Post Archive
Region: Libertatem
I can tell you didn't watch the video.
#MuhRoadsMiencraftPevvania4Senate
Pevvania, Muh Roads, Rateria
Okay, let me just edit your post so it doesn't contain what you can learn from the video, and easier to respond to.
[1] Fair point, I didn't think about that initially: however it is unlikely that clothing, heating and food will all cost less than a battery.
[2]What is the difference between a car crash, and an "auto" (watch the video) crash? Both have the same result, a hunk of metal has made a collision due to an error of the entity controlling it.
However, one would occur much more than the other, that is the only difference. Machines make errors much less frequently than humans, I fail to see how a machine could make an error worse. An error is an error after all, be it human or machine.
[3]Would you mind elaborating here? The only place I can see this is in the 3rd world nations, where highly advanced machines cannot be made.
[4]It is never that simple, you can't snap your fingers and make that happen.
[4]People learning what to do takes time, turning on a machine takes seconds.
Go work the land, get trained into another field, join roving bands of homeless bandits.
Society will always need warm bodies. The downside is that if your trade goes away, you the job you can get might not be the job you want.
I can tell you don't care enough about your argument to actually present it yourself.
The Ambassador To The Clfr
No, I do care, but I will not waste time on intellectual dishonest people who refuse to spend a measly 15 minutes watching a video.
What happens when the machines work the land (I don't mean metal men in tractors, which is why I refrain from using the word "robot", the truth will be much more like self driving tractors) and the other fields are all "full"?
Banditry then?
Stand and deliver!
I'm down to run if a seat opens up, if it'll get things going politically.
So Humph, how are things going in Indiana? What's your current role in state politics? It must be pretty cool knowing the soon-to-be Vice President.
Humpheria
By the way, is anyone else immensely sad about the death of George Michael?
Humpheria, Rateria, Condealism
I think they're all open.
Fantastic. Republicans won everything. I now work for the US Sentate because the campaign I worked won.
Mike Pence is great. It's really cool to know the new Vice President. Wish I could tell you I had his cell number, but alas.
Miencraft, Pevvania, Condealism, The United States Of Patriots
On robots: https://techcrunch.com/2016/05/13/robots-wont-just-take-jobs-theyll-create-them/
Words of encouragement, I'm well beyond my first :D
Pevvania, Rateria
That's a pretty hashtag. I'll take my chair. I want the old one, full of sweat just how i like it.
Rateria
Official Election Notice
Office of the Regional Justice
The region-wide election for the Libertatem Senate will begin on December 30, 2016 and will last until December 31, 2016. The entire region will vote for the whole ticket.
Current candidates include:
Seat 1: Pevvania (Unaffiliated)
Seat 2: Muh Roads (Unaffiliated)
Seat 3: Vacant
The ORJ will be accepting candidates until December 30 by telegram or RMB.
Condealism
And I refuse to waste time on people who can't be bothered to make their own arguments.
The Ambassador To The Clfr
You remember that other time I said I was retired but I became President instead?
This isn't anything like that time. I'm legitimately retired now.
Fixed it.
Miencraft, Condealism, The United States Of Patriots, I Am Totally Not A Puppet
"NEWS:
Telegram Condealism if you're interested in joining the Libertatem Armed Forces and/or Foreign Legion."
This makes me giggle a little.
Stop giggling and start joining
Or join AND giggle
Rateria, Condealism
Nah. I don't do the R/D gameplay thing anymore.
Seriously does anyone want to run for the 3rd Senate Seat?
Condealism
I'll do it
Condealism
VOTE!
Rateria, Condealism
Lol when was the last time we had a contested race?
Rateria, Condealism
Somewhere around Hump's presidency, I think.
Humpheria, Condealism
Also way to start the election on the first day of the month, Humpy.
Post self-deleted by Rateria.
They take office on the first day of the month.
"Elections for Senators shall begin on the first day of every fourth month, and each election shall last one day."
