Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - kmfkewm

Pages: 1 ... 106 107 [108] 109 110 ... 249
1606
Philosophy, Economics and Justice / Re: In a 'free' society...
« on: January 17, 2013, 04:39 am »
Of course your neighbor has the right to kill his own puppies. Of course that also means he is extremely fucked up by western cultural standards, and you should probably refuse to trade with him or offer him any assistance at all if you wish to discourage his behavior. You have some cultural conditioning that has made you put dogs on a higher level than animals such as cows, however in many Asian countries dogs are routinely raised for slaughter, just as in your country it is quite likely that cows and chickens are raised for slaughter. If your neighbor is a farmer and raises cows because he enjoys killing them and eating them, do you think you have any right to stop him? How about pigs? Pigs are actually quite intelligent as far as non-human animals go, I have heard them compared to dogs in this regard although I am by no means an expert on animal cognition. In India they find it extremely offensive (and I believe it may even be illegal) to raise a cow for slaughter, in much of the western world we place dogs and cats on such a level, however in much of the oriental world they raise dogs and cats for slaughter just as westerners do pigs and cows. In a free society you can kill your cows, chickens, dogs and cats.

1607
Philosophy, Economics and Justice / Re: do you believe in militant libertarianism?
« on: January 17, 2013, 04:18 am »
Quote from: northsouth on January 17, 2013, 12:59 am
Quote from: kmfkewm on January 17, 2013, 12:05 am

See the thing is I desire only force to force you to not enslave others, and likewise I desire to force others to not enslave you. The only people who are immoral are those who wish to force anything other than libertarianism onto anybody, my ideology is one where everyone is equal and everyone is free. So who the fuck are you to force slavery onto anyone, is a better question.


Your definition of freedom/enslavement might not be (and probably isn't) the same as mine. In my view, the people who are immoral are those who are hypocrites and one-track minded. To believe that libertarianism is the 'one true ideology' is one thing, and I think we can all agree that oppression = bad, but to use VIOLENCE to FORCE your opinion onto others is BULLSHIT, and completely unacceptable. And 'who the fuck i am to force slavery onto anyone' is not a better question, since I never said I would.

Personally, I would rather live under the rule of a genius dictator, that to live at the mercy of autonomous, self proclaimed judges like you.

There is nothing BULLSHIT about using violence to free slaves. My opinion is that there should be no slaves, I feel that it is justified to use violence to ensure that this goal is met. People who have slaves maintain their master status by use of violence, so really you should be angry at them and not me. I wish to use violence against those who initiate violence (ie: I do not wish to initiate violence) in order to stop them from continuing the violence they have initiated (ie: They do wish to initiate violence, have done so, and continue to do so) against others. It is completely unacceptable to initiate violence against others, anyone who does not live by libertarian principles MUST initiate violence, as libertarianism allows for EVERYTHING other than the initiation of force. Thus, people who do not follow libertarian principles should have violence used against them until they either follow libertarian principles or are dead.

Nobody who is not evil has anything to fear about a libertarian world. Only those who wish to oppress others have to fear violence being used against them in the name of libertarianism. There is nothing more morally justified than using violence to force libertarianism on the world. Forcing libertarianism on the world is equal to freeing the slaves of the world. There is nothing to fear about a world in which libertarianism is forced with violence, the only people who have anything to fear are those who wish to force slavery onto others. There is no room to argue against libertarianism, in a libertarian world everyone is free to do whatever they want except to initiate force against others. That means nobody will be oppressed by militant libertarianism, they will only be freed or killed/incapacitated for attempting to enslave others. If you do not support slavery you should support militant libertarianism.

1608
Off topic / Re: I just figured something out about TORs .Onion sites...
« on: January 17, 2013, 12:49 am »
Quote from: acider on January 16, 2013, 04:02 pm
TOR itself is an abbreviation for The Onion Router. And yes that's why it's called that way!

Now it is actually called Tor and it is not an abbreviation for The Onion Router. The Tor developers don't even consider Tor to be an onion router anymore, now they call it a leek router.

