There's no significant difference between an absolute libertarian state and pure anarchy.
The fundamental system shucks off all civility and slowly returns to the natural state of things if you remove intelligent management: predator/prey relationships.
I'm reasonably certain that the majority of people promoting libertarian states or anarchies believe THEY will be the successful local strongman lording over everyone else in such a situation. I'm also pretty certain they're delusional.
Whatever services government provides must be paid for somehow. Taxation is not only logical but inevitable.
> but the registration requirement is pretty worrisome, to say the least.
Since crypto is being used to subvert the government-controlled economic system... registration is not only logical but inevitable.
>The government shouldn't need to know who is doing what in regards to crypto trading and mining....the opinion of people attempting cheat their government with crypto trading and mining.
The problem is political mismanagement of the economy, but you don't fix that by removing all economic control from the government unless you want things to get worse.
Better than that, you can get a micro cell set up that would cover the property but would block all calls from unregistered cells (thus allowing staff on the 'right' side of the bars to have cell phones) while recording their position so you can confiscate the contraband.
It won't happen, though. Lots of stuff gets into prison, and until you eliminate the guards and any contact with visitors that isn't through a polycarbonate wall, you're not really going to stop it.
It probably would have been better (for Trump) if Putin hadn't done that. However, as for providing the intel... I'd do it to, so long as there was a reasonable expectation that the favour might one day be returned.
You can be a competitor with someone - and so far as I know at present the USA and Russia aren't in any immediate danger of open hostilities breaking out - and still have some areas of cooperation due to common interest.
I'm not particularly well versed in international politics, but I suspect there are better ways of retaliating against Russia should the American government acknowledge Russian election meddling than standing by as a terrorist attack is carried out.
Well to go with your analogy... in this case he's not ordering Americans to lay down arms, he's ordering Americans not to welcome the enemy into their homes.
I'd say it's perfectly in line with Trump's love of trade barriers, and it'll also align fairly well with the interests of American intelligence agencies (who can spy on you more easily if you use American antivirus software).
It's also at odds with Trump's man-crush on Putin and apparent trust of Russian intelligence over American agencies.
If Trump goes to prison for treason (highly unlikely - even impeachment odds aren't particularly short), it won't be for this.
>We'll soon be back to that libertarian paradise of the 50's where the smog is too thick to see and thousands die due to pollution.
Interesting thought (at least to me) - could there be a market for a night club where there's a (non-hazardous) artificial fog specifically to limit visibility so cameras are ineffective beyond a few feet?
So you're OK with Trump calling Mexicans rapists? I wouldn't want to lay money that no innocent person has been assaulted after being inspired by Trump's tweets.
Maybe you're OK with him telling cops to assault suspects, too? Or asking a crowd to beat up protesters? (Who were exercising THEIR free speech rights, BTW). Or just his general tendency to slander people he doesn't like?
There have to be limits, and there are - even in the USA. Court-tested and everything.
>The ability to map the streets and then have a self-driving car with multiple cameras, move around, means that these vehicles can be used for weapons,
Well, it certainly means you don't have to recruit as many drivers for bombing missions. Still, that's more of a domestic terror threat than a foreign invasion threat - and I'd expect terrorists to co-opt local self-driving vehicles so they don't have to buy them themselves.
As for mapping, I'm pretty sure any nation that can put a satellite in orbit can get a very up-to-date road map any time they want (subject to some small delay and greater difficulty as you get closer to the poles and overhead passes become more challenging).
While Canada and the USA have different speech laws... there are all sorts of things posted on Twitter that are ultimately criminal in nature.
Death threats, inciting 'imminent lawless action', and encouraging suicide are three things that American courts have decided are not protected free speech, nor is defamation.
Trump himself is a big one for defamation, though his inciting of violence probably falls below the threshold of 'imminent lawless action' - a ridiculously high standard from a Canadian perspective.
That's a fairly old quote, I know it through my father. I didn't understand it for a long time, probably because like a lot of teens I was pretty self-absorbed as a kid. But I get it now.
