Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 12
    Posted by $ Abaco 2 months, 2 weeks ago
    The feds couldn't care less. They do nothing about this. If I didn't have scruples I'd just set up a boiler room operation in Mexico and become very wealthy scamming the American elderly. I think the best scheme I've seen is the operations that claim they'll sell your timeshare. But, the ones with the best "margins" are probably those that call old people, offer to help them with their computers, then acquire access to their bank accounts. They got $50K from my elderly mother-in-law that way and THE BANK DIDN'T QUESTION WHEN SHE CAME IN ASKING FOR A WIRE TO AN OVERSEAS INDIVIDUAL. This problem is only going to get worse and worse. One person called her claiming to be her grandson needing money.... The federal government has zero motivation to every slow it. They'll get to it as soon as they finish clamping down on all that child sex trafficking.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by tutor-turtle 2 months, 2 weeks ago
      Heh!
      The Three Letter Agencies???
      It's not called a PSYOP because it sounds cool.
      Psychological operations are used on your enemy to affect their thinking and actions.
      If a PSYOP is being used on the American people, that makes us the enemy.
      Wake up people.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • 10
    Posted by mhubb 2 months, 2 weeks ago
    i am all in favor of the death penalty for those that commit identity theft and scam the elderly

    all they own should be confiscated to pay back they stole from
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov 2 months, 2 weeks ago
    The scam can be more subtle than the receiver of the call may realize. The first thing heard on many automated calls is the question "Can you hear me?" The normal response to such a question is a simple "yes," but in this case, that response is being recorded, and even if the receiver then hangs up, the scammer uses that recording to fake false positive responses to whatever scam is being perpetrated.

    Tell elderly relatives not to answer any call from an unknown number, or anyone they don't know. If the caller leaves a voicemail claiming to be from a government agency, threatening to cut off their Social Security or Medicare, tell them to contact that agency and report a fraud call, because those agencies do not communicate by phone.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Snezzy 2 months, 2 weeks ago
      I get calls pretending to be Medicare. If I have the spare time I talk to them in Spanish, German or Hindi. All I know in Hindi is a mild bit of cussing, "Your guru is an owl," but one time the scammer in India was overcome by a fit of classic Indian politeness and helped me correct my Hindi pronunciation. Occasionally I'll use Japanese: "Sumi-masen. Eigo-wa wakarimasen." (I'm sorry, I don't understand English.)

      When some caller claims my computer is full of viruses I let them give me the instructions needed for them to mess up my Windows computer. But I'm running Linux here, now far down a road I started with Bell Labs Unix version 6. (Yes, I have the requisite bootleg copy of John Lions' commentary.) Fun, fun!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Rex_Little 2 months, 2 weeks ago
        I'll do German sometimes. If it's an obvious junk call (unrecognized non-local number) I'll answer "Guten Tag". Then, whatever the caller says, I'll answer "Sie haben einen sehr kleinen Schwanz" (You have a very small dick) if male, "Wenn Sie etwas Gewicht verlieren würden, wären Sie ein Landwal" (If you lost some weight you'd be a land whale) if female.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by LibertyBelle 2 months, 2 weeks ago
        What seems strange to me is the people who call,
        speaking with foreign (and apparently MidEast or
        maybe Asiatic-Indian) accents, who identify themselves by English (or apparently Anglo-Saxon) names, such as "James", "Mark",etc. That sounds very fake.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ Snezzy 2 months, 2 weeks ago
          That's why I start right away insulting them in Hindi. Maybe I should also learn some Arabic, more than just salam alaykum. Perhaps "yadkhul fi 'iibtik braghith 'alf bieir" (يدخل في إبطيك براغيث ألف بعير) "May the fleas of a thousand camels infest your armpits."

