|
If my first act of unfettered rebellion against the monopolistic violence of the tyrannical, neofascist, thrice accursed State, was going through a red light after pausing and not seeing anyone else, I think I'd keep that to myself. "Brother Owlfancier, regale us with tales of your great victories against our mortal foe, the evil Government!" "Well, this one time, I crossed the road, and I only looked left and right, I didn't look left a second time." gently caress the highway code!
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:40 |
|
|
At what level of traffic code violation does one truly initiate to the level of Latent Ancap? I'm guessing that ordinary old speeding doesn't qualify or else there'd just be an implausible number of them running without knowing it, but I'm not sure how "going faster than the speed limit when there is no obvious road condition or traffic pattern making it unsafe" differs qualitatively from "driving through a red light when there is no cross-traffic being facilitated by staying stopped at it."
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If my first act of unfettered rebellion against the monopolistic violence of the tyrannical, neofascist, thrice accursed State, was going through a red light after pausing and not seeing anyone else, I think I'd keep that to myself. Like, jaywalking when there is literally no car in sight is only a test if you are German or not.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
Dunno about that, there's parts of the US where... I mean, as someone raised in the New York metro area, it actually surprised me to learn that there are places where people don't just cross the street when there's no car coming even if the light is green for cars on it. Like they would literally look at me like a madman. Those poor debased slaves to the State...
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Uh oh http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/pay-attention-to-libertarian-gary-johnson-hes-pulling-10-vs-trump-and-clinton/?ex_cid=538fbSephyr posted:Eminently necessary rear end in a top hat Mark Ames did a piece on Gary some time ago. Finally got around to finishing that article. It's too rambling and focuses to much on the small time tricksters and playing six degrees with anti-immigrant groups in a way that doesn't sufficiently link that activity to Johnson himself. Also it was poor form to endorse Rocky Anderson in the same article, he should have just stuck to bashing Johnson. On the other hand, the private prisons and Koch cronyism are pretty damning, and the Roger Stone connection is even more of a liability now that he's working for Trump 'pro bono' just as he did with Johnson.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:At what level of traffic code violation does one truly initiate to the level of Latent Ancap? I'm guessing that ordinary old speeding doesn't qualify or else there'd just be an implausible number of them running without knowing it, but I'm not sure how "going faster than the speed limit when there is no obvious road condition or traffic pattern making it unsafe" differs qualitatively from "driving through a red light when there is no cross-traffic being facilitated by staying stopped at it." Driving uninsured and unlicensed, obv
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
What's the end-game of becoming a libertarian by running a red light, also known as defying the state DOT's tyrannical rule of terror over us all? We abolish traffic signals and signage, leaving all roadway interactions up to the individual self-interest of each man's rational mind? Or what.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 05:58
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Driving uninsured and unlicensed, obv https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ILMFZNBUwM Just say the right magic words, and you too can be free! Curvature of Earth fucked around with this message at 06:05 on May 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What's the end-game of becoming a libertarian by running a red light, also known as defying the state DOT's tyrannical rule of terror over us all? "I want the Mad Max movies to be real."
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:"I want the Mad Max movies to be real."