>Part of going to a funeral is to talk with the other people who knew the deceased person, give your support, etc.
Mutual support if you knew the deceased and aren't there only to support a grieving friend or family member. This is ALL of the funeral, in my opinion (though some people apparently need to see the body - I don't get that, but it doesn't make it less true).
If this is to aid people with mobility issues, the correct response is to make the facility wheelchair accessible, and perhaps have a staff member available to assist.
Otherwise... you may as well just post condolences on a Facebook page.
If Twitter won't take steps, logically the next step would be to require them to keep appropriate records and provide them to law enforcement for investigation.
And if Twitter was being 'reasonable' (in quotes because it would probably not be in their financial best interests), they would not require a warrant to hand over logs relating to an obviously hateful post.
But in truth that's a really expensive option compared to just banning enough of the worst bile-spewing idiots from the service to keep their customer base happy.
I'm fairly certain that in Canada he'd be falling afoul of our hate speech laws. I mean, he's indiscriminately targeted Muslims and Mexicans with hate propaganda (and arguably also homosexuals and the transgendered, though I'm not familiar enough with his speech relating to those groups to say there's anything actionable there).
We kind of frown on that, especially when it's reasonable to see it as inciting people to act on it.
From Wikipedia: "Section 319 prescribes penalties from a fine to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years for anyone who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace."
>It's adorable watching the Trump minions with mod points trying desperately to mod down any posts that point out the screamingly obvious fact that the guy is a bully, a liar, and a jerk even towards his ersatz supporters.
Well... obviously the correct moderating action would be -1 Redundant.
It'd be nice if people had recognized Twitter for what it was from the start, but... human nature.
Twitter also seemed to get a lot of notice in the news long before it was ubiquitous. Killing it will take more than a handful of people with a conscience bailing on it - it needs to become irrelevant.
The same forces that keep Trump on Twitter keep Twitter in the news, and that's not going to stop any time soon.
> it's relatively easy to vet/find good tenants through your social network if you're not advertising in public
You have a larger social network than I do, if it's sufficient to find tenants in any reasonable length of time. And you also have more faith in webs of trust than I do - I don't even have much trust based on a trusted person's recommendation, never mind adding a couple of more steps.
I base that lack of faith on being personally burned by vouching for people that even in retrospect I had no reason to mistrust based on the evidence available at that time. I would give my own brother no more than a conditional recommendation at this point. Which might make me an ass, but at least I know I am an ass whose word is worth a lot.
>People tend to become more conservative once they have accrued things that they'd like to conserve. Also water is wet and rocks are hard.
Which shows a sad lack of empathy in both directions - when younger, a lack of respect for people who have worked to own things, when older, a lack of respect for those who want to own things. And it seems to get more extreme when the younger folks feel entitled and demand the previous generation just give them things they haven't earned, and the older generation wants to hoard resources that they've apparently forgotten were provided to them and helped them get where they are.
But the average person being a selfish hypocrite is also one of those 'wet water, hard rocks' things, isn't it?
It's much better to rent a different property. You really, really, REALLY don't want to live in the same building with a bad renter. People do it, but it adds stress to your life that isn't worth the money (in my opinion, of course).
Generally that's going to mean having your primary residence be smaller, and having it paid off. I guess that means adding a decade to your schedule for becoming a landlord, but I highly recommend it. I haven't done it (yet), but I have a couple of friends who have.
I 'cut the cord' almost a decade ago. I honestly don't remember any longer what it's like to watch a television show interrupted by ads.
I feel like I'm being reminded of that old experience when I have to use IE at work, because right now I wouldn't choose to browse the web without several ad and tracking suppressors installed. I really don't understand how anyone tolerates it.
Slashdot Mirror
There's no significant difference between an absolute libertarian state and pure anarchy.
The fundamental system shucks off all civility and slowly returns to the natural state of things if you remove intelligent management: predator/prey relationships.
I'm reasonably certain that the majority of people promoting libertarian states or anarchies believe THEY will be the successful local strongman lording over everyone else in such a situation. I'm also pretty certain they're delusional.