          Once in a while I'll try something like, "No, you're not James. I know you. You're my uncle's friend Krishna Gupta. I recognize your voice."
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 2 months, 2 weeks ago
    "Where are all these scumbag people coming from?"
    Pregnant women taken advantage of by evil white guys obviously - according to nearly every tv show and movie made since 2000.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by CaptainKirk 2 months, 2 weeks ago
      Yeah, I stopped watching TV when I noticed guys were the butt of every joke. And speaking out FOR conservatives got TOP shows Cancelled.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 2 months, 2 weeks ago
        I remember watching downloaded episodes of "Boston Legal" which spent a majority
        of episodes criticizing the early 2000's Bush.
        They used a surrogate character (who supported Bush) and gave that character "Mad Cow"
        disease, which they treated like dementia.
        (Irony that their man Buydem was the actual dementia patient.)

        I wondered what they'd do for plots after Obama was elected.
        What did they do?
        They cancelled the show.

        Time to cancel D.C. permanently.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 2 months, 2 weeks ago
    I got a phone call yesterday and the person on the phone, I think was a female, said she was representing AMAZON FRAUD CONTROL. She said I owed Amazon $1,000. I told her I don't shop online and I've never shopped Amazon and I didn't think Amazon notified people in this manner if they owed money to Amazon. I ended the phone call.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by CaptainKirk 2 months, 2 weeks ago
      I kept getting these types of calls.
      Mostly the "Your computer is throwing an error".
      At first, I QUESTIONED them, they would hang up.

      But the calls STOPPED after I Played dumb, and PRETENDED to boot my computer. Which took me FOREVER. I would just put the phone down, and do other stuff. And wait for them to compain.

      "Sorry... I had to get the power cord out of the closet". I had ONE of them on the phone for almost 40 minutes. When the computer finally booted and they asked me what the screen said, and I replied:
      MS-DOS 5.0 Copyright Microsoft ...
      "C:\ >"

      The guy was PEEVED... He's like I need you to run Windows. How do you connect to the internet?

      I replied "I don't connect to the internet, which is why I think you should fix my computer if it is contacting your server..."

      I've had NO CALLS since the last 2 encounters wasted their time.

      If you get them. KEEP Them on the call as long as possible. Mute the phone, and go about your business. It's still booting...

      Because TIME is money for them!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by mhubb 2 months, 2 weeks ago
      simple
      this is allowed to happen
      the criminals support the system that allows them to prosper

      look at what is happening with crime and democrat controlled places
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ allosaur 2 months, 2 weeks ago
      I won Publisher's Clearing House FOUR WHOLE TIMES!!! within the space of two years by some dude or dudes who called me on the phone with a Hispanic accent.
      All I had to do to obtain my prize of UNTOLD RICHES!!! was to give up my checking account number.
      For some reason I never could remember my account number or remember where I put my checkbook so as to quote it.
      Maybe it was because I felt cheated. Yeah, it just wasn't fair.
      I wanted to meet that pretty brunette who in TV ads shows up with three dudes and an oversized check, helium-balloons and all the celebration trimmings.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by mhubb 2 months, 2 weeks ago
        gee
        my account is 1-2-3-4-5

        same as my luggage combo
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ allosaur 2 months, 2 weeks ago
          More recently, my favorite scam artist is one I led on for almost a week for being retired and enjoying the amusement. Also he had yet to ask for money or my bank account number. I was waiting for that hammer to drop.
          Sounding Caucasian with a deep northern accent, he said I won about half a million bucks from some government surplus bullSciuff plus some expensive sporty care I can't remember the make and model of. Likely because I did not believe it existed.
          Yeah, the scammer was all friendly, asking what I've been doing and what I had for lunch, blah, blah, blah, and all that.
          Finally, he told me I needed to wire $750 from one Walmart to one in El Paso, Texas. I told him that's baloney and hung up on him .
          He called me back to scream, "We need to talk like big men! Big men!"
          I hung up on him again, laughing at his greedy criminal ass.
          Hope he was really upset due to telling his Mafia boss or whomever that he had really hooked a live one.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CaptainKirk 2 months, 1 week ago
            Yeah, I got one of these. Their scam was that I won money. BUT I had to pay the taxes.
            They said "We will send you the check, and you can wait until it clears... Then we will cash your check for the taxes..."