1609
Silk Road discussion / Re: What's Your Definition of TIME?
« on: January 17, 2013, 12:48 am »
and it is quite precisely measured by observing the decay of radioactive matter

1610
Silk Road discussion / Re: What's Your Definition of TIME?
« on: January 17, 2013, 12:46 am »
The technical definition of time is the measurement of change

1611
Philosophy, Economics and Justice / Re: do you believe in militant libertarianism?
« on: January 17, 2013, 12:08 am »
Quote from: Duckman on January 16, 2013, 07:13 pm
Quote from: ZenAndTheArt on January 16, 2013, 06:50 pm


On another point, before I started reading these forums my feelings about libertarianism were mainly indifferent. DPR's posts made me curious to find out more. As I read more I came to believe it to be a fundamentally flawed political philosophy (just my opinion, I'm no expert). And when people start in with their militant rhetoric, I become cynical in the extreme.

Pure liberalism is somewhat fundamentally flawed as a large part of liberalism is to do with the reduction of the state mechanism. If this is  taken to its extreme it becomes anarchism and anarchism can only exist temporarily as eventually a new state mechanism will emerge.

This is why liberalism tends to get merged with other ideologies which can exist on a more permanent basis, i.e. liberal socialism or liberal conservatism.

Liberalism taken to its extreme is communism.

1612
Philosophy, Economics and Justice / Re: do you believe in militant libertarianism?
« on: January 17, 2013, 12:05 am »
Quote from: northsouth on January 16, 2013, 10:12 pm
Who the fuck are you to force your biased concept of 'freedom' unto me through violent means?

See the thing is I desire only force to force you to not enslave others, and likewise I desire to force others to not enslave you. The only people who are immoral are those who wish to force anything other than libertarianism onto anybody, my ideology is one where everyone is equal and everyone is free. So who the fuck are you to force slavery onto anyone, is a better question.

Quote
If I understand you correctly, following these examples, it would be possible for a private group of landowners to set up their own church of beliefs, on a private residency, which might resemble this; The Island Church of Free Pedos. An island retreat where all pedos and their 'families' are welcome. The age of consent wouldn't exist, as long as consent is given. Sex would be unrestricted between all consenting children and adults. You could marry a twelve year old (or three). And the church would be free to teach children from an early age that sex with adults is essential to their pedo religion, and the only way to repent their sins and go to heaven. Children are more easily brainwashed if they're indoctrinated from an early age.

This would all be possible under you freedoms, and you know their are people out their who not only believe having sex with children is OK, but actually believe it's essential to healthy sexual development! They would brainwash their children to accept this (we know this is possible because many religions already indoctrinate their children from an early age into believing all kinds of rubbish), so they would argue no-one personal freedoms are being threatened.

Is this the case Kmf, or have I misunderstood your personal freedoms? Would there be an age of consent for everyone? If so, how does that not impede on the individuals rite to freedom of personal choice? And how would you stop a pedos freedom to bring up their children in any religious manner they see fit?

I'm not attacking you, I'd just like some clarification please. :)

Certainly polygamy should be legal. As far as pedophiles rights go, I believe that they should be free to obtain and distribute child pornography, however, they are not to be free to produce it as that entails child molestation. I believe that children have the right to be free from coercive sexual activity, and at some ages children simply cannot consent to engage in sexual acts. These beliefs are entirely consistent with those of anarcho-libertarianism. Deciding the age at which a person is old enough to consent to sexual activity without inherent coercion being involved is one of the small details. Certainly the age should be below 18, for most of human existence it has actually been about 12, however in very modern times it has been significantly increased. Personally I would not feel any desire to stop people from engaging in sexual activity with people around age 13, so long as it is consensual (as is currently the law in Spain, and actually the age of consent in Canada was 14 until quite recently, and many countries around the world have age of consent at about 14). However if an adult coerces a toddler into engaging in sex I would see it as a violation of the toddlers freedom and would thus attempt to prevent this as I am strongly in favor of all humans being free.