> Being taxed is not entirely illogical
Whatever services government provides must be paid for somehow. Taxation is not only logical but inevitable.
> but the registration requirement is pretty worrisome, to say the least.
Since crypto is being used to subvert the government-controlled economic system... registration is not only logical but inevitable.
>The government shouldn't need to know who is doing what in regards to crypto trading and mining. ...the opinion of people attempting cheat their government with crypto trading and mining.
The problem is political mismanagement of the economy, but you don't fix that by removing all economic control from the government unless you want things to get worse.
Businesses operate within the rules of society, their society has different rules than yours.
Just because you don't approve doesn't mean they can't do it.
Well, aren't you a precious little asshole.
Better than that, you can get a micro cell set up that would cover the property but would block all calls from unregistered cells (thus allowing staff on the 'right' side of the bars to have cell phones) while recording their position so you can confiscate the contraband.
It won't happen, though. Lots of stuff gets into prison, and until you eliminate the guards and any contact with visitors that isn't through a polycarbonate wall, you're not really going to stop it.
>would it be legal to hold a slave if that slave is not an American citizen?
Only if they have a safeword.
>However, as for providing the intel... I'd do it to, so long as there was a reasonable expectation that the favour might one day be returned.
Here's that 'o' I missed:
o
If any more letters of the alphabet are missing, please provide your own and I'll reimburse you at a later date.
It probably would have been better (for Trump) if Putin hadn't done that. However, as for providing the intel... I'd do it to, so long as there was a reasonable expectation that the favour might one day be returned.
You can be a competitor with someone - and so far as I know at present the USA and Russia aren't in any immediate danger of open hostilities breaking out - and still have some areas of cooperation due to common interest.
I'm not particularly well versed in international politics, but I suspect there are better ways of retaliating against Russia should the American government acknowledge Russian election meddling than standing by as a terrorist attack is carried out.
This will have a cascade effect as Kaspersky is effectively dead in the USA, government agency or not.
Well to go with your analogy... in this case he's not ordering Americans to lay down arms, he's ordering Americans not to welcome the enemy into their homes.
I'd say it's perfectly in line with Trump's love of trade barriers, and it'll also align fairly well with the interests of American intelligence agencies (who can spy on you more easily if you use American antivirus software).
It's also at odds with Trump's man-crush on Putin and apparent trust of Russian intelligence over American agencies.
If Trump goes to prison for treason (highly unlikely - even impeachment odds aren't particularly short), it won't be for this.
>We'll soon be back to that libertarian paradise of the 50's where the smog is too thick to see and thousands die due to pollution.
Interesting thought (at least to me) - could there be a market for a night club where there's a (non-hazardous) artificial fog specifically to limit visibility so cameras are ineffective beyond a few feet?
So you're OK with Trump calling Mexicans rapists? I wouldn't want to lay money that no innocent person has been assaulted after being inspired by Trump's tweets.
Maybe you're OK with him telling cops to assault suspects, too? Or asking a crowd to beat up protesters? (Who were exercising THEIR free speech rights, BTW). Or just his general tendency to slander people he doesn't like?
There have to be limits, and there are - even in the USA. Court-tested and everything.
>The ability to map the streets and then have a self-driving car with multiple cameras, move around, means that these vehicles can be used for weapons,
Well, it certainly means you don't have to recruit as many drivers for bombing missions. Still, that's more of a domestic terror threat than a foreign invasion threat - and I'd expect terrorists to co-opt local self-driving vehicles so they don't have to buy them themselves.
As for mapping, I'm pretty sure any nation that can put a satellite in orbit can get a very up-to-date road map any time they want (subject to some small delay and greater difficulty as you get closer to the poles and overhead passes become more challenging).
>What content on Twitter breaks a law?
While Canada and the USA have different speech laws... there are all sorts of things posted on Twitter that are ultimately criminal in nature.
Death threats, inciting 'imminent lawless action', and encouraging suicide are three things that American courts have decided are not protected free speech, nor is defamation.
