Messages

A non-crappy government would be one thata focused on maximum personal freedom and on providing a support structure for citizens that needed assistance.

The big disconnect is the mistaken notion that these are mutually exclusive.

Anarcho-Socialism?

Nope.  Fuck the anarcho part.  You pay for government via taxes.  Government sets shit up and runs it.  Government leaves you the hell alone if you aren't hurting other people.  Not difficult.

i think that is how anarcho-socialism is defined, tbh.

I don't think so.  Anarcho means no government.  Anarcho-socialist usually means that there's no government and things are controlled by groups on the local level.  Unions and so forth.  Nobody owns anything privately, things are owned by the people in general and used and taken care of by individuals.

Personally I prefer mutualism, which allows for personal property but not rent seeking, but that also doesn't make room for a government.  If you are in favor of a government, including a benign government that makes surepeople are fed and housed and not being raped or stolen from but otherwise stays out of the way, then you are not an Anarchist. 

The libertarian response is that Somalia is doing better than it was with a strong central government, and this is true as far as most measurable metrics are concerned.

My response to that is that if this is the case, then Somalia should by now be well on the way to perfection.

Kind of hard when your starting point is rock bottom.  Somalia was an absolute hellhole under a central government, now it's a near absolute hellhole without a central government.  Giving the lack of a central government credit for improvement may be a mistake, but blaming it for the fact the place is a hellhole is just as much of a mistake.

I know, right?  The abridged version of it that I sometimes use, "would it be permissible to sell yourself into slavery under a libertarian legal system?" tends to get me banned for trolling on libertarian blogs and communities.  But not before creating a massively entertaining row.

This position, like the "lol somalia" rebuttle, is something right-libertarians hear too much of -- it's one of the stereotypical "obvious troll" arguments.

IOW, they're jujitsued into massive butthurt.

Well, bluntly spoken, it's one of the things that exposes the flaws in their ideologies so directly that one either must put up the screen of "lol obvious troll" and ignore it, or face the harshest cognitive dissonnance possible. So yes, jujitsu'd into the most anally seeping butthurt imaginable!

Problem is, it's accurate.  Somalia really IS the libertarian paradise, as libertarians explain their philosophy.

The libertarian response is that Somalia is doing better than it was with a strong central government, and this is true as far as most measurable metrics are concerned.  The arguement is revealed as trolling when the person who brought it up refuses to pursue it any further.

"Lol Somalia"  Doesn't seem like an accurate rebuttal because of that,  the bit about selling yourself into slavery on the other hand, does.  A system that allows the selling of anyone into slavery should not have the word liberty in it.

I tried to do a search, but nothing definitive came up for me:


Has a viable state ever existed that did not levy taxes?

That seems impossible.  How would the government support its operations with no income?

Our militia commander has fallen.  I intend to brew up a commemorative batch of wine for Gogira so we can all toast to her bravery properly.

DO IT OVER AGAIN!  DO IT UNTIL YOUR TENTACLES FALL OFF!

I want to steal like half their site, the stuff about how stupid everyone is, and substitute something else in for the reptiles.  A conspiracy of faeries or something, or mages.

(Anything exciting happened in the past week?  I am curious.)

I think i will have to make a batch of salty balls at some time in the near future.  Those were so amazingly delicious.  I don't usually like salt with sweet but dear sweet goddess those were yummy.

As far as I understand it, no. Slang is shorthand, and a tribal marker.

Jargon is a willful attempt to send bad signal, masked by obfuscation.

I  think your definition of slang is closer to what I hear Jargon being defined as.  Jargon is not an attempt to deceive, it is an attempt to exclude, and it is different from contradictory signal.  "Your call is important to us" isn't Jargon, it's just bullshit.

Sex and Death, what more do you need?

The neighbors dog, he hates my dog, for no reason he will savagely assault my dog if he gets within reach.  My neighbor's dog is much smaller than my dog, so there is no danger, and my dog is not violent, so he won't hurt him, but it is exceptionally aggravating to have my dog subjected to assault any time the neighbor's dog is able to get off his leash.

I love it.  I think it is an excellent recipe for success.  Assuming you are paired with someone that is worth giving that to.. 

Abuse is abuse is abuse isn't true though.  Physical abuse is one thing, that's easy to point at and go "look, he beats her up, he's a piece of shit and she needs to get away and get a protection order" most abuse though isn't physical, it's emotional and at that point it gets way more complex.   Where is the line between "She had a shitty day at work and he was being an asshole and she explained that to him in elaborate detail" and "She verbally abused him"  That depends on the people involved as much as it does the situation and it's not something easy to point out in a lot of cases. 

Of course any relationship where it becomes a real question is probably a relationship that should end, but usually that sort of abuse is mutual, it isn't going in just one direction and accusing the other partner of being emotionally abusive is often a way to avoid taking responsibility for one's own bullshit.

So....

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/23/17873250-muslims-helped-foil-alleged-canada-train-bomb-plot?lite

See, this is what happens when you DON'T treat Muslims like shit.