If I had a cake and ate it, it can be concluded that I do not have it anymore. HHH
Glenn Beck's latest oddity:
Wow, good to know. I'll be watching out for those warning signs much more carefully now.
Good to know those White House Petitions have become nothing more than a series of jokes:
Also, did anyone else get an email politely rejecting the secession petition? Well, here it is, with the stupidest parts highlighted:
Well it's good to know that the writing that certified the authoritative nature of the state came not from Murray Rothbard or Franz Oppenheimer but from the White House directly.
Victim: "I don't believe in guns, I don’t own a gun. So, I’m totally at the mercy of my saviors. They obviously sent two angels to help me. These people protected me when I couldn’t protect myself.”
Steve Baker MP UK Conservative party.
Obama Phone Lady on Alex Jones
Come ON bro, what the heck? (Not you, SM, but Mr. Paul).
Oh HELL NO. If this goes through, criminy.
That's a little misrepresentative:
Salinas voluntarily answered police questions for about an hour, but he became silent when asked whether shotgun shells found at the crime scene would match a gun found at his home. An officer testified that Salinas demonstrated signs of deception.
Silence, in the context of having been answering questions. This is one reason you don't even start answering any questions, because at some point you'll decide it's not a good idea, which in itself will give more information than you want to give.
Devaluations as far as the eye can see.
Silence, in the context of having been answering questions.
Distinction without a difference. Silence is silence. You have a right to answer all, none or some questions and the questions you do not answer are simply information that you did not provide to the prosecutor, that is, your legal opponent in the court case. Since you have no duty to provide any of this information in the first place, provision of some information cannot create any obligation to provide any other information. By this logic, the moment I give a dollar in change to the homeless guy on the corner, I'm henceforth obligated to give him my entire net worth. Not obligated means not obligated. Inferring guilt from not doing something a person is not obligated to do is, well, it's making it an obligation on that person.
Despite the fact they are a bunch of soulless, bloodsucking vampires, I'm fairly confident SCOTUS will do the right thing on this one because a) it's obvious what the right answer is and b) I don't see how they substantially benefit vis-a-vis the massive political backlash that will certainly occur if they defang the fifth amendment.
What people don't generally understand is that "everything you say can and will be used against you" is not particular to the State... any legal adversary can and will use anything you say against you in a court of law. This is why insurers, bill collectors, etc. record all conversations you have with them. They are collecting your own words to be replayed in court against you. Nothing is as damning as someone saying "Well yeah, I owe that money but..." Trying to come back to court later and deny you owe money after admitting on tape that you owe it is generally a non-starter. The point is that the State has no more right to demand answers from you and I than we have to demand answers from each other. If you don't answer my questions to my legal convenience so I can build a better lawsuit against you, that's your prerogative. I can't threaten to have you thrown in jail because you didn't incriminate yourself sufficiently to my tastes so I can get a bigger lawsuit award against you. The fifth amendment is essentially the same limitation applied to the State.
And since this can never be posted too many times:
Wonderful video. I think it was the first I saw on this forum.
Awesome, go china.
Concerned about gun control? Fear not, the free markets got your back:
3D printed 30-round magazines
Massively illegal theme park that benefits all visitors, harms nobody, and that the "owner" of the theme didn't bother building. Indeed, go China!
The comments are scary. Page upon page with arguing about the act of getting away with stealing the IP, not the validity of the IP.
Did Blizzard pay Tolkien, and CS Lewis for their ideas concerning mythical creatures? That's what was cool about Torchlight 2. A couple Diablo 2 guys be like hey let's go build a better game than D3 and encourage modding. F*** it, let's even make the mod tools. This after we sell the game for forty bucks less than those assclowns. Then some more D2 fellas say, oh yeah? F*** you, we're going to release a free to play game better than Diablo 3 AND we got Marvel characters.
Our view on IP law is derivative of deep libertarian principles, and counterintuitive even to libertarians upon first sight, and hard to grok even with study. Even harder to imagine how a market would adapt to it successfully.
It's yet another thing that we will have to show actually working in practice before it gains wider acceptance.
The onus is on us (haha!) to get a working society up and running and begin drawing citizens the world over to Society 2.0.
This is like the tactic of using a telemarketer's script against them, only with the border guard:
HabbaBabba:The comments are scary. Page upon page with arguing about the act of getting away with stealing the IP, not the validity of the IP.
That seems to be (at least ultimately anyway) a distinction without a difference. I suppose you could try to argue that it's "scary" in that people are "evil" in that they don't believe IP is illegitimate but rather believe it is legit, and are just actively trying to violate laws protecting it...i.e. knowingly and purposefully doing something "bad".
But I personally don't find that to be a very strong argument. What's more, I would actually argue that the very reason so many people don't seem to have a problem (or even give a real second thought) to violating IP laws is because on some level they know they're illegitimate.