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 07:08
|
|
|
Here's the deal with my participation on this website going forward. I have now been banned twice for no apparent reason. The first time I was banned, the reason stated was because I was "arguing in bad faith". Now, I recall vividly the particular posts I had made which got me banned and I was being as genuine in my beliefs as I could be. I looked through the rules, and there is no rule pertaining to the entirely subjective charge of bad-faith arguing. I emailed the moderator who banned me and he flatly refused to give me any explanation for why I was banned. Okay, so I didn't post immediately after the three weeks or so of the ban was up because I frankly had more productive and important things to do. A week or two ago I posted a SINGLE reply to the Climate Change thread which violated no rule, was entirely in line with the purpose of that thread, contained no foul language and I was almost immediately banned and no explanation was given. No reason was stated in the so-called "Leper's Colony". I emailed the moderator and was ignored. Furthermore, I was required to pay a $10 charge for un-banning my account. The only reason I paid this fee was because I make a good living and basically had money to burn. I wanted to vent my anger and address this perversion of justice. But, if anyone bans me again for an illegitimate reason and wants me to pay for the privilege of posting again, I won't do so. I will decide that this forum is absolutely inhospitable to non-leftist and libertarian opinions. I hope you are better than that. The only conceivable reason for such a ban was that moderators don't want me posting in any other threads. Okay, come out and explicitly tell me that. Don't ban me for no stated reason and refuse to respond to emails. The most frustrating thing about this recent episode was that I only said a very small fraction of what I had intended to say, dozens of people got to respond to my post with some surprisingly intelligent thoughts (in some cases) and I wasn't allowed to develop the conversion. I will post in this thread and restrict my posting to only this thread if I get an agreement from the moderators to back off and allow me to state my opinions provided I don't break any stated rules. If there are any additional rules just especially for me, then explicitly tell me what you expect of me and I'll comply. If someone shortly bans my account for no stated or rational reason, and furthermore asks me to pay AGAIN $10 for un-banning my account, I will go to my credit card company with a fraud charge and re-coup the $10 I just spent for the privilege of telling you how I feel about unfair moderating practices. I'd like to get some resolution to this issue before I make any effort to debate political ideas. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 08:28
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If someone shortly bans my account for no stated or rational reason, and furthermore asks me to pay AGAIN $10 for un-banning my account, I will go to my credit card company with a fraud charge and re-coup the $10 I just spent for the privilege of telling you how I feel about unfair moderating practices. "It's FRAUD! I paid  to an internet forum and they still BANNED me!"A principled libertarian lies to their creditor to extract free money from them. Guess the NAP doesn't apply to financial transactions.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 08:45
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:
Uh oh, someone call Leonard J. Crabs quickly.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 08:50
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If someone shortly bans my account for no stated or rational reason, and furthermore asks me to pay AGAIN $10 for un-banning my account, I will go to my credit card company with a fraud charge and re-coup the $10 I just spent for the privilege of telling you how I feel about unfair moderating practices. Sounds like somebody really hates the free market and relies on statist legislation against 'fraud'' (which really is just someone being savvier financially than someone else, if you think about it!).
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 08:54
|
|
|
Jrodefeld. Old friend. Welcome back. I almost didn't recognize you without Rothbard.jrodefeld posted:Here's the deal with my participation on this website going forward. I have now been banned twice for no apparent reason. The first time I was banned, the reason stated was because I was "arguing in bad faith". Now, I recall vividly the particular posts I had made which got me banned and I was being as genuine in my beliefs as I could be. I looked through the rules, and there is no rule pertaining to the entirely subjective charge of bad-faith arguing. I emailed the moderator who banned me and he flatly refused to give me any explanation for why I was banned.  This is in your 'rap sheet' which lists all of your probations and bans. You did this. This is why you were banned. You came back shih posted a bazillion words in the environment thread and pissed off a mod who didn't want to deal with you coming out of quarentine/the hundred or so reports your post engendered. This forum is a community. You come here solely to evangelize and that pisses off the mods. We aren't a government entity (ha) where you have inalienable rights to free speech, we are in fact a private club. So making an appeal of "B-but that's not against the rules!" is going to fall on deaf ears because: 1. Catch-all: lovely posts are against the rules. What's a lovely post? That's up to the mods to decide. If you can't figure out what rule you broke, it's this one. Your post was lovely. 2. You must actually be a member of this community for mods to give you the benefit of the doubt. 