            I called my bank. They said "Yeah, this is a scam. They got an insurance company check. And they replicate the checks. And print you one. It will clear. UNTIL about 2-4 weeks when it is reviewed, and discovered to be a fraudulent check. And then we have to give the money back, and we take it from your account. Leaving your balance negative..."

            I asked... "Well, if you can do that for the insurance company... Why can't you do that and get my check back?"

            He literally said "Because their fraud was against the insurance company. Not you. You paid them in good faith!" WTF?

            But I quickly learned there are SO MANY scams. And they get better as the public gets educated.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ allosaur 2 months, 1 week ago
              Me dino used to have a book about historical quotes my father gave me that I lost to a mobile home fire I was renting while going to college on the GI Bill during about 1974.
              I'm lucky to be here because the source of the fire was an electrical malfunction beneath my bed but I was attending a class before returning to my trailer home just to see it completely gutted.
              Long story not short, the first page's very first and very ancient deep in BC quote in that book was about not ever trusting no one. Writer's country may have been ancient Greece but I can't recall.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 2 months, 2 weeks ago
    I was the Chief Trustee for a dear friend who owned a 4800 acre ranch in Texas. Included in the Trust was a house. Someone changed the title into their name and it cost me $4600 to protest. The damn judge gave the property to the thief! I just threw in the towel. It wasn't my money and why spend more when the judge is acting as illegally as the thief?.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by CaptainKirk 2 months, 2 weeks ago
      Usually these are identified when the Notary (required here) is chased down and found out to be a fraud.
      But it is quite sad how this can happen.
      States are now getting better at defending these.
      Florida has many counties that will EMAIL you (if you register your email with the title), if/when changes are posted to your title.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Eyecu2 2 months, 2 weeks ago
    Over the last 30+ years society has live by a very self involved version of the ethical school of thought of Egoism. The whole "if it feels good do it" and "me generation." This has developed into their children and grandchildren who not only want to live by that (but realize the selfishness of it) but actually do live by those rules. This utter removal from any form of self control, heck a belief of a Right to an utter lack of self control, has brought us to where we are today. Shame is a lost concept. In fact these people revel in what would have immobilized previous generations in abject levels of shame.

    I have no idea of what can be done to move things back in the right direction but identification of the origins of a problem is often helpful in correcting the problem.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 2 months, 2 weeks ago
    Which ones, communists, anarchists, criminals or religious nut jobs?

    What kind or bird is that in my backyard?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by nonconformist 2 months, 2 weeks ago
      Anarchists are scumbags? How so?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Thoritsu 2 months, 2 weeks ago
        They keep driving on the wrong side of the road and crashing my car.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by nonconformist 2 months, 1 week ago
          https://www.etymonline.com/word/anarchy

          If there is no ruler, that doesn't mean there are no rules.

          "order without power"

          I'm an anarchist and I follow rules. The difference is that the rules I follow are logical and self-evident. However, I do ignore rules that don't actually follow from axioms logically and are just proclaimed by some self-imposed authority. That stupid shit needs to fuck off.

          The owner of the road makes the rules. If I am to use their road, it makes sense that I follow their rules. On my own road, I make the rules.

          I would not call those crashing your car anarchists. Those are just criminals. Damaging other people's property is not allowed by the rules.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Thoritsu 2 months, 1 week ago
            So we all just agree to drive on the right?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by nonconformist 2 months, 1 week ago
              No, it is up to the owner of the road to set the rules for that road.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ Thoritsu 2 months, 1 week ago
                There we go. Now do radio frequencies.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by nonconformist 2 months, 1 week ago
                  For some reason people think they defeated me by throwing out the tragedy of the commons argument or the radio spectrum allocation argument and mistakenly thinking that there is no possible way to resolve the straw man conundrum. I am going to disappoint you.