~V:1
Conveniently the Constitution also defines that the terms start immediately upon being elected, so technically yeah they do take office on the first, but that's also because they start getting elected then.
There's a common discussion in philosophy asking "what does it mean to be human?" which find to be a non-dilemma being a libertarian. The question is usually asked in a reference of robots or mixing with machine, example, if 95% of a human is replaced with machine, is he still human? But to me the dilemma is completely irrelevant as I believe that being human, is not what is important, it is the fact that one has free-will, self ownership, etc. that's important. It is immoral to aggress against someone or something that has a sense of self ownership whether it be a robot, an animal or a computer even. We know that animals don't have a sense of self ownership. A litmus test to find out is: do they want rights? And if yes, then they have a sense of self ownership.
Rateria, Condealism
Objectivism too, although a bit more restrictive in who it gives self-ownership too, could give some Great Apes self-ownership as they've been found to have some capacity of reason, according to its ethics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Ape_Project
Rateria
What about humans who don't want rights?
This is what ancap provides. If you want to have your rights taken away, please sign above the dotted line.
Pevvania
Give me some libertarian reading suggestions please?
You still have them. But you can choose to be a slave but you can't be forced to stay as one.
If you want a novel, I suggest Alongside Night.
John Lockes treatises on government
Condealism
I was thinking of something lighter.
Condealism
Most YouTube videos are not a reliable sources. It is intellectually dishonest to post a video and say, "This explains it all. There will be a test later." Talk about a waste of time.
Not my problem. Now then, are you seriously suggesting we restrict automation?
The Senate will take office at 12AM (EST). Senators-elect Pevvania, Muh Roads, and Aradites please affirm the following oath of office at your earliest convience.
I, [nation], do solemnly swear to protect, defend, and uphold the Constitution of Libertatem. I swear to execute the will of the People of Libertatem within the rightful extents of the law. I affirm that it is my solemn duty to defend Libertatem from all threats, foreign and domestic, to uphold the integrity of the region. I promise to uphold these obligations understanding the sanctity of my office, so help me God.
I love how the oath of office is only still around because of tradition.
Humpheria, The United States Of Patriots
I, Pevvania, do solemnly swear to protect, defend, and uphold the Constitution of Libertatem. I swear to execute the will of the People of Libertatem within the rightful extents of the law. I affirm that it is my solemn duty to defend Libertatem from all threats, foreign and domestic, to uphold the integrity of the region. I promise to uphold these obligations understanding the sanctity of my office, so help me God.
Humpheria
Why did we scrap the original constitution again?
I don't even remember. It was fun to do, I guess.
I, Aradites, do solemnly swear to protect, defend, and uphold the Constitution of Libertatem. I swear to execute the will of the People of Libertatem within the rightful extents of the law. I affirm that it is my solemn duty to defend Libertatem from all threats, foreign and domestic, to uphold the integrity of the region. I promise to uphold these obligations understanding the sanctity of my office, so help me God.
I hope everyone is having a happy New Year and had a Merry Christmas. I just wanted to let you guys know that Right To Life has just published their latest newsletter. I hope you enjoy!
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=748411
Republic Of Minerva, Kumquat Cove, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots
Chris Christie is basically Trump, but without the charisma.
Rateria, The United States Of Patriots
I feel that's being unfair to Trump. And I don't even like Trump.
God, Christie is awful...
The United States Of Patriots
*pouty, frowning face*
WRONG
Miencraft, Rateria, Condealism, The United States Of Patriots
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McAeQiLmEYU
Rateria, Condealism
I don't usually talk about religion on here, but I detest the current Pope. As a baptised - though loosely practicing - Catholic, I probably dislike him more on political grounds than anything else, but I think it's so irresponsible to use a religious position supposed to represent hundreds of millions of people as a platform for political virtue signaling. And above that, a platform built on hate. Socialism, the creed this so-called 'Christian' represents, is fundamentally un-Christian, because it advocates theft, greed, violence, suffering, autocracy, atheism and the concentration of power in the hands of a small group of individuals. Jesus Himself was notably individualistic and railed against taxation, collectivism and authoritarian forms of government, and even voiced support for individualism, markets and commerce. Little Frankie even called the death of "His Excellency" Fidel Castro "sad" and expressed his sincere condolences. That's right. Someone supposed to alleviate suffering and represent the will of God called the death of a brutal dictator who turned his country into an atheist state and literally destroyed hundreds of Catholic churches "sad". What a moronic, weak excuse of a man.