As far as what people teach their children, that should not be restricted at all. There is nothing inherently immoral about a pedophile teaching a toddler that it is acceptable for them to engage in sex with adults, however if they actually engage in sex with the toddler it is a violation of the toddlers freedom imo. I also think that parents should be free to teach their children that they will burn in hell if they do not believe in Jesus, or that Jews should be exterminated and a white nationalist government set up. Of course, if they actually try to exterminate Jews they should be stopped as that will violate the freedom of the Jews, however I do believe that they should be free to set up a white nationalist society so long as they do so in a way that is consistent with the freedoms of all others.

1613
Security / Re: Small-time dealing, managing cell phone security
« on: January 16, 2013, 06:51 am »
best bet for IRL dealing is to anonymously take orders and payment (bitcoin is nice), and then dead drop the product and anonymously send the drop location to your client. GPS can be used for determining the location of the drop, and for the client locating it. That way even if one of your clients is busted, they cannot get you in a controlled buy as you always drop the drugs and never hand them off. And the money is not going to be marked or tied to you either. Of course to make this system as best as it can be, your clients should not know who you are either. There are a few ways you can accomplish this, perhaps a few highly trusted friends can know the deal and spread around business cards with your anonymous contact information on them or something.

1614
Philosophy, Economics and Justice / Re: do you believe in militant libertarianism?
« on: January 16, 2013, 06:45 am »
Quote from: The Scientist on January 16, 2013, 06:30 am
Quote from: kmfkewm on January 16, 2013, 06:13 am
No, militant libertarianism is not an oxymoron. Libertarianism means freedom, it does not mean pacifism by any stretch of the imagination. I believe that measures up to and including violence should be used to force freedom upon the entire world. I do not believe alternatives to freedom should be considered, regardless of the number of people who support alternatives to freedom. Essentially, I believe that there should be totalitarian (in that no other systems should be open to consideration, anything other than libertarianism is slavery and unacceptable), violently enforced freedom. This is not contradictory in the slightest, a free person can voluntarily be the 'slave' of another but anyone who uses violence or the threat of violence to control an unwilling person who has not initiated force, should have violence returned against them until they are incapable of continuing their immoral force.
words like 'freedom' don't refer to anything or mean anything. you just have a desire for violence, glory, revolution, and all that fun stuff, militant 'libeterianism' is just an excuse to act out on these desires.... some people become fascists, marxists, etc., for the same reason. it's all puerile fantasy, and you'll grow out of it.

Freedom has a meaning, people who want to infringe the freedom of others claim it has no meaning though. I have no desire for violence, I have a desire for freedom and as libertarianism is freedom I have a desire for libertarianism. It would be far superior if libertarianism could be achieved without violence, however this is a fantasy that libertarians need to grow out of. Here is a small example of freedom

1. You can be a member of any religion you want, however you can not force your religious beliefs onto others or take actions in the name of your religion that infringe upon the freedoms of others

2. You do not have to pay taxes or for any service that you do not want

3. You can marry whoever you want, so long as they agree without being coerced

4. You can possess and obtain whatever information and/or other items you want, on your own land or land where it is permissible, without being restricted by laws (however you may be restricted by lack of resources, or by the freedom of others to set rules regarding the information/items that can be on land that they own)

5. You can consume any drugs you want, however if you are on land owned by another they may restrict which drugs you possess and what you may do under the influence of drugs while on their land (a person may own a street and forbid you to drive on it while intoxicated, conversely a person may own a street and allow intoxicated drivers)

6. You can own property on which you can set any rules you want that do not restrict another persons freedoms. For example, you can own land and say that weapons are not allowed on the land, this does not restrict another persons freedom to own guns it merely says that if they bring guns onto your land they are restricting your freedom to have rule over your own land. However, you can not say that people on your land can own slaves, as this would restrict the freedom of other people to not be enslaved.

7. You can say whatever you want and publish whatever you want, provided you do not say things or publish things that are against the rules on the property of someone else

8. You have freedom from being forced to work for another person against your will

Freedom is very well defined actually, if you want to know if something entails freedom or not see the libertarian position on it, if anarcho-libertarians are in favor of something it means that it is compatible with freedom, if they are against something it means that it goes against freedom.

Fascism and Marxism are completely incompatible with freedom. There is a major difference between militancy in the name of Fascism/Marxism and militancy in the name of Anarcho- Libertarianism: militancy in the name of the former ideologies is done to enslave people and militancy in the name of the latter ideology is done in order to free slaves.