                  Although I don't agree with all Ayn Rand's views, I was satisfied with Ayn Rand's view on radio spectrum allocation in her book "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal". Basically, she was proposing a system similar to one used in real estate (based on homesteading). Once you start using an unused frequency within a certain geographical domain, it is yours until you sell it to someone else or abandon it.

                  I would actually prefer an automated algorithmic collision avoidance system. Maybe even a packet switching one where you pay/get paid for sending/forwarding packets.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 2 months, 1 week ago
                    Not sure how any of this is anarchy.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by nonconformist 2 months, 1 week ago
                      It would help to know what your definition of 'anarchy' is. I view it as 'no ruler', the source of rules being logic, not a ruler.

                      I did propose some rules above, however, in no way do I want to claim that these rules are true and valid. A formal proof is required to know for sure. Note the difference between this and your thinking in which you want the imposition of laws regardless of their validity.

                      In physics, there is no ruler to decree the laws of the universe. Those laws are derived with reasoning and experimentation. I want the same thing in the area of social interactions.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by $ Thoritsu 2 months, 1 week ago
                        Anarchy is the absence of any form of political authority. It is also defined by political disorder, confusion and no common standards. A synonym if "lawlessness". On the positive side, one might describe it as"pure voluntary cooperation of individuals"

                        In physics nature is the fair, but absolutely strict, enforcer of inviolate laws. I do no think anything about physics is anarchy.

                        I do not think the complete absence of laws is feasible or more than a fairy tale in any positive sense. Big guys with the, and then big gangs, who have their own rules, will easily rule.

                        I do think all laws are social experiments, and your note about deriving and reasoning them (in physics) applies to social laws. If the scientific method was applied to laws and governance, every law is a hypothesis to be tested, and there should be an expected outcome with specific measures. If the outcome is false, the law should be withdrawn. That method, would really put a damper on the nonsense we push today.

                        Ayn's view of managing radio spectrums is silly. Each time the technology is developed to transmit on a frequency, the developer can just turn on the transmitter and own the frequency forever. Develop higher and higher frequency transmitters and own the entire spectrum. A monopoly would have been trivially developed from this model.

                        I think your analogy about physics is better stated as our understanding of physics, and laws as our understanding of social dynamics or "social physics". Then I think we agree considerably.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by nonconformist 2 months, 1 week ago
                          My understanding of the radio frequency homesteading concept is as follows.

                          It is not about developing the technology. It is about owning the spectrum space in a 'trademark' sense. The ownership would go to the user of the frequency, not the developer. If a radio station gets launched and acquires a customer base, then the frequency AND geographical area it is transmitting on/in is assumed to be owned by the radio station. So, the same frequency can be used elsewhere if it does not interfere with the existing user. So the allocation would be not just frequency but also geographic. Additionally, there may be other things that go into it, such as damages. If a violator creates interference, the original user sues the violator for damages. However, if the transmissions have zero usefulness/value, the original user will not be able to collect much in damages.

                          So, in order for the developer to own the frequency, they would have to put transmitters all over the globe and the transmissions would need to be actually productive.

                          The principle can be generalized to all areas where there are 'commons'. For example, a pollution in a river would be disallowed because it interferes with an existing user of the resource (fishery/etc).

                          I wouldn't call any of this a monopoly. Exclusive right of use is property.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by $ Thoritsu 2 months, 1 week ago
                            Regarding radio spectrum management what I mean is, as soon as someone develops a transmitter in a frequency range, lets say UHF. All they need to do is start putting them up and start transmitting. Building a bunch of these and putting them all over is (or was) not that expensive. To own the spectrum, one need just start spraying lullabies as well a some commercially supported transmissions where viable. Then inventing new transmitters for new frequencies, and expanding them.

