The story just doesn't add up. There's no plausible explanation. Someone decided to use his computer, and *only* his computer to do all their hacking, with his full knowledge. This person has absolutely no interest in protecting Warg, but Warg is willing to risk prison in order to protect this person. Why? It doesn't make sense!
The thing that'll cause them to tune you out is their lack of principles and disrespect for the constitution and fundamental liberties.
So what would you propose to do about it? Blame isn't going to get anywhere. Regardless of whether it's me being tinfoil hattish, or them being unprincipled, I'm not going to persuade them.
Cheep softare is written for the hobbyist, but that isn't a very large market. As more people buy 3D printers, they'll need software.
I make no claims about whether the ship is possible or not. Other people are claiming it is impossible, and using that as their argument. Therefore the onus of proof is on them.
I couldn't build it. I have no idea where to start. Nor would I to win an argument on the internet. I mean, seriously, who would do that?
In Britain we have the option to go for private health care. Private insurance costs a lot less than American health insurance. A huge 3% of the population take that offer.
Would it be possible to build 4 vessels of 1/4 of the size of the ark? Would it be possible to link them together such that the flex is in the linkages. If so then it's at least theoretically possible to build a wooden vessel the size of the ark. Perhaps this is inconsistent with Genesis. But your claim is that it is completely impossible to build any wooden vessel of that size when obviously it is. You are now making a more specific claim, and using one failure to attempt to prove it.
I completely agree that it would have been impossible for Noah to have built the Ark at that time, but I don't accept that such a large wooden ship would be impossible. Can you prove that the Chinese treasure ships never existed?
This is really a power that should be the responsibility of the states, not the federal government. But whoever does it, trying to apply it as a patch for the existing fully private system, when that system is completely dysfunctional is terrible. A sensible process would be to wind down the private insurers and replace them with a proper public health system.
You do, after all, just own your body and nothing else... everything else is provided by general consensus.
That's not exactly what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there's a consensus rather than an inherent right to own property in general, and land in particular. I'm happy to go along with that consensus since that more or less tallies with my view on ownership and property rights, as well as a societal responsibility to contribute to society.
Some people with a more Libertarian mindset don't accept this concept of society, yet still seem to want society to recognise the subset of those rights that happen to be beneficial to them.
But you didn't answer my question.Who was the original owner of the land, and how did they make it?
if you want or need something, you feel entitled to that item regardless of my wants and needs.
Only if I need it. If I want it then I'm out of luck
If you are in such a pickle that you are dying from thirst, you can ask me for water first and foremost, most people (including myself), will not deny you water because you are dying from thirst. You are not talking about me making a voluntary decision here, you are talking about using violence on the level of government to steal from me and to use all force needed to prevent me from protecting myself from this theft.
So you don't think the government should have power of life and death over you, but you are quite happy to have power of life and death over me. I'm not talking about government violence. I'm talking about personal violence. And I don't believe your claim of the abstract notion of "property" is greater than my claim on the abstract notion of "right to not die of thirst".
You can sell a kidney and buy a house,
From whom? Who did he acquire the land from? Who did the previous owner acquire the land from? The person before that? Who made the land?
there is no 'lease granted by government'
I didn't say it was. I said it was leased from society as a whole, but a leasehold is a specific legal concept, so it's more of a analogy. Society as a whole can ask for it back.
It has nothing to do with "government". The government is a bunch of people who are either working for the common good or should be removed, and replaced by people who are. Something I really think is long overdue in the US.
- obviously a system based on rule of law, private contracts, private security and private courts.
An intriguing idea. How does all that work? My initial thought would suggest that that means that justice is limited to the wealthy. After I steal your water, who do you go to for help?
Do your kidneys belong to you or not? If they do, then whatever time you spend working on things is time that your kidneys had to support as well
I don't see how the second follows from the first. The right to something isn't about who spend most time on it. If I am dying of thirst, and you are the only source of water, I have every moral right to acquire through any means short of killing you. I may own just compensation afterwards, but the compensation would be the minimum cost of replacement of a bottle of water.
Land is property like any other, it can be bought in exchange for your productive output
How do I produce more land? What do I make it from? Who made it in the first place? How did they make it? Who is the original owner of the land?
- you are not part of the state, whatever 'state' you are born in, you are not its part, you are not its property either. If a state takes your productivity against your own will (not by voluntary exchange), then it does own you.
Take the people from a state. What do you have?
I don't condone democracy, by the way, the rule of mob is not to my liking, the mob always ends up ruling the individual, stealing from the individual.
Neither do I. But it's a useful mechanism for allocating limited shared resources, such as land, and avoiding a tragedy of the commons type affair. If you have a better idea, I'm all ears.
Since you would consider it unfair to turf the old people out of their hovel, and I agree, I think we can speculate that most of society would. Therefore we can't do this without paying them just and fair compensation for the termination of their use of the land. The societal benefit of the shopping mall is fairly minor compared with the societal benefit of the hovel to the old people so typically we can't do this even if we do pay compensation.
The problem here is you considering the government to be your rulers rather than administrators. We are the state. Not them.
Just to be clear, I don't want to prove that this did happen. I'm just not convinced by claims that such a vessel would never be possible not matter how good a shipright you are. At the very least, you could construct it as several independent self-contained watertight sections, and allow for any flex in the joins between the sections. The problem is engineering, but that's largely limited by imagination.