From my view, he's actually a great contender for anti-Christ as opposed to representative of God.
Miencraft, The Aradites
Yeah the current Pope is much more of a political activist then he is a pontiff
Pevvania, Republic Of Minerva, Condealism
Like it our not we are heading to a post scarcity society. Automation was the first step. We are soon entering the next step.
A post-scarcity society of necessity will have to return to a productive society (as opposed to the migration to a consumerist society that we are plagued with today.) 100 years ago, 90% of Americans were producers (they were entrepreneurs, professionals, tradesmen, or otherwise self-employed). Today 90% Americans are consumers and economic serfs (the are employed to fulfill someone else's dream or vision). The biggest hindrance to this transformation is the tax code that has favored corporatism over individualism. Many conservatives will defend corporatism to the death without ever realizing that it (in its current form) is a type of statism--all corporations (in the US) are creatures of the state.
Those of us who were fortunate enough (and old enough) to remember being taught how to go out and make jobs (harder to do each year because of creeping socialism and bureaucratic strangulation) instead of how to go out and expect a job, are not too concerned. If the statists get out of the way and let us do and be, the disruption to society will be minimal. If the statists have there way we will all be experiencing Venezuela first hand.
Pevvania
And as a wonderful New Years gift, the Health Insurance company that insures the employees of my company gave us 30 days notice. Seems they are no longer interested in groups under 50.
sorry im late
I, [nation=short]muh roads[/nation], do solemnly swear to protect, defend, and uphold the Constitution of Libertatem Gen II. I swear to execute the People of Libertatem within the rightful extents of the law. I affirm that it is my solemn duty to defend Libertatem from all threats, foreign and domestic, to uphold the integrity of the region. I promise to uphold these obligations understanding the sanctity of my office, so help me #420blazeit
Humpheria, Rateria, Condealism
I don't understand how you could be religious and a libertarian anyway, God is a devine Big Brother.
Because they are separate (or should be) ways of thinking. Religion is something you choose to follow so it shouldn't affect how others live. If one sees God as a watcher, then so be it. The problem arises when religious people start making God everyone's watcher. To me, one being religious and being anti-state is the least invasive kind of religious person.
Pevvania, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots
Do you think something punishing you for your thoughts isn't statist?
Republic Of Minerva
I find it most curious how antitheists like to pin their philosophical arguments on their "cosmic boogeyman" caricature of God.
Action begets consequence - this is one of the most obvious truths. It is not only possible, but the most likely explanation, that we are merely punishing ourselves.
The United States Of Patriots
Thought isn't an action.
The Christian God will prosecute you for the thought crime of not worshipping him.
This is not a caricature, it is known that unbelievers are supposed to go to hell.
Even worse is the concept of infinite punishment, not even Hitler deserve infinite punishment for finite crimes.
Suppose you're lost in the wilderness, and after hours of searching, you finally find two roads before you.
One road is adorned with a billboard - an advertisement posted by the mayor of the town it leads to, promising refuge. The other bears no such ad, but looks more well-traveled - logic dictates that it must lead somewhere safe.
Supposing you choose to ignore the ad and walk down the latter road of your own free will, inevitably getting even more lost than you were before, would you seriously consider that to be the town mayor's fault in any way whatsoever?
The United States Of Patriots
False equivalent. God SENDS you to hell.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/2-thessalonians/1-9.html
http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/13-50.html
http://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/13-42.html
http://www.biblestudytools.com/2-peter/2-4.html
Believe in the Christian God
Be a Libertarian
Pick ONE of the above if you wish to be logically consistent.