                            This ad hoc method already didn't work, and resulted in the Radio Frequency Act of 1912. Amateur operators and the Navy were stepping all over each other.

                            There are a variety of trivial issues, such as What geographic location does a ship get?

                            I can imagine all kinds of means this fails, just like not having driving rules. Collision avoidance has only been practical for ~20 years, if that. We have been driving for about 100 years. Clearly collision avoidance was not the means to enable rule-less driving.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by nonconformist 2 months, 1 week ago
                              'This ad hoc method already didn't work'
                              'Amateur operators and the Navy were stepping all over each other'

                              Ya probably because the Navy didn't care to respect other people's rights and wanted their frequencies for themselves unconditionally.

                              A ship should have radio spectrum charts and should not interfere with existing users in the area.

                              A lot of this would be resolved by having some network protocol that allows interference, multiple users, etc, such as GPRS. I guess the ownership would be a bit fuzzy for such systems. Everyone would be allowed to join the network and forward data. Maybe one solution is to have each user constantly transmit on their own frequency that they would own and forward packets they receive from other frequencies using the same protocol.

                              Any interference should be resolved like any other conflicts - in court, with damages and legal fees paid by the party that is found to be guilty of violations of law.

                              One thing is for certain in my mind: delegating the job to come up with a solution for this problem to a criminal organization (the state) can never be the answer.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by $ Thoritsu 2 months, 1 week ago
                                You could look it up. People were sending navy ships off on goose chases.

                                Sure court... First you have to find the person who did it, then you have to go through the court proceedings. The number of court cases would be 100 fold in this world you seek.

                                It is a little interesting to discuss hypotheticals, but this is getting silly.

                                You discuss establishing a government but simply by any other name. The leader of a gang is no different than an elected leader. There is no group of 100% consent. That is just a fairy tale. Maybe write a book.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by nonconformist 2 months, 1 week ago
                                  If a court service was open to a free market, I am sure an entrepreneur would pop up that would invent a way to get things resolved quickly and efficiently.

                                  If by government you mean 'a state', then no, I would be against that.

                                  However, you may say I am proposing a universal 'final solution' decentralized 'government' system in which nobody has special powers.

                                  My system guarantees there would be 100% consent. How? By having all laws follow from axioms that 100% agree with. To not consent would be to make a logical mistake. This does also mean that a lot of lustful dreams of power seeking individuals would be unattainable, and that is a good thing.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by nonconformist 2 months, 1 week ago
                              Regarding homesteading frequencies: That's fine, if someone invests so much effort into using some resource, they can have it. Obviously, at some point their business would not be profitable anymore and they will go bankrupt. Then, someone else will take over and use it for something more productive. I am not seeing any issues with this.

                              I expect my suspicion regarding the righteousness of the above approach would be confirmed with a formal proof. If not, maybe something better would be revealed. One thing is for certain, it is not going to be managed by a non-voluntary organization backed by unjustified force because obviously that is immoral.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by $ Thoritsu 2 months, 1 week ago
                                This is a very white ivory tower you inhabit. Don't think one suggestion you have made passes the simplest test of success... except it is better to rule in my house with no technology or infrastructure dying without medical treatment, than to live in a world, consenting with others to basic rules to interact.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by nonconformist 2 months, 1 week ago
                                  I'm not seeing any test that was failed. Do you mean one where somebody hogs radio spectrum just for kicks? Because the homesteading system I proposed was never actually tested in real life, I would say it never failed. You are just imagining it failing.

                                  There is an analogue to that test that was done with land. Unfortunately, it wasn't set up exactly in the same way, but still, it is a good example to look at. I am not a historian, but let me try to recall what happened. As I understand, initially in the US one could homestead land to turn it into their property. I believe this system still exists to this day. When national parks were created, there was plenty of land left. So, that means not all land was turned into private property. So, my conclusion is that a test for that system did actually succeed.