3. The rules are really more guidelines than anything else. Welcome aboard the S.S. Something Awful Ms. Rodefeld. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6kgS_AwuH0 quote:Okay, so I didn't post immediately after the three weeks or so of the ban was up because I frankly had more productive and important things to do. A week or two ago I posted a SINGLE reply to the Climate Change thread which violated no rule, was entirely in line with the purpose of that thread, contained no foul language and I was almost immediately banned and no explanation was given. No reason was stated in the so-called "Leper's Colony". I emailed the moderator and was ignored. Furthermore, I was required to pay a $10 charge for un-banning my account. The only reason I paid this fee was because I make a good living and basically had money to burn. I wanted to vent my anger and address this perversion of justice. But, if anyone bans me again for an illegitimate reason and wants me to pay for the privilege of posting again, I won't do so. I will decide that this forum is absolutely inhospitable to non-leftist and libertarian opinions. I hope you are better than that. You were actually probated the first time, not banned. And you were probated because you pissed off a mod by doing what you always do. In this case you started a thread entirely about yourself and your beliefs when we have a perfectly serviceable thread for you to talk about those things in. This angers the mods because it disrupts the chi of the forums. Mostly it angers them because we have two seperate Jrodefeld threads constantly on page one of D&D, which is counterproductive. Your most recent ban came as a result of you doing the exact loving thing your Rap Sheet tells you not to do, so what the gently caress did you expect? Also there is no jerk off motion significant enough to let you know how little I care about your super important job that gives you a grand old to burn. Jokes aside, what the gently caress are you even on about. Justice? illegitimate reasons? Bitch this is what your philosophers want to do to anyone who isn't Remember all those times you defended the rights of property owners to discriminate whenever they wanted for whatever reason they want? It loving sucks doesn't it? quote:The only conceivable reason for such a ban was that moderators don't want me posting in any other threads. Okay, come out and explicitly tell me that. Don't ban me for no stated reason and refuse to respond to emails. quote:I feel like discussing climate change because it's been on my mind in recent weeks, so I'm gonna hop on this thread and hopefully spark some discussion. You have been told not to do this. This is why you got banned. Because when you do what you just did it shits up an entire thread that is a useful source of discussion for posters who actually want to discuss things. You make the topic entirely about you and a thread that normally gets a page a month suddenly gets three pages in four hours, making it largely readable for people who actually care. You would loving know this if you had any interest in coming here other than proselytizing for your religion. quote:The most frustrating thing about this recent episode was that I only said a very small fraction of what I had intended to say, dozens of people got to respond to my post with some surprisingly intelligent thoughts (in some cases) and I wasn't allowed to develop the conversion. By all loving means continue it here. You know what? Just for you I stayed up an extra few minutes to PM Absurd Alhazred and ask him if I can make a 2016 libertarian thread just for you so that you can have a safe place to talk about your ideas without risking being banned again. quote:I will post in this thread and restrict my posting to only this thread if I get an agreement from the moderators to back off and allow me to state my opinions provided I don't break any stated rules. If there are any additional rules just especially for me, then explicitly tell me what you expect of me and I'll comply. You aren't going to get this. If you keep harassing the mods you are going to get banned again because they are people too and they don't give two fucks about appeasing your weird demands. I will point out that you went from 2013-2016 without a probation or a ban pretty much solely because we had a thread where the moderators were happy to allow you to wallow in your filth. For all your bitching you really ought to thank me. Over the course of one year (Nov 2012-Dec 2013) you had been banned three times and probated seven more. Then I made a thread just for you and you didn't get probated or banned from May 2014 until February of this year when you went and posted a new thread all about you and your ideas that you promptly abandoned. Even then you were only banned when you decided to go fully off reservation and annoy people in other threads. The mods will tolerate you if you keep in your habitat. If you decide to go rampaging across the forums you're going to get banned again. You are the only person on earth who can't seem to follow the connections here. quote:If someone shortly bans my account for no stated or rational reason, and furthermore asks me to pay AGAIN $10 for un-banning my account, I will go to my credit card company with a fraud charge and re-coup the $10 I just spent for the privilege of telling you how I feel about unfair moderating practices. That is an enormous amount of effort to recoup . quote:I'd like to get some resolution to this issue before I make any effort to debate political ideas. You won't. If you decide to throw an ultimatum fit you're going to get ignored at best and banned at worst. Stop being an enormous baby, wait until the morning when AA gives me the go ahead and we'll have a brand new shiny thread for you. Okay muffin? Oh, and just in case you missed it: Edit: By the way, did you check out this awesome duck? 