Apologies. I came up with that on the fly; I'm not exactly as adept at parables as, say, Jesus. Let's try this:
A programmer creates some code for a file-sharing service with the specific intention of making that service open to any users who are capable of following simple instructions... and closed to those who aren't.
Upon attempting to use this service, the user is confronted with the following message: "Please wait 15 seconds. Do not press any keys on your keyboard." If the user were to wait those 15 seconds without input, viola, they would be presented access; instead, the user chooses to mash the Enter key, prompting the server to blacklist them. Whose fault is that: the programmer's, or the user's?
False equivalence again. God actively sends you to hell.
From what I understand, you're trying to say that theists can't be libertarians because the Judeo-Christian god is downright evil and oppressive.
That's not exactly much better than a false equivalence.
Condealism, The United States Of Patriots
[nation=short]Condealism[/nation]
What you are conveniently leaving out of your parables is hell.
Here is a more accurate parable using a modified version of yours.
A programmer creates some code for a file-sharing service with the specific intention of making that service open to any users who are capable of obeying commands and closed to those who aren't, with a punishment handed out to those who don't obey.
Upon attempting to use this service, the user is confronted with the following message: "Please wait 15 seconds. Do not press any keys on your keyboard." If the user were to wait those 15 seconds without input, viola, they would be presented access; instead, the user chooses to mash the Enter key, prompting the server to install malware onto their computer. The users computer is broken. Whose fault is that: the programmer's, or the user's?
You should've gone to spec savers.
I am saying that believers in the Abrahamic God cannot be Libertarian if they wish to be logically consistent, not all faiths are evil. I do know the Abrahamic faith is however.
The Old Testament God is definitely something I would describe as evil, but I wouldn't go as far as to say that the faiths themselves are.
Jesus was a pretty libertarian guy, if he really did exist.
Plus, just because you believe the deity exists doesn't mean you agree with the things it's said to have done. God as depicted in the Old Testament is basically the biggest asshole in the universe.
And then you get to the New Testament and it's about this guy who preaches love and compassion, and individuality.
I don't necessarily think Jesus actually was as much of a wizard as the Bible makes him out to be, but he definitely wasn't a statist.
Rateria, Condealism
FTFY
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+10:34-38
There's a difference between acknowledging that religion isn't the be-all-end-all of morality and just slamming religion as a whole as being evil.
God is terrible. Jesus was a pretty okay guy, but his followers are definitely lying about the things he was capable of doing.
These particular guys attributing such things to Jesus are the same guys that also said that, according to God, it's a sin to wear mixed fabrics and to be gay. Those two are even the same guy, I think.
I am not slamming all religions, just the Abrahamic ones.
Jesus threatenes you with eternal torture if you don't obey him, if that's libertarian...
I'm just going to back off here and let Pev deal with you if he wants. He knows more about this than I do.
Condealism
If you are saying the gospels aren't to be trusted, I don't know what you are using to learn about Jesus.
I see no contradiction. Libertarianism is a political philosophy, and while some religions do have a political ideology attached to them-Islam and sharia law for example-this isn't found in most Christians(although many Christians are politically similar). Thats not to say its always been this way.
It is perfectly consistent to believe anything you want: whether that be Christianity, Buddhism, or really anything for that matter. So long as you remain politically Libertarian about it.
A good example of this is that I personally think marijuana is stupid and I find Pot-heads really, really annoying. But that doesn't mean I support political action against it. Or even that I would attempt to stifle other peoples usage.
I made my personal choice and allow others to do the same.
how is that not consistent with Libertarianism?
Miencraft, Rateria, Condealism
Well, considering the stories of Jesus were written centuries after he died the second time, can any source of information regarding him be trusted?
to be fair scholars said the same thing about the city of Troy and David of David and Goliath. And we now have proof of their existence.