1615
Philosophy, Economics and Justice / Re: do you believe in militant libertarianism?
« on: January 16, 2013, 06:13 am »
Quote from: bull3gern on January 15, 2013, 04:13 am
Isn't militant libertarianism a bit of an oxymoron? I mean, I do think that people should be able to decide what they want to do (short of impinging upon others' freedoms), but what about people that want a bit of structure in life? I've noticed that some people like to follow rules, at least to have a few rules, perhaps as "guideposts in life". Being militantly free just has a strange sound, unless one applies that to the behavior of large institutions, such as the government, or perhaps to large corporations (ones that claim intellectual rights to someone's legitimately gotten property). What comes to mind regarding that last statement is Monsano forcing farmers to destroy their crop of, say,, corn because it (the corn) has their patented Bt producing strain, a genetically modified frankenfood created by Monsano. Bt is an insecticide that is produced by corn that has had the genes for Bt added to the plant's chromosome ( a really stupid thing for Monsano to have done, since corn produces pollen, and would immediately begin spreading Bt characteristics to other corn plants; this is how sexual reproduction works). If a farmer planted "normal" corn, collected some of the seeds for next year's crop, and finds that it has some Bt genes from cross-pollination, he shouldn't be required/sued by Monsano for stealing intellectual property. This lengthy, rambling example IS one place where militant libertarianism would be a good thing, esp. since his normal crop wasinfected by the Frankencrop.
I hope that made sense...

No, militant libertarianism is not an oxymoron. Libertarianism means freedom, it does not mean pacifism by any stretch of the imagination. I believe that measures up to and including violence should be used to force freedom upon the entire world. I do not believe alternatives to freedom should be considered, regardless of the number of people who support alternatives to freedom. Essentially, I believe that there should be totalitarian (in that no other systems should be open to consideration, anything other than libertarianism is slavery and unacceptable), violently enforced freedom. This is not contradictory in the slightest, a free person can voluntarily be the 'slave' of another but anyone who uses violence or the threat of violence to control an unwilling person who has not initiated force, should have violence returned against them until they are incapable of continuing their immoral force.

1616
Drug safety / Re: Safer Research Chemical User's Guide
« on: January 14, 2013, 12:00 pm »
by the time I take enough 2c-e that it makes me feel like I am actually tripping decently, I feel tingling sensations in my kidneys. It is just so weird to me that it has so little effect on me when other people take small doses of it and are blown away. All the other 2c-x drugs I have tried I had an expected reaction to but 2c-e was kind of a disappointment really.

Also just to add something of actual value to this thread, I would put right up there with getting a scale getting a reagent kit. You can't know what you have from reagent testing, but you can know what you don't have and take a guess as to what it might be. Usually that is enough. If you want to be ultra safe you can send small samples of your drugs anonymously to labs that test them with more advanced equipment and publish the results online, at least in some nations these labs are actually run by the governments but if you live in a country that wants drug users to die then it might be trickier.

1617
Drug safety / Re: Safer Research Chemical User's Guide
« on: January 14, 2013, 11:57 am »
2c-e is a weird drug, it has barely any effect on me. I could take 35 mg of it and go to school and give a presentation (trust me!).

1618
Security / Re: Small-time dealing, managing cell phone security
« on: January 14, 2013, 11:40 am »
there is absolutely no reason for drug deals to be done without encryption and anonymity. Tell your friends to get smartphones and gibberbot otr , then they can hit you up via encrypted text that is routed through Tor. Pretty much you want to be your xmpp handle, which you only access with Tor.

1619
Drug safety / Re: 3 men arrested,and 6 in hospital after taking 2cb which was bought online
« on: January 14, 2013, 11:33 am »
So in summary these hospitalizations were caused by prohibitionists , and to settle the score we should hospitalize 9 prohibitionists.

1620
Drug safety / Re: So you got sold horriable product?
« on: January 14, 2013, 11:21 am »
what products do they sell? what was your experience?

Pages: 1 ... 106 107 [108] 109 110 ... 249