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 09:05
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:If someone shortly bans my account for no stated or rational reason, and furthermore asks me to pay AGAIN $10 for un-banning my account, I will go to my credit card company with a fraud charge and re-coup the $10 I just spent for the privilege of telling you how I feel about unfair moderating practices. Jesus H Christ, you're a loving whiny pissbaby. As mentioned it's also kinda funny how you think that it's fraud when you've voluntarily paid for the privilege of posting on these here dying comedy forums.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 09:07
|
|
|
Quote-Unquote posted:Sounds like somebody really hates the free market and relies on statist legislation against 'fraud'' (which really is just someone being savvier financially than someone else, if you think about it!). Fraud is property theft. Property theft is opposed by all libertarians. The rules for participating in this forum are clearly stated, open for everyone to observe. By purchasing my account, I accepted the proposition that my account will remain active and in good standing until or unless I break any of the clearly stated rules. Now, if I am banned for either a completely arbitrary reason that is outside of the established rules or banned for no reason whatsoever, and they demand a re-payment of $10 for the privilege of posting again, this absolutely constitutes property theft. When purchasing an account, they actually take the time to refer you to the clearly-stated rules so that you give your payment knowing full-well what sort of conduct is expected of you. My last experience was that I returned from a two or three month hiatus after being banned for six weeks on account of the erroneous charge of debating "in bad faith", I posed a SINGLE reply and was immediately banned and made to pay $10. From a principled libertarian standpoint, this is fraud. I tried my best to communicate with the moderators and work it out peacefully and they ignored me and gave no explanation for their actions in restricting my access to the forum that I paid for. I'll let it slide this time, but I won't be so generous if this happens yet again. You don't understand what fraud is if you think this behavior is acceptable.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 09:19
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:I'll let it slide this time, but I won't be so generous if this happens yet again. You don't understand what fraud is if you think this behavior is acceptable. for the privilege of posting in a private forum run by a captain of industry, you broke the rules and lost said privilege. Now you want the state to come and steal for you. Because like all lolbertarians, you're a big dumb whiny pissbaby hypocrite that constantly cries 'unfair' any time the free market operates in a way that doesn't 100% cater to your every whim.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 09:23
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Fraud is property theft. Property theft is opposed by all libertarians. The rules for participating in this forum are clearly stated, open for everyone to observe. By purchasing my account, I accepted the proposition that my account will remain active and in good standing until or unless I break any of the clearly stated rules. Now, if I am banned for either a completely arbitrary reason that is outside of the established rules or banned for no reason whatsoever, and they demand a re-payment of $10 for the privilege of posting again, this absolutely constitutes property theft. When purchasing an account, they actually take the time to refer you to the clearly-stated rules so that you give your payment knowing full-well what sort of conduct is expected of you. So in other words you were too dumb to read the relevant rules, and now you're whining because the Free Market has punished your bad decision?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 09:26
|
|
|
Caros posted:Jrodefeld. Old friend. Welcome back. I almost didn't recognize you without Rothbard. What's good Caros! If I can participate in a particular thread without concern for getting banned for sharing my opinion, then great. The problem is that the last time I was put on probation, I was confining my discussion to a particular thread and was put on probation for six weeks for the completely incoherent charge of "arguing in bad faith". I respectfully asked the moderators to explain WHY I was put on probation and they refused. On returning to this site, I felt like discussing Climate Change so I posted a single reply to the Climate Change thread and was immediately banned for doing so. The more reasonable approach for the moderators in my view would be to simply say "hey, move this discussion to a particular thread because we don't want this thread being taken over by you". I'd have done so immediately. Frankly, I don't really care to spend much more time bitching about the moderators. Recent behavior on their part in conjunction with their unwillingness to respond to emails and questions left me with the conclusion that I was being targeted for my political views and little else. If you want to start another thread, fine. You might not know this, but I am actually quite interested in the responses I get to my posts. Honestly I've looked, but I haven't found a comparable alternative message board as far as leftist political debate is concerned. I like to share my opinions and hear responses and criticisms by either left-wing or conservative critics. I don't want to be living in a bubble surrounded by self-reinforcing political viewpoints. I'd rather subject my views to scrutiny. I'll probably post again this evening or later. I've got a busy day so I won't be able to get into a lengthy discussion as of now. If you can get the moderators to leave me the hell alone as long as I agree to post my opinions in a designated thread, that would be appreciated. I've tried, but they don't seem to want to respond to my requests.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 09:49
|
|
|
Frankly your dumb as poo poo posts violate the NAP against our brains as we have to contort them to even try and follow the twisted logic you require to hold your positions. The DRO of Lowtax Inc. has therefore seen fit to provide retribution on our behalf because we have paid our dues to them.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 09:52
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:By purchasing my account, I accepted the proposition that my account will remain active and in good standing until or unless I break any of the clearly stated rules. Now, if I am banned for either a completely arbitrary reason that is outside of the established rules or banned for no reason whatsoever, and they demand a re-payment of $10 for the privilege of posting again, this absolutely constitutes property theft. When purchasing an account, they actually take the time to refer you to the clearly-stated rules so that you give your payment knowing full-well what sort of conduct is expected of you. You mean this, the first rule they show you? Caros posted:1. Catch-all: lovely posts are against the rules. What's a lovely post? That's up to the mods to decide. If you can't figure out what rule you broke, it's this one. Your post was lovely.. It is a real rule, jrod. That rule and the rules that follow it send a clear message that to participate in this community means not pissing everyone off, and if you can't understand why you piss people off, it's because you don't understand the community and should lurk more at the very least.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 09:56
|
|
|
B-but I didn't think my post was lovely!!
