/liberty/ - Liberty

>>101166

North Korea is democratic too, they have it in name

>>101166

Why shouldn't they? What you are seeing is the natural outcome of mass democracy being allowed to run amuck.

>>101166

for political gain.

why would they be honest?

In a computerized civilization, encryption is the fundamental building block of liberty.

— Julian Assange

>>101164

Well shieeeeet

So much for not using a VPN

>>95917

I don't. Only humans should have freedom, normalfags can't even make use of it.

>>101217

I agree with this sentiment. That's exactly why I advocate for infinite freedom. Normalfags will always find chains to bind them. The problem is when they find chains to bind you, too.

>>101217

> normalfags can't even make use of it.

because they are not pedos like you?

>>101250

wow you proved him right

>>101225

problem is that right now there is no way to get to infinite freedom. The sanest course of action is to understand how the State works and try to pilot it to get closer to freedom.

When you run out of arguments you just imagine socialism with robots

>>101239

>It's been a week and I haven't seen a new ultra-commie thread

That's a good thing, you dumb nigger.

>>101251

Even that would fail.

>>101142

>How does any of these neuanced policies help us other than putting more power in the hands of the state?

>You've already established a new state sales tax on Amazon stuff that increases costs of goods. All new taxes go on the shoulder of consumers.

I think OP is making fun of Yang's policies, not supporting them.

Where programs from the past this insane or is it a new and scary tendency?

>>101176

I don't know. I mean, there are plenty of insane things in history, though. Like that time Caligula went to war with Poseidon.

>>101176

Some socialist shit in the 20th century got pretty bad, but this insane level of government intervention is a comparatively new idea historically. The state didn't even exist as we know it until the 1600s, and even after that rulers were relatively hands-off compared to contemporary ones.

>>101214

> I mean, there are plenty of insane things in history, though. Like that time Caligula went to war with Poseidon.

That's largely an ahistorical legend, created by successive mistranslations. The original order was to tear down huts on the coast of Britain, which got misinterpreted as collecting seashells as trophies, due to the similarity in the word for seashell and the slang for the legion's portable huts. Then someone took collecting seashells as trophies to mean that Caligula was collecting war trophies from Neptune.

>>101201

Just glancing at the table of contents…

There's not very much surprising here. Members of different groups tend to act with an in-group preference towards that group. Different groups have different characteristics imparted onto them by biology. These aren't earth-shattering facts, and they have no unilateral implications where policy is concerned.

>>101134

Ayy thanks!

>>100784

The link goes nowhere OP

>>101153

Can't say I've tested the link but you should try using the onion router, as that's what it's meant for. That is unless you tried that and it just didn't work out, in which case wew lads.

>>101154

damn, im glad you explained what tor meant to people here.

>>101063

thx

>>101084

pic 1. Johnson's Great Socoiety beginning in 1964

pic 2. Termination of the Bretton Woods system in 1971, which leads to…

pic 3. Debt Bubble buoyed by the petrodollar

This is just a simplified model of events and there are many more causes and factors in play.

>>100949

>The gap between productivity and compensation is the largest it's been in 40 years

>This proves that compensation tracks productivity perfectly, and people are just getting paid in benefits instead of cash

>>101108

The graph is closer than the one in OP, suggesting that compensation has been much closer to productivity than is otherwise implied. The reason for the gap may be found in the fact that a large portion of nonwage compensation is state mandated–workers don't have the option to select a job which pays entirely in cash rather than benefits because such jobs have been legislated out of existence. Since every worker must receive part of his compensation as benefits that aren't perfectly substitutable with one another, every potential worker who wishes to quit one job in order to seek another, better-paying one faces switching costs–there's some uncertainty as to whether or not the benefits received at the new job will be better or worse than the ones in the current job, as one cannot wholly discern the quality of benefits before experiencing them. Further, one cannot accumulate benefits in savings the way cash can be, which means that there is no stockpile of benefits on which one can draw during periods of frictional unemployment the way you can with cash. All of these factors mean that being compensated with benefits rather than cash makes workers less flexible with their employment decisions, and thus much more wage-inelastic. This results in them being willing to accept a lower wage when the government mandates them to take a portion of payment in benefits rather than wages. And this increased inelasticity is the reason for the increasing gap between productivity and compensation.