I think this is the main explanation for the extreme rise of the "pirate" culture. Reading sites like Torrentfreak and Falkvinge.net, seeing things like Everything is a Remix and other related lectures, and especially the advent of groups like the Pirate Party...and even just looking at the sheer numbers of Bittorrent users and the popularity of all the various sharing platforms...you get a sense of just how pervasive this notion is.
And these people don't fully "get it"...they haven't read the works of the advisory board at c4sif.org necessarily. But they obviously on some level, to some degree or another, understand there's something very wrong with IP, and especially the way it is treated and handled in the world today. It's very similar to the prevalence and pervasiveness of speakeasys and the like, during Prohibition. This widespread occurance of illegal activity wasn't the result of a sudden surge of "evil". It was the natural and predicable result of making something that is not unethical (and which much of the population enjoyed) against the law.
I believe that was certainly the case for me. I honestly never felt bad about downloading or making a copy of something, especially not for my own personal use. Admittedly it was a source of struggle, as it does go against what one is taught indoctrinated into essentially from childhood, and as mentioned, it takes quite a bit of study and consideration to even begin to be comfortable with the idea of no IP (much like the idea of no rulers). But it's not as if reading Kinsella and Hoppe "changed my mind" necessarily...so much as it verbalized and articulated notions I already had...simply spelling them out (and fleshing them out) in a coherent explication, as well as rooting them in a logical structure of reason.
Again, I think it's much the same as a journey to libertarianism in general. I think many will recount a largely similar experience in how they came to identify as they do...namely, they always kind of felt certain things and held certain beliefs/views...but never actually were able to nail them down and solidify them until various aspects were illuminated by the words of some scholar before them.
In short, I don't find anything "scary" at all about people discussing ways to get away with violating illegitimate laws. I don't find the idea of Harriet Tubman scary, I don't find the acts of Anne Frank scary...and I don't find people talking about how to share information without getting put in a cage scary.
What's scary are the people who advocate that people like Harriet Tubman and individuals who share information should be thrown in a cage.
Who says rap can't have stimulating messages?
Immortal Technique, "4th Branch": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YHq-SevTcQ
Immortal Technique, "Cause of Death": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpgppZwX3Gw
Sex is major reason military commanders are fired
Indicted Megaupload founder opens new sharing site
Where Is the Inflation?
Condoleezza Rice to Become CBS News Contributor
CIA Now Recruiting from the "LGBT" Community
The Zero Dark Thirty File
Obama Begins Inauguration Festivities With Ceremonial Drone Flyover
HAHA, that was awesome... so believable...
The Untouchables: How the Obama administration protected Wall Street from prosecutions
Another Sheriff Refuses to Enforce Unconstitutional Gun Laws
Why Not World Government?
We Don’t Need No Thought Control
Not Surprisingly, Castro's Take on Gun-Control Coincides With Our Rulers'
Feminists for Violence
The Difference Between Banks in the Old Days and Today
Algeria militants played shrewd media game
Navy: Random alcohol tests for sailors in US
Study: Digital information can be stored in DNA
Voice actor for Charlie Brown arrested in Calif.
342. Forced Drugging and Forced Vaccinating
Gun Owner Saves Boy from Pit Bull Attack! Wait … Police Say His Actions Could be ‘Criminal’ ?
Donald Boudreaux and Mark Perry: The Myth of a Stagnant Middle Class
Bjorn Lomborg: Climate-Change Misdirection
Wow, the "interviewer" just couldn't restrain herself from painting him as an extremist at every point. She wasn't comfortable letting his answers to her questions stand on their own.
My latest article:
The Theory Of Money In The Tradition Of Carl Menger. Part I
Note that this is not compatible with modern Austrians such as Rothbard, Salerno, Hullsman, Murphy, Bagus, and others.
@Blargg: I felt like he could have been a bit more articulate since it's obvious she, like most people, doesn't know much about voluntary society.
Second Amendment? Racist.
It's cool that even in the comment section people are calling this out for the quackery it is:
"The author places many quotes out of context. You may try reading the Dred Scott decision. After you do, feel free to write an article declaring that the sole purpose of the US judiciary was to enforce slavery, because the courts did exactly that for over 150 years. Clearly, the entire purpose of the Justice Department was to enforce slavery in all 50 states. By further extension, the US flag flown over Ft McHenry was a flag devoted 100% to the enforcement of slavery during the Battle of Baltimore. Therefore, the Star Spangled Banner as a song is devoted to enforcing slavery. Yankees fly the US flag in the stadium in NY. Therefore, the Yankees are playing baseball to enforce slavery and racism. Are you getting the point?"
Adam Kokesh: Makin' brothas think
This is awesome, Central Banks feeling threatened by Bitcoin, saying its "ease of use" could threaten them! Hahaha! I love the free market! And I love that we can use technology to undermine statism ^_^
i kind of like what steffy has to say here about spreading the liberty movement
starts at 39:22
Obama Begins Inauguration Festivities With Ceremonial Drone Flyover
HAHA, that was awesome... so believable...
What? You mean this didn't happen? I suppose they just used some advanced stealth technology.
Metaphor for capitol hill?