Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re: Libertarian nirvana (Score 1) 534

I am pretty sure that it isn't really a thing.

All of us anarcho-capitalists beg to differ.

Really. It is just putting together two opposite meaning words

Anarchy is categorized by a lack of rulers\the state. Capitalism is a system whereby the means of production are privately owned. There is no inherent contradiction.

Libertarianism fundamentally believes in government

Other than all those libertarians that don't fundamentally believe in government, you mean.

Comment: Re:Libertarian nirvana (Score 1) 534

I do agree that the logical end of libertarianism is anarcho-capitalism. That's the old joke:

Q: What the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist?
A: About six months!

The rest of your post amount to "Your views are extreme, therefore they are incorrect", which is simply an appeal to moderation, so I'm not certain exactly what it is I'm supposed to respond with.

"Nuh uh"?

Comment: Re:Libertarian nirvana (Score 1) 534

Be mindful of how you use "libertarian". Most libertarians believe in a small government that executes a limited number of duties, including police, courts, and military, and thus your statement is directed towards the wrong group. The group you're looking for is "anarchists".

Be mindful of how you use "privatize". Trading an unaccountable, public monopoly that feeds off the taxpayers for an unaccountable, private monopoly that feeds off the taxpayers is not true privatization.

As an anarchist myself, this is obviously not what we mean when we say we want to privatize police. Once the police are (a) voluntarily funded and (b) no longer given a government-backed monopoly on security services, then you can declare an anarchist nirvana. :)

Comment: Re:An experiment in motion (Score 3, Informative) 480

1. They are already "increasing the money supply". They simply don't have enough physical bills now to hand out all the digital money they are inventing.
2. A fiat currency controlled by a state apparatus is not a "free market", no matter which direction they end up choosing.

Comment: Re:Pre-election laws (Score 1) 339

by SaroDarksbane (#41470829) Attached to: Brazilian Judge Orders 24-hour Shutdown of Google and Youtube
No criminal penalties attached to any of those.

The holder of a government clearance has agreed via a voluntarily contract not to reveal certain information that the government wants to keep secret. A regular citizen has no such obligation to keep government secrets, even today.

Comment: Re:Pre-election laws (Score 1) 339

by SaroDarksbane (#41469327) Attached to: Brazilian Judge Orders 24-hour Shutdown of Google and Youtube
First, thank you for much better edge cases than the usual "fire in a crowded theater!" and "slander!". Yours are much more interesting to talk about.

The nuclear example is the easiest to dispose of, since it involves an actual property crime (essentially trespassing).

The others are trickier, but I think the distinction in question isn't about what they did or didn't say, but rather that they aided and abetted an actual property crime. For example, we prosecute the driver of the get-away car just as much as we prosecute the people who actually rob the bank at gun point. This isn't because driving people around is illegal or requires close scrutiny, but because they were knowingly a party to an actual property crime.

Or, for a similar example involving speech, imagine that I pull a gun on you in a darkened alley and say "Your money or your life." Obviously a crime, right? Now add that we happen to be actors in a movie and I am reading from a script when I do so. Obviously not a crime. That is to say, it's not the speech that makes such a thing a crime, it's the actual property crime behind it that does so.

From that perspective, we can see that slander and libel should not properly be considered crimes, since there is no property crime to back them up (you can't have a property right in your reputation, since that exists solely in the minds of others). It's the same with calling Mohammed a pedophile, telling the king of Thailand to piss off, or simply transmitting information to the public at large about how to build a bomb from household ingredients.

Comment: Re:You know what ? (Score 1) 339

by SaroDarksbane (#41468953) Attached to: Brazilian Judge Orders 24-hour Shutdown of Google and Youtube

Oh and could you give us your address ? We would like to go to yours hours, neighbors, and family, and tell them how much a child porn producer you are. And when you scream libel, lies , we will again laugh at your face.

You can't have my address, but on the off-chance you manage to dig it up yourself, feel free to tell anyone you want anything you wish to about me, true or not. I stand by my position.

Comment: Re:Pre-election laws (Score 1) 339

by SaroDarksbane (#41466525) Attached to: Brazilian Judge Orders 24-hour Shutdown of Google and Youtube
I should have been more clear, perhaps. "Consequences" meaning the logical consequences that flow from the stated position, not the consequences of the speech itself. I.e. if you say you believe in absolute freedom of speech, you can't back away when someone points out that such a position would make the distribution of child pornography legal. That's a logical consequence of believing in absolute free speech.

And obviously, speech will have consequences, even if they aren't legal ones. If you go to work and insult your boss, you might be fired. If I invite you over to my house, and you yell and swear at me and my family, I'll probably ask you to leave and not be your friend anymore. Those are consequences, but they don't involve violence, jail time, or censorship on the part of a government.

Comment: Re:Pre-election laws (Score 1) 339

by SaroDarksbane (#41466029) Attached to: Brazilian Judge Orders 24-hour Shutdown of Google and Youtube
The person I was replying to stated that he had never seen anyone who said they supported absolute free speech and also understood and accepted the consequences of it. I stated that I support absolute free speech, and understand and accept the consequences of it. Now he can't say that any longer.

Your personal disagreement with me on my views is immaterial to the point and I'm not sure your style of "debate" is really going to change anyone's mind, but if that's the maximum level of discourse that you can mentally deal with, we can run with it I guess:

Freedom of speech ends the moment it involves the king!
Freedom of speech ends the moment it involves the Prophet Muhammed!
Freedom of speech ends the moment it involves speaking out against the government!
To support otherwise makes you Hitler!
Look up the history of Hitler. How does that work for you??

Is that more to your liking?

Time sharing: The use of many people by the computer.

Working...