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 09:59
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Fraud is property theft. Property theft is opposed by all libertarians. The rules for participating in this forum are clearly stated, open for everyone to observe. By purchasing my account, I accepted the proposition that my account will remain active and in good standing until or unless I break any of the clearly stated rules. Now, if I am banned for either a completely arbitrary reason that is outside of the established rules or banned for no reason whatsoever, and they demand a re-payment of $10 for the privilege of posting again, this absolutely constitutes property theft. When purchasing an account, they actually take the time to refer you to the clearly-stated rules so that you give your payment knowing full-well what sort of conduct is expected of you. Property theft is good
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 10:05
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Recent behavior on their part in conjunction with their unwillingness to respond to emails and questions left me with the conclusion that I was being targeted for my political views and little else. So what? You literally signed up for this. The drat forum rules posted:This Place Sounds Like a Ripoff! Why are you blaming others for your own poor purchasing decisions?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 10:17
|
|
|
Aren't chargebacks a creation of the Truth In Lending Act, ie liberal democrat statist tyranny? Put the guns down jrod, don't send your jackbooted nanny state thugs to crack skulls and steal from a divine property owner because you didn't caveat emptor good enough.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 11:02
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:Fraud is property theft. Property theft is opposed by all libertarians. The rules for participating in this forum are clearly stated, open for everyone to observe. By purchasing my account, I accepted the proposition that my account will remain active and in good standing until or unless I break any of the clearly stated rules. Now, if I am banned for either a completely arbitrary reason that is outside of the established rules or banned for no reason whatsoever, and they demand a re-payment of $10 for the privilege of posting again, this absolutely constitutes property theft. When purchasing an account, they actually take the time to refer you to the clearly-stated rules so that you give your payment knowing full-well what sort of conduct is expected of you. You're a bitch rear end pussy jrode. Fight me. Fight me you giant baby made of trash. Fight me.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 12:24
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:What's good Caros! If I can participate in a particular thread without concern for getting banned for sharing my opinion, then great. The problem is that the last time I was put on probation, I was confining my discussion to a particular thread and was put on probation for six weeks for the completely incoherent charge of "arguing in bad faith". I respectfully asked the moderators to explain WHY I was put on probation and they refused. On returning to this site, I felt like discussing Climate Change so I posted a single reply to the Climate Change thread and was immediately banned for doing so. The more reasonable approach for the moderators in my view would be to simply say "hey, move this discussion to a particular thread because we don't want this thread being taken over by you". I'd have done so immediately. I think it's telling that you don't talk about reflecting on the criticism or actually debating, you just want to tell people what you think. Do you know why that is? It's because you're a coward, afraid to confront the comforting lies you've built up to protect yourself from the world. Suck my dick.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 12:27
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 12:31
|
|
|
Jrode have you ever considered that the rest of the world doesn't operate on your retarded principles because the rest of the world isn't populate by loving babymen made of piss and trash who wrap themselves in lies and indignation so that they don't have to confront reality
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 12:35
|
|
|
Hey, QCS is that way
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 12:37
|
|
|
"In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one's own tenant-property. One may say innumerable things and promote almost any idea under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They – the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism – will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order." -Some statist, probably
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 12:55
|
|
|
If you're going to perform a chargeback on anyone, it should be the dentist who scammed you and put extra mercury into your body.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 13:03
|
|
|
I love that jrod is, after all these years, still incapable of reading the rules. Never change, you crazy dumbass. 
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 13:24
|
|
|
"I don't agree with the rules so they don't apply to me." -jrod
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:"I don't agree with the rules so they don't apply to me."
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 14:40
|
|
|
Scratch a libertarian and find a fat little boy in kakhi shorts screaming "you can't tell me what to do!" underneath.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
jrodefeld posted:... Looks like we found the new "<Prominent libertarian> is totally a racist, you guys" Jrod mating call.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 14:51
|
|
|
All this aside, please do us a favor and respond to some of the valid criticisms and responses posted in reply to your screed in the climate change thread (but over here). Particularly mine and Caros's
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:40 |
|
|
I'm still interested to know what his big moneymaking scheme is that's only stopped by the evil Government enslaving him through taxes. There's no risk of anyone stealing the idea because we're all dirty statists here, right?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 14:57
|
|