>>101094

you're right, if I wasn't completely unsatisfied with my life I wouldn't even care about politics. After all I started caring only when I became unsatisfied.

>>100961

There's a pretty clear-cut difference between defending yourself from aggression in the present and initiating aggression against someone who has wronged you in the past. I'm not saying that vigilante justice is morally wrong, mind you, but it is a NAP violation.

>>101054

You're missing the deeper meaning. It's not about whether it is an NAP violation or not, but what variable allows someone to ignore the NAP violation. Clearly ignoring it implies either…

>A) The individual does not recognize it as an NAP violation

>B) The individual recognizes it as an NAP violation but allows it anyways

If A, one can ask "why is it not?" If B, the important question is which variable is making the individual ignore a clear violation of the NAP? Did the guy have it coming? Is it retribution? Is society filled with people who hate the NAP and don't follow it? (If the latter, they must have some system of morality/ethics otherwise society would cease to exist, but in AnCapistan, why WOULD they have a competing set of ethics/how did it survive to let it flourish in society while also allowing a flourishing society?)

These are the important questions, anon.

>>100848

A duel implies both parties consented to the duel. Like in olden days, one man would challenge another man to a duel. If the other accepted than the duel is on. But if the other refused than the initiator cannot take further action. He gets the satisfaction of making the other man look like a coward, but at the end of the day no one gets killed or wounded.

If the duel is refused and the initiator gets butthurt and attacks the other man anyway, than he violates the NAP.

>what if he waves a gun in you face?

Than that can be perceived as a clear and present threat and violates the NAP. The only reason anyone should ever pull out a gun is if he intends to use it right then and there.

>what if he calls you a fag?

Than he calls you a fag. It may hurt your feelings for a bit, but I wouldn't call it an NAP violation. Sometimes you have to put your pride aside and be the bigger person in situations like that and walk away. If you want to make a duel out of it you can, but it makes you look petty.

I hope this helps.

>>101053

why is vigilante justice a nap violation? is institutional justice a nap violation too then?

>>101015

>/r9gay/

Haven't been there since 2015

>>101026

Yet I still remember that post you made, about giant guinea pigs

>>101046

what the fuck is it doing?

>>101029

I'm so sorry, who is forcing you to buy video games?

>>101008

I don't see the problem either, sorry. For the customers, it isn't optimal, yes, but the customer doesn't matter more than anyone else. As a customer, I want games to be free and distributed on whatever platform I like, and I don't care about how much that will cost anyone else. Customers, like every other actor on the market, are selfish, insofar as they are customers. Therefore, as customers, they don't have any moral highground. That something is not optimal for the customer is no argument that it is wrong. The game developer and the publisher both seem to profit from their exclusive deals, and why shouldn't they? They put the work in. The game developer spent hundreds or thousands of hours creating the game, and the publisher has to maintain servers, quality control, and all the like. Both would like assured profits for their trouble, and who am I to say they shouldn't have them? My own whims are no more legitimate than their whims.

>>101008

it does not break the nap

>>101013

Sony did the same to Square-Enix (look how long it took for an FF7 pc port) and Sega for their own console, yet there were still competitors to both.

>>101008

Paying a game developer to make a game exclusively for your platform isn't bribery, it's smart business. Microsoft and Sony pay game devs to make console exclusives all the time.

Bribery would be more fitting if a corporation makes a heavy donation to some politician's foundation and in return the politician make policy that favors said company exclusively.

>>98444

yeah

Auchwitch was a jewish death camp where jews raped and murdered palestinians.

>>100980

go home you are drunk