So its not with out precedent that ancient writ are more accurate than thought before.
Plus there where a lot of Joshua's in Ancient Israel so there undoubtably was one from Nazareth around circa year 30.
I just reminded my self of googles search suggestion for "recursion"
Forcing me to be logically consistent is unlibertarian.
Pevvania, Rateria, Condealism, The United States Of Patriots
I worship myself. Sometimes I even touch myself, but that's a story for another day.
Pevvania, Republic Of Minerva, Rateria
To my knowledge the only information we have regarding King David is the Bible itself.
Troy, sure, there are actual ruins of what we think is the place. It'd be kind of weird if the setting of the majority of something as notable as the Iliad were actually just made up, too, but still, at least there's more to Troy than just some random legends.
Condealism
Did you mean: recursive redundancy?
Rateria, The United States Of Patriots
On the contrary:
Oddly, the Bible mentions (or at least alludes to) hell a lot, but doesn't spend much time defining it. Its most obvious known characteristic (aside from the common maybe-metaphorical, maybe-literal fire and brimstone depiction) is that it is a state of separation from God, so utterly complete and irreversible that it is agonizing.
So it goes with the two parables. In the first, the wanderer chose not to follow the sign, became hopelessly lost, and will never encounter the town or its mayor. In the second, the user chose not to follow directions, became banned from using the service, and will never benefit from the programmer's work. That is to say, they achieved the worst possible outcome - irrevocable separation from that which they were seeking (whether consciously or otherwise) - as the result of the deliberate (and unequivocally conscious) choice they made; in other words, they found hell.
My argument is this: the fact that the mayor/programmer allowed for such a choice to be possible does not absolve the wanderer/user in the slightest from the responsibility of acting in accordance with the result they desire.
Miencraft, Rateria, The United States Of Patriots
In '93 a slab of a former victory pillar erected by a Syrian king refers to the Israelite king as of the "Beit David" or House of David. This dates to within a century of the proposed time of Davids rein.
We also have coins from the first temple period referencing David. So there defiantly was a king named David.
Good news: our ratio of active to in active citizens is the best its been since I've started keeping records
Bad news: thats because half of our citizens have CTE'd
Condealism, I Am Totally Not A Puppet
There is one little thing you missed out here.
GOD sends you to hell.
What is this, the third time I've had to repeat myself?
I even linked relevant passages to show you.
That is how your parable is not accurate, you think God is acting passively, merely barring you from him. When in fact he is taking the action of placing you in hell.
Neat.
Condealism
Okay, let's try this again.
The wealthiest man in town is about to host a tremendous gala - media the world over are calling it 'the biggest party of the year.' He sends personalized digital tickets, with a few failsafes in place to help keep their recipients from misplacing them, to everyone he knows; he knows a lot of people, so attendance is expected to be quite high. He continues hyping up the party and reminding his friends to come, even going so far as to say he'll be greeting everybody at the door - for the well-being of the guests, however, he has instated one rule: No ticket, no entry.
A nobleman receives the host's invitation, and, after reading it over, deliberately decides to discard it. Maybe he thinks the "no ticket, no entry" rule is stupid. Maybe he thinks that rule won't be enforced at all. Or maybe he believes he'll get in anyway, because he gives to charity, or recycles, or because he and the host went to the same high school, or something else that would make him an exception. In any case, he decides to visit the party without the ticket.
It's raining on the night of the party; fortunately, the gala takes place in a large indoor venue with a covered terrace. The nobleman can hear the excited cheering, raucous laughter, and clinking of glasses going on inside, and can see the host acting as a bouncer at the door, greeting the guests who have tickets and warmly inviting them inside. With a confident smile, he saunters up to the host.
"Ticket, please," says the host. The nobleman laughs it off, but becomes increasingly concerned when the host repeats himself. He rattles off excuse after excuse as the host keeps asking for a ticket.
"No ticket, no entry," the host states firmly.