                                  I never said I was against rules or working with others. I am only against granting special groups of people special powers to decree rules. Rules can be arrived at by other more fair means.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • Thoritsu replied 2 months, 1 week ago
                        • Posted by nonconformist 2 months, 1 week ago
                          I would argue that this definition of the word 'anarchy' is evidence for state's psychological manipulation of the population by induced cognitive dissonance via changes of meaning of words.

                          As I understand it, the word originated from Greek 'anarkhia' that means 'lack of leader' or something like that. I am going to ignore the incorrect definition as purposely misleading. Clearly, 'no leader' does not mean 'lawlessness' because obviously laws exist by themselves and don't need a leader to make them so. Raping, pillaging, killing, stealing, etc is wrong at all times, no matter whether there is a government or not. Absence of laws cannot exist. Morality simply doesn't vanish when there is no government. Laws are not something that pop up when you write them down. Similarly to physical laws, social laws exists whether you know about them or not.

                          It is my understanding that the statists have hijacked the concept of law to claim that they are the sole source of law and order. They did it so that they would be allowed to break the actual law by introducing exceptions for themselves. These are parasites we are talking about. It is similar to how a corrupt accountant might take over the role of managing company finances so that they can skim. The statists take over the law making/enforcement part of society so that they can violate the true law without anybody noticing.

                          It is true that there are parasites (criminals, gangs, etc) in society that may end up taking over. However, I would argue that has already happened! The government is the biggest gang. Statism is basically indistinguishable from organized crime. So, you want to escape gangs by giving control of society over to a gang. That doesn't make any sense.

                          If you truly want protection from gangs, you need to get it from an organization that is NOT gang-like. This organization would have to have certain properties that immediately disqualifies governments, such as adherence to voluntarism and the non-aggression principle. Show me a government that does this.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by $ Thoritsu 2 months, 1 week ago
                            Well, show me another organization that "does this".

                            I agree, government, like all collections of power, can be corrupt, because people are corrupt. It seems to me you just want to call your collection of power something other than government to support your point. I'd rather just say that government power should be minimized, and people should ALWAYS be able to take any power away.

                            Communication is to get an idea out of one person's head and into another persons. It is unhelpful to chose words that mean something different to different people and then argue about meanings. One might as well speak Esperanto, a canonical language, because it is better, but no one will understand.

                            I can not see a mechanism to appropriately interact without some level of agreements to interacting. Driving is a perfect example. We benefit (everyone's standard of living is higher) from simple rules of the road. Radio spectrum allocation is another. It need not be the FCC, but ad hoc does not work.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by nonconformist 2 months, 1 week ago
                              Government is corrupt by design. Having a ruler is corrupt by design. It violates reciprocity in interactions between entities. If one party has the right to tell others what to do but not the reverse then you have slavery. I cannot accept a situation where I would be a slave. I will always work against that. It would be within my rights to defend myself with force against it.

                              My proposal is to have logic/math be the source of law, not some entity with 'special' privileges. This way, the logic is the same from everyone's point of view and there are no masters.

                              Defense/law enforcement should then be provided by anyone doing business as a defense service provider. They would not be allowed to decree laws and would have to use the derived law proven to exist and widely accepted to be valid.

                              Judges and courts would exist but would be more of arbiters rather than guys in robes with special abilities.

                              Obviously, there is no society which I am aware of that attained perfect freedom. So, I would not be able to show you a good enough example. Every society has parasites and rent seekers. However, I think United States is one example which approached my ideal at some points in history.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by $ Thoritsu 2 months, 1 week ago
                                Government is not corrupt by design. That is fully unsupported.

                                This is very silly. I am an engineer. I wouldn't even let most educated engineers do a bolted joint design departing from standard practice, and that is relatively simple and well-immersed in logic and physics.