Trump himself is a big one for defamation, though his inciting of violence probably falls below the threshold of 'imminent lawless action' - a ridiculously high standard from a Canadian perspective.
"Funerals are for the living".
That's a fairly old quote, I know it through my father. I didn't understand it for a long time, probably because like a lot of teens I was pretty self-absorbed as a kid. But I get it now.
>Part of going to a funeral is to talk with the other people who knew the deceased person, give your support, etc.
Mutual support if you knew the deceased and aren't there only to support a grieving friend or family member. This is ALL of the funeral, in my opinion (though some people apparently need to see the body - I don't get that, but it doesn't make it less true).
If this is to aid people with mobility issues, the correct response is to make the facility wheelchair accessible, and perhaps have a staff member available to assist.
Otherwise... you may as well just post condolences on a Facebook page.
If Twitter won't take steps, logically the next step would be to require them to keep appropriate records and provide them to law enforcement for investigation.
And if Twitter was being 'reasonable' (in quotes because it would probably not be in their financial best interests), they would not require a warrant to hand over logs relating to an obviously hateful post.
But in truth that's a really expensive option compared to just banning enough of the worst bile-spewing idiots from the service to keep their customer base happy.
I'm fairly certain that in Canada he'd be falling afoul of our hate speech laws. I mean, he's indiscriminately targeted Muslims and Mexicans with hate propaganda (and arguably also homosexuals and the transgendered, though I'm not familiar enough with his speech relating to those groups to say there's anything actionable there).
We kind of frown on that, especially when it's reasonable to see it as inciting people to act on it.
From Wikipedia: "Section 319 prescribes penalties from a fine to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years for anyone who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
>It's adorable watching the Trump minions with mod points trying desperately to mod down any posts that point out the screamingly obvious fact that the guy is a bully, a liar, and a jerk even towards his ersatz supporters.
Well... obviously the correct moderating action would be -1 Redundant.
It'd be nice if people had recognized Twitter for what it was from the start, but... human nature.
Twitter also seemed to get a lot of notice in the news long before it was ubiquitous. Killing it will take more than a handful of people with a conscience bailing on it - it needs to become irrelevant.
The same forces that keep Trump on Twitter keep Twitter in the news, and that's not going to stop any time soon.
They've already exempted him as 'newsworthy'. Which of course really means, 'we are willing to profit at the expense of society'.
> it's relatively easy to vet/find good tenants through your social network if you're not advertising in public
You have a larger social network than I do, if it's sufficient to find tenants in any reasonable length of time. And you also have more faith in webs of trust than I do - I don't even have much trust based on a trusted person's recommendation, never mind adding a couple of more steps.
I base that lack of faith on being personally burned by vouching for people that even in retrospect I had no reason to mistrust based on the evidence available at that time. I would give my own brother no more than a conditional recommendation at this point. Which might make me an ass, but at least I know I am an ass whose word is worth a lot.
>People tend to become more conservative once they have accrued things that they'd like to conserve. Also water is wet and rocks are hard.
Which shows a sad lack of empathy in both directions - when younger, a lack of respect for people who have worked to own things, when older, a lack of respect for those who want to own things. And it seems to get more extreme when the younger folks feel entitled and demand the previous generation just give them things they haven't earned, and the older generation wants to hoard resources that they've apparently forgotten were provided to them and helped them get where they are.
But the average person being a selfish hypocrite is also one of those 'wet water, hard rocks' things, isn't it?
It's much better to rent a different property. You really, really, REALLY don't want to live in the same building with a bad renter. People do it, but it adds stress to your life that isn't worth the money (in my opinion, of course).
Generally that's going to mean having your primary residence be smaller, and having it paid off. I guess that means adding a decade to your schedule for becoming a landlord, but I highly recommend it. I haven't done it (yet), but I have a couple of friends who have.
I 'cut the cord' almost a decade ago. I honestly don't remember any longer what it's like to watch a television show interrupted by ads.
I feel like I'm being reminded of that old experience when I have to use IE at work, because right now I wouldn't choose to browse the web without several ad and tracking suppressors installed. I really don't understand how anyone tolerates it.