The nobleman lists every reason he can think of that the host needs to let him in right this minute. The host remains impassive. Finally, the nobleman pleads, "Come on. You know me!"
"I don't know you," says the host. "Get away from me."
With that, the host shoves the nobleman out into the pouring rain, and actively refuses to allow him into the event. Tell me: is this the fault of the host or the nobleman?
I think he means, "reticulating splines."
Are we still seriously going on about this? Give it a rest.
You are making the same mistake again and again, Hell is an active punishment for all who don't obey.
Here is a more accurate parable.
Okay, let's try this again.
The wealthiest man in town is about to host a tremendous gala - media the world over are calling it 'the biggest party of the year.' He sends personalized digital tickets, with a few failsafes in place to help keep their recipients from misplacing them, to everyone he knows; he knows a lot of people, so attendance is expected to be quite high. He continues hyping up the party and reminding his friends to come, even going so far as to say he'll be greeting everybody at the door - for the well-being of the guests, however, he has instated one rule: No ticket, no entry.
A nobleman receives the host's invitation, and, after reading it over, deliberately decides to discard it. Maybe he thinks the "no ticket, no entry" rule is stupid. Maybe he thinks that rule won't be enforced at all. Or maybe he believes he'll get in anyway, because he gives to charity, or recycles, or because he and the host went to the same high school, or something else that would make him an exception. In any case, he decides to visit the party without the ticket.
It's raining on the night of the party; fortunately, the gala takes place in a large indoor venue with a covered terrace. The nobleman can hear the excited cheering, raucous laughter, and clinking of glasses going on inside, and can see the host acting as a bouncer at the door, greeting the guests who have tickets and warmly inviting them inside. With a confident smile, he saunters up to the host.
"Ticket, please," says the host. The nobleman laughs it off, but becomes increasingly concerned when the host repeats himself. He rattles off excuse after excuse as the host keeps asking for a ticket.
"No ticket, no entry," the host states firmly.
The nobleman lists every reason he can think of that the host needs to let him in right this minute. The host remains impassive. Finally, the nobleman pleads, "Come on. You know me!"
"I don't know you," says the host. "Get away from me."
With that, the host shoots the nobleman in the leg and leaves him to suffer in the pouring rain, and actively refuses to allow him into the event. Tell me: is this the fault of the host or the nobleman?
As an actor, I think I speak on behalf of everyone when I say that nobody cares what we have to say about politics! Their new video basically throws a bunch of childish insults at Trump, nothing you haven't heard before, and even asks Congress to #OBSTRUCT President Trump. How the tables have turned! When Republicans vowed to block Obama's unconstitutional political agenda, they were decried by the left as 'un-American' and 'racist'. Then a political outcome doesn't go their way and now it's patriotic to obstruct the President! Just amazing.
The left and liberal Hollywood, who were nowhere to be found amidst the war crimes, corruption and abuses of power in the Obama era, have shown themselves to have absolutely no credibility left.
Miencraft, Rateria, Condealism, The United States Of Patriots
Also, where did it come from that Trump is 'anti-semitic'? Are these people even trying anymore? Do they really think throwing buzzwords around will work? His daughter is friccin' Jewish! And he was defending Israel publicly while Obama got the UN to slap them on the wrist for settlement building. Doesn't that make Obama anti-semitic?
And the sore truth for liberals is that Trump is likely going to be kinder to the black community than Little Barry ever was. What kind of a champion of blacks openly fights school choice? For the Drug War? For a higher minimum wage? For the welfare cliffs? This guy has paid nothing but lip service to the black community. Thankfully, it looks like things are about to change.
Condealism, The United States Of Patriots
Kind of the opposite, really.
If your argument opens with, "I'm an actor," implied or outright stated, it reduces credibility. For me, anyway.
It's kind of like, "as a mom..."
It's just something that's so completely irrelevant that you know that whatever follows will be pointless because of their choice to include it.
Miencraft, Condealism, The United States Of Patriots
Assembled with Dot's Region Saver.
Written by Refuge Isle.