fund these programs even if they are against them, the politicians always give contracts to their friends and financial supporters, indeed entire industries rise up that serve the political elite. Wars are fought and millions of people are murdered simply so friends of politicians can get money in military contracts, we ourselves are enslaved so the prison industrial complex can continue profiting off of our slavery, etc. In addition to this, we are given sub adequate services, we are forced to pay for things such as roads and schools and yet the quality of the provided services is much below the cost we are forced to pay for them. The lack of competition also stifles innovation, etc. The list of reasons why the current economic system is horrible and totally counter to freedom goes on and on, but at a fundamental level it is counter to freedom because it is built on the backs of financial slaves and because it restricts our choices and forces us to fund our oppressors.

Now of course simply having a totally free economy is not going to guarantee that we have freedom. A free economy could lead to private parties paying for slave traders to enslave us, paying for armies of robbers to steal from us, etc. Even though a totally free economy is required for total freedom, it is not in itself sufficient. This is why we must also have militant libertarianism, of course voluntarily funded. We need police forces that enforce libertarian laws. That means if somebody hires a private police force to arrest drug dealers and steal their drugs and money, the libertarian police force will treat them as robbers and kidnappers. Only when the militant libertarian forces are capable of overcoming all adversaries, can we hope for actual freedom.

So no, anarcho-capitalism by itself is not sufficient for freedom, however it is indeed required for it. However, only when militant libertarianism dominates the world, protecting the anarcho-capitalist economic system as well as our human rights, can we hope to obtain freedom.

Shoot me in the face, please.

Didn't we agree this didn't belong in Security?

Until a moderator moves it, it is in security. It seems stupid that we should stop posting in the thread until it is moved to a more appropriate subforum. I highly suggest that people don't click on this thread if they don't want to read it while it is here.

I think they should give them LSD. Also waiting for my MDMA .