                                Maybe write a book about how Vulcan is maintained without rules or rulers.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 2 months, 1 week ago in reply to this comment.
    Driving and radio spectrum management concepts demonstrated by me, here to fail. Now you want to take another swing. You admit your idea hasn't been tested. However, there is no difference in the 1912 system with Navy issues and what you propose, except your method would have been resolved in the courts.

    Ok, let's get "your (anarchy) idea clearly stated".
    - No government. I assert this also means no group leaders, which would be government.
    - Therefore all rules are agreed to by all individual parties participating in the thing (roadway, market, communication, transaction, pollution, on and on).
    - All issues/grievances are resolved in courts, which you propose are private, not public.

    Is this right? Is there more?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 2 months, 1 week ago in reply to this comment.
    You have "shown" nothing of the sort.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by nonconformist 2 months, 1 week ago
      Alright, let me show you in more detail.

      Slavery is a type of relationship between two parties of unequal rights. One party is allowed to control the actions of another but not the reverse.

      This situation exists in the relationship between a state and a person residing in its territory. The state is able to decree laws while the person has no such right. The state is able to arrest a person but a person is not allowed to arrest a representative of the state.

      Therefore, statism is slavery.

      Are you going to deny and ignore my line of reasoning?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Thoritsu 2 months, 1 week ago
        Deny.

        Slavery is when one party owns another.

        In addition Government can not "control the actions" of people. It can set penalties for behaviors outside prescribed limits. Representative governments can be changed when the people do not like the prescribed limits. This is less slavery than even childhood is slavery.

        Not even close. Government is not slavery because it doesn't have the most fundamental features of slavery.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by nonconformist 2 months, 1 week ago
          'Slavery is when one party owns another.'

          Ownership = exclusive right of use. The word 'exclusive' gives you a hint that this right exist in relationship between a slave owner and another slave owner. It does not say anything about the right between a slave owner and a slave.

          You are splitting hairs. I can also say that a master does not control the actions of the slave, but only punish it for not doing its bidding. It is basically the same thing.

          Childhood IS slavery, but maybe only partially and probably justified. A child does not have complete agency. It is like saying a rock is your slave. Ya, a rock doesn't have agency so maybe it is not so bad.

          Give me a fucking brake, man. Direct observation of the relationship between a master and a slave shows a same relationship as one between a state and its citizens. Taxation is slavery. Military draft is slavery. Any idiot can see this.

          Taking property away from slaves is wrong. If you allow slaves to vote for a representative that will be in charge of the stealing, that does not suddenly make it right. You cannot delegate to a representative rights that you yourself do not have. Representative governments change nothing.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Thoritsu 2 months, 1 week ago
            “Give me a fucking brake (break), man”. You are the one making the assertion, not me. “Any idiot can see” is just BS.

            I agree taxation is inappropriate, at least percentage and graduated taxation. Just paying for services is fine, just like my tennis club. I agree, you can not delegate rights to a representative government that you do not have. But you can vote by proxy, just like I do for stocks sometimes.


            You are convincing me that we agree about many things, but not that government is slavery.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by nonconformist 2 months, 1 week ago
              Excellent, I think we are making progress. I expect given a bit more time, you will come to see things as I do.

              Maybe an abstract idea of 'government' in a sense that a society is being brought to order in some fashion is not slavery. However, the current way of doing that via the state is in fact slavery due to the way it is set up.

              I have absolutely no problem with requiring people to pay for services. However, I also require that:
              1. They must have the choice to refuse to use the service and therefore refuse to pay for it.
              2. There must not be an enforced monopoly by the provider of the service. The state does not have the right to prevent a competitor from existing to provide the same service.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Stormi 2 months, 1 week ago
    Sadly, we have done as Russia predicted in theri 39 year plan, to use schools to dumb u and accept what is not in our best interest, as we are brainwashed into repeating slogans only. Mk`1 used colelges back in the 60a to do the bidding of the CIA to misinform publlic about what they saw. One World Gov., totalitarians.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo