MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-

@MSGID: <6239B2F8.8876.dove-gen@bbses.info>
@REPLY: <623994E4.55625.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to MRO on Tue Mar 22 2022 07:58 pm

The Pharma Bro? You mean Martin Shkreli, that pathetic excuse for a human being?

well there's a lot of people that are pathetic excuses for human
beings. maybe most of us fit that definition. whats funny is he went
to prison for a whitecollar crime. and nobody suffered. he actually
made these investors money even though he dipped from his other company
to do it.

regardless of what you think of him, he is a genius. and when he spoke about those programs, he was correct.

Not paying your bill is also theft.

if i dont pay a bill, i don't go to prison or jail.
also these hospitals overcharge and make fraudulant charges.

I go into the doctors office to talk to the doctor for 1 minute.
i have to pay 500 out of pocket so they can weigh me and do their dumb shit i don't need. is that right? also they are charging my insurance thousands.

I was just saying the many ways it can be handled. you can also wait until it goes to a collections company and then work out a deal and pay your bill for much less. i know a person who had to pay 20k and it
went down to 2,500 usd.

in the usa you don't have to go without. there's many options.

I have to say, Libertarianism is the
most brainded economic/moral philsophy

why are you talking about libritarians and marxists?

$500? I hear conflicting things about the healthcare system there, some says its OK, but whenever I heard actual details, they're mortifying.


--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

Greenlfc wrote to Boraxman <=-

@MSGID: <623A25B1.123881.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
On 22 Mar 2022, Boraxman said the following...

What happens if you don't pay your taxes to fund the scheme du jour?
You get a fine, maybe have your home taken, and bank accounts seized.

If you still don't pay and knuckle under, armed men will come to take
you to prison.

If you don't want to go with them, they will use force to take you.

If you resist that force, they will attempt to kill you. With guns.

Every time someone says, "There ought to be a law," they are saying
that those who disagree should be killed if they don't comply. Any
time someone uses the government's (near) monopoly of force to enact something they want, that's what they're doing.

People choose not to think of their "reasonable" demands in that way,
but a failure to look to the end result doesn't make it so.

You realise that ALL contracts must be enforced, by threat of force? Even in a pure "voluntaryist" society, you need "men with guns".

Lets say I decide that property is theft, and I don't pay back my mortgage, or refuse to pay rent as I believe it is immoral. Men with guns will come eventually to kick me off, if I don't comply with earlier demands to vacate.

The fact that force is used is not an argument. It is impractical to have a society where there isn't force backing laws. And we must have laws to have civilisation.

The very existence of property relies on "men with guns". So unless you are against property, you yourself need the "men with guns".

If you don't want the threat of force, you much choose total anarchy, law ofthe jungle, but that is WORSE.

--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-

@MSGID: <623A6AA2.27792.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
@REPLY: <623994E6.55626.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Greenlfc on
Tue Mar 22 2022 08:08 pm

Greenlfc wrote to Boraxman <=-

@MSGID: <62388DD6.123860.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
On 20 Mar 2022, Boraxman said the following...

I'm OK with paying taxes for good healthcare. I happen to like

civilisa

tion.

You can't have civilization without manners and morals. Robbing your

fe

llow

citizens at gunpoint demonstrates neither.

Oddly, I don't see people robbed at gunpoint. Maybe its different where you

live,

I haven't met one person who was robbed at gunpoint, let alont robbed at

gunp

oint t

extract taxes.

Come to Spain and expand your catalog of experiences.

Modern Socialism is coercitive by force. It works on the premise that
you do what you are told, else the cops show up and beat your brains
out against a wall. The threat of force is usually very well hidden and people does not think much about it, but here is this: Socializing
forces scalate their threat against anybody who resists until disidence
is destroyed.

See, if you don't place a "No Smoking" sign in your bar you get a
letter with a fine. If you don't pay the fine, you get a citation. If
you get a citation and ignore it, they command you to close the bar. If you refuse to close the bar, they send government mercenaries to close
the bar. If you still refuse to close the bar, they beat your brains
out of your head.

The common response is "Nobody is so stupid to push matters up to that point," and while that may be true, it does not deny the fact that
Every Single Command from Government is backed by the threat that they will eventually destroy anybody who disobeys.

As I responded before, ALL property, ALL laws must be backed by force. If you owe money, or are leasing a property, force must be used to ensure you keep your end of the contract. Without force, I would just stop paying my mortgage tomorrow. It is only through the threat of force that I keep paying.

Are you saying that if I rent a property from you, decide not to pay rent anymore and refuse to vacate, you can't use force against me?


--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-

Actually, Anarcho-Syndicalism is turning a territory into a federation
of cooperative companies (since they don't recognize the notion of nation), Communism is about turning the whole nation into a Cooperative (and eventually disolve the nation) and Fascism is about turning the nation into a company, in which every department is run in a semi-cooperative way.

The reason why Communist regimes end up operating as quasi-fascism is because in order to have people join the Cooperative you need to force them to join, and that requires power structures. Once you have power structures in place, the people on top has no reason to release the
reins because they can be the Dear Leaders forever.

Fascism has a similar peoblem with having people join State Unionized firms... they need to force people to accept working in the Union the General of the Week wants to give them, which is the reason there was
so much black market and illegal Unions going on in Spain back in the days.

I find these ideologies somewhat worrying, because people who hold them presume to know a final, end state of humanity, and people who believe they have a final solution, who have it worked out, are potentially the most dangerous.

I'm vaguely aware of Anarcho-Syndicalism, it is probably the most palatable of the three, but the idea that people should live in a system of their own choosing is a little foolish. We are all born into a particular society, and either everyone migrates constantly, or we just accept what we are born into, and seek to make changes with the consent and support of as many people as possible. However, "forcing" people is always going to be a feature of any system. It is idealistic to believe that you can have a totally cooperative society, without coercion. Such a thing is utopian.

We must learn to accept a degree of coercion, but keep it minimal. Seeking a state where there is none is likely to be more destructive than the coercion itself.

The Quasi-Fascist nature of Communism, and the problem with Fascism (and with Libertarian/Propertarianism), comes from a moral framework which claims to have a solution.


This is the belief that somewhere, in the past or in the future, in
divine revelation or in the mind of an individual thinker, in the
pronouncements of history or science, or in the simple heart of an
uncorrupted good man, there is a final solution.
âÇö Isaiah Berlin, from Two Concepts of Liberty (1969)

Force is required, because in this ideological state, agreement/disagreement is rendered as moral/immoral. That is, "we" are right, because we have the solution and are moral, and everyone else must be immoral. Take for examples the "taxation is theft" line. That belies a firm and rigid belief that only one pattern of property rights is legitimate, and people who accept an other are not only accepting an inferior belief, but are IMMORAL and HARMFUL. These ideologies are profoundly anti-Western, anti-Enlightenment, as we have come to a system where what is moral, what our system should be, is based on consensus and self-rule. We choose our moral frameworks and precepts and alternative ones simply need to compete in the marketplace of ideas.


--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

Greenlfc wrote to Arelor <=-

@MSGID: <62388DD6.123861.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
On 20 Mar 2022, Arelor said the following...

The problem with Socialism is precisely that it does not sound dumb,
which makes it an easier sell.

The US is also very far from Libertarian.

(I'm agreeing with you here).

Socialism sounds smart to dumb people. Why shouldn't we take care of people and share our resources, and so on? It's just that socialism is the worst possible way to do it, because it relies on human nature
*not* being what it is. See The Tragedy of the Commons, or Lord Acton.

The US hasn't been anywhere close to libertarian (small-l) since around 1913 or so. We started the slide to socialism around then and only our history of rugged individualism in some places has slowed it down, but
not stopped it. We're going on this ride, and I don't like where it
ends up.

Yes, life really took a turn for the worse in those post war boom years. Those rising wages, increasing living standards, civil rights, increased life expectency really was a burden...

--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

Gamgee wrote to MRO <=-

@MSGID: <623A7927.27800.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
@REPLY: <6239B2F8.8876.dove-gen@bbses.info>

MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-

I go into the doctors office to talk to the doctor for 1 minute.
i have to pay 500 out of pocket so they can weigh me and do their
dumb shit i don't need. is that right? also they are charging my insurance thousands.

Either your insurance SUCKS BADLY, or you're lying.

I was just saying the many ways it can be handled. you can also
wait until it goes to a collections company and then work out a
deal and pay your bill for much less. i know a person who had to
pay 20k and it went down to 2,500 usd.

Oh yeah, that's a great solution. Does wonders for the credit rating, too. LOL

The American system must be more "socialised" than the Australian one, for it to be worse.

--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Arelor to MRO on Tue Mar 22 2022 08:08 pm

I was just saying the many ways it can be handled. you can also wait until it goes to a collections company and then work out a deal and pay your bill f much less. i know a person who had to pay 20k and it went down to 2,500 usd.

That is a so-so solution at best and should not be considered a standard.

well it might happen quit frequently, though. i didnt say it was the only solution. people are not dying with no treatment is what i'm getting at.
there's several ways to approach treatment in the usa. people from other countries don't understand our country the same way we do not understand yours.

Captive markets are so bad because this sort of shit happens. Lots of medicines can be expensive in an area because they are the only authorized ones for disease X, but if you smuggled them from somewhere else you could have them for less than half the price.

well in the usa you can buy drugs from another country. i wouldnt try narcotics but i bought drugs with a perscription from india before at a huge discount. now the post office made me go there and pick it up and the lady at the counter was spinning it around looking at it. it said on the outside it was perscription medication. it's none of her business nor the us post office's business to verify that.

i also get my contact lenses from canada. i dont use a perscription because i know what i need. and eye doctors can fuck off.
---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: the doctor to GREENLFC on Wed Mar 23 2022 09:35 am

You preach anarchy.

--- GREENLFC wrote ---
On 22 Mar 2022, Boraxman said the following...

post on the bottom please. most of us are reading on bbses.
---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to MRO on Wed Mar 23 2022 08:17 pm

why are you talking about libritarians and marxists?

$500? I hear conflicting things about the healthcare system there, some says its OK, but whenever I heard actual details, they're mortifying.

there's a lot of factors and different types of insurance. with my current insurance i wouldn't have to pay that much probably.
it's complicated stuff. you have a deductable you agree to, then you have various coverages for care and for drugs. i wouldn't expect someone from another country to understand it because it's so convoluted.

For some providers i'm paying a lot and having to do that deductable, for other ones i'm paying a few cents. there's also agreements that the hospitals have with insurance companies and there's also generic drugs.

it's very complicated so you can't believe someone when they explain it in 2 sentences.

Our system really needs to be gutted and fixed, and that's what Trump was working on. You couldn't go in before and say how much to fix a broken arm? how much if i have a sinus infection? how much if i need a yearly physical? they would tell you to fuck off before. they don't know. i'm not sure if that law/order got pushed through [or reversed by biden] by trump, but it was a great thing.
---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Greenlfc on Wed Mar 23 2022 08:39 pm

The US hasn't been anywhere close to libertarian (small-l) since around 1913 or so. We started the slide to socialism around then and only our history of rugged individualism in some places has slowed it down, but not stopped it. We're going on this ride, and I don't like where it ends up.

Yes, life really took a turn for the worse in those post war boom years. Those rising wages, increasing living standards, civil rights, increased life expectency really was a burden...

well, back then you could get a house, raise a family, have the wife sit at home. get a nice car. you could walk into a place and have a job for life.

It's not like that anymore. usa sold itself out. jobs went to india and china.

i'm 45 and worked hard my entire life and I couldn't have a house other than inheriting one. i also didn't handle my finances well, but i wonder how well they handled it back in the boomer days.

btw, i could have had a couple houses via inheritance but i turned them down because they required fixing up, and i'd have to relocate. also houses can be a financial drain if you have an older one.
---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Arelor on Wed Mar 23 2022 08:23 pm

Are you saying that if I rent a property from you, decide not to pay rent anymore and refuse to vacate, you can't use force against me?

No, what I am saying is that all modern laws are a variation of "If you don't do X, we crush you," which makes a lot of demands from the government hard to justify unless you do mental
gymnastics to ignore this very fact.

In the case of socialized healthcare, it is a clearcut case of "You must hire my healthcare system, even if you don't use it, or I fail to provide it. If you don't, I crush you."

It is a hold up at gun point in which we, as a society, have chosen to willingly pretend there is no gun and that the gun holder is working for our own good.

This is nothing more than the classical miniarchist argument according to which the government should only be transfered power that is reasonable to hold in such way. "If you steal stuff, we'll
crush you" is a threat which may be reasonable to enforce. "If you don't register your hamster with the pet registry, we'll crush you" is certainly not.

The government is a corporation that can get away with bullying because it has convinced everybody that it is something other than a corporation. Ask yourself whether it would look right for
Google to force everybody to buy healthcare services from it under the promise it will make it available for the needy.

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Arelor on Wed Mar 23 2022 08:35 pm

Force is required, because in this ideological state, agreement/disagreement is rendered as moral/immoral. That is, "we" are right, because we have the solution and are moral, and everyone
else must be immoral. Take for examples the "taxation is theft" line. That belies a firm and rigid belief that only one pattern of property rights is legitimate, and people who accept an
other are not only accepting an inferior belief, but are IMMORAL and HARMFUL. These ideologies are profoundly anti-Western, anti-Enlightenment, as we have come to a system where what is mor
what our system should be, is based on consensus and self-rule. We choose our moral frameworks and precepts and alternative ones simply need to compete in the marketplace of ideas.

Most "Taxation is theft" card holders don't care if you want to purchase services from the government. Anarchocapitalists and the like tend to think that if you want to set up a comune or a
cooperative or any socialistic sort of society that is a problem for you and your followers alone.

It is the socialistic types which build political systems and then need to incorporate everybody they can into them. This is the main reason why it is very hard to opt-out of heavyweight
socialist services: they want to force everybody to participate. If you do as much as complain because it works badly you will be labeled a rebel, unless you imply that it would work better if
it grew bigger.

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

--- MRO wrote ---
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: the doctor to GREENLFC on Wed Mar 23 2022 09:35 am

You preach anarchy.

--- GREENLFC wrote ---
On 22 Mar 2022, Boraxman said the following...

post on the bottom please. most of us are reading on bbses.

As am I, and I usually do that, however, it seemed a long post to quote
(and scroll though) for a one line reply.

---
"No matter where you go, there you are..."


---
* TARDIS BBS - Home of QUARKware * telnet bbs.cortex-media.info

On 23 Mar 2022, the doctor said the following...

You preach anarchy.

`
No. Anarchy and Democracy are basically the same thing. You have to protect freedoms, and yes it's a tight balance. Basically, I line up with the US founders, Locke, etc, in that the sole purpose of government is to protect against outside aggression and to ensure individuals' rights to life, liberty, and property. Everything outside of that is wrong.

GreenLFC ║ e> greenleaderfanclub@protonmail.com
Infosec / Ham / Retro ║ masto> GLFC@mstdn.starnix.network
Avoids Politics on BBS ║ gem> gemini.greenleader.xyz

On 23 Mar 2022, Boraxman said the following...

You realise that ALL contracts must be enforced, by threat of force?
Even in a pure "voluntaryist" society, you need "men with guns".

Lets say I decide that property is theft, and I don't pay back my mortgage, or refuse to pay rent as I believe it is immoral. Men with
guns will come eventually to kick me off, if I don't comply with earlier demands to vacate.

Here is the key. The *only* appropriate use for government's monopoly of force is to protect an individual's life, liberty, and property. In the case of you not paying your rent or mortgage, you're infringing on the rights of the true owner of the property.

GreenLFC ║ e> greenleaderfanclub@protonmail.com
Infosec / Ham / Retro ║ masto> GLFC@mstdn.starnix.network
Avoids Politics on BBS ║ gem> gemini.greenleader.xyz

On 23 Mar 2022, Boraxman said the following...

Yes, life really took a turn for the worse in those post war boom years. Those rising wages, increasing living standards, civil rights, increased life expectency really was a burden...

All of which covered up things like mounting debt, increased restrictions on rights, the urbanization of society, and the eventual destruction of the nuclear family. The post-war years were *built* on debt, debt we as a nation can never pay back. The 20th Century was the fun part of a roller coaster that goes "splat" at the end. We're just waiting for the splat.

GreenLFC ║ e> greenleaderfanclub@protonmail.com
Infosec / Ham / Retro ║ masto> GLFC@mstdn.starnix.network
Avoids Politics on BBS ║ gem> gemini.greenleader.xyz

MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-

Yes, life really took a turn for the worse in those post war boom years. Those rising wages, increasing living standards, civil rights, increased life expectency really was a burden...

I think MRO missed the /sarcasm here... LOL

well, back then you could get a house, raise a family, have the
wife sit at home. get a nice car. you could walk into a place
and have a job for life.

You still can. I know many people like that, including myself.

It's not like that anymore. usa sold itself out. jobs went to
india and china.

Some did. Not all.

i'm 45 and worked hard my entire life and I couldn't have a house
other than inheriting one. i also didn't handle my finances
well, but i wonder how well they handled it back in the boomer
days.

So..... do you think there's any relationship between not handling your finances well and not being able to buy a house?

Yup.


... A conclusion is simply the place where someone got tired of thinking.
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

the doctor wrote to MRO <=-

post on the bottom please. most of us are reading on bbses.

As am I, and I usually do that, however, it seemed a long post to
quote (and scroll though) for a one line reply.

Doesn't matter. Top-posting is always the wrong choice.


... Something will have to be done, something irresponsible.
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Gamgee to MRO on Wed Mar 23 2022 02:42 pm

well, back then you could get a house, raise a family, have the
wife sit at home. get a nice car. you could walk into a place
and have a job for life.

You still can. I know many people like that, including myself.

So..... do you think there's any relationship between not handling your finances well and not being able to buy a house?

Yup.

It depends on where you live and what industry you work in.

As far as buying a house, the housing market is crazy right now, at least where I am. Housing prices are through the roof. Just looking right now, I see a listing for a house for sale in my area on Zillow.com for $505,000, and it's only a 960 square foot house. $699,500 for a 1,185 square foot house. Another is a 1,769 square foot house and they want $649,000 for it.

As far as jobs, companies these days seem to change their plans all the time. They'll start new projects and cancel projects all the time, resulting in layoffs. There's no such thing as company loyalty anymore - Companies can let you go at any time (and people leave for other jobs all the time). I feel like there's no such thing as a job for life anymore.

Nightfox

--- GREENLFC wrote ---
No. Anarchy and Democracy are basically the same thing. You have to protect freedoms, and yes it's a tight balance. Basically, I line up with the US founders, Locke, etc, in that the sole purpose of government is to protect against outside aggression and to ensure individuals' rights to life, liberty, and property. Everything outside of that is wrong.

I see. Well, we're unlikely to have a meeting of minds here, then. (:


---
"No matter where you go, there you are..."


---
* TARDIS BBS - Home of QUARKware * telnet bbs.cortex-media.info

--- GAMGEE wrote ---

the doctor wrote to MRO <=-

Doesn't matter. Top-posting is always the wrong choice.

I feel dirty.


---
"No matter where you go, there you are..."


---
* TARDIS BBS - Home of QUARKware * telnet bbs.cortex-media.info

the doctor wrote to GAMGEE <=-

Doesn't matter. Top-posting is always the wrong choice.

I feel dirty.

Haha! That actually made me LOL for real. :-)

Thanks for not being easily offended, like so many.

All good, cheers.



... If it weren't for Edison we'd be using computers by candlelight
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Nightfox wrote to Gamgee <=-

By: Gamgee to MRO on Wed Mar 23 2022 02:42 pm

well, back then you could get a house, raise a family, have the
wife sit at home. get a nice car. you could walk into a place
and have a job for life.

You still can. I know many people like that, including myself.

So..... do you think there's any relationship between not handling your finances well and not being able to buy a house?

It depends on where you live and what industry you work in.

Well, yes, to some extent. If those two items are preventing you from
getting what you want, perhaps they should be changed?

As far as buying a house, the housing market is crazy right now,
at least where I am. Housing prices are through the roof. Just
looking right now, I see a listing for a house for sale in my
area on Zillow.com for $505,000, and it's only a 960 square foot
house. $699,500 for a 1,185 square foot house. Another is a
1,769 square foot house and they want $649,000 for it.

Agreed, and understood. But...... it's not that bad everywhere.

As far as jobs, companies these days seem to change their plans
all the time.

That depends greatly on the industry. The company I work for does NOT
do that.

They'll start new projects and cancel projects all
the time, resulting in layoffs.

Not all industries have "projects" that change.

There's no such thing as company loyalty anymore -

I have to STRONGLY disagree with that statement. I am very loyal
to mine, and would have a hard time picturing a scenario where I
would want to leave it.

Companies can let you go at any time (and people leave for
other jobs all the time). I feel like there's no such thing
as a job for life anymore.

Again that's not always true in all industries. I am CERTAIN that
my company would not let me go unless I gave them good reason to do
so. It's virtually unheard of for an employee to leave for something
else. It's a multi-billion dollar company, in a very specialized
industry, and some of the employees (like me) are so highly trained
and specialized that they would not like to lose us. The industry
I speak of is the cancer-treatment world, specifically radiation
therapy. I maintain linear accelerator machines that produce the
radiation. They've invested a LOT of money and time in me, and
quite honestly I would be hard to replace. I'll be here until I
retire, no doubt. My whole point here is that I didn't arrive in
this place by accident, I worked hard and made moves to get what
I wanted. Sometimes folks should think about doing that if they
are not happy or are not getting what they need.



... FIGHT BACK! ... Fill out your tax forms with Roman numerals.
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-

@MSGID: <623B1C1D.8900.dove-gen@bbses.info>
@REPLY: <623AED87.55648.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to MRO on Wed Mar 23 2022 08:17 pm

why are you talking about libritarians and marxists?

$500? I hear conflicting things about the healthcare system there, some says its OK, but whenever I heard actual details, they're mortifying.

there's a lot of factors and different types of insurance. with my current insurance i wouldn't have to pay that much probably. it's complicated stuff. you have a deductable you agree to, then you have various coverages for care and for drugs. i wouldn't expect someone
from another country to understand it because it's so convoluted.

For some providers i'm paying a lot and having to do that deductable,
for other ones i'm paying a few cents. there's also agreements that
the hospitals have with insurance companies and there's also generic drugs.

it's very complicated so you can't believe someone when they explain it
in 2 sentences.

Our system really needs to be gutted and fixed, and that's what Trump
was working on. You couldn't go in before and say how much to fix a broken arm? how much if i have a sinus infection? how much if i need a yearly physical? they would tell you to fuck off before. they don't
know. i'm not sure if that law/order got pushed through [or reversed
by biden] by trump, but it was a great thing. ---

Karl Deninger from the Market-Ticker website talks about this, how it is odd that you are "forced" into purchasing a product, without being able to know the price.

Complications means there is additional beaurocracy which means additional cost.

In Australia, there is a public system, but if you want private insurace, you pay for that yourself. It can be expensive, I'm paying about $400 AUD a month for a family of four, but it doesn't cover much in the way of dental. I'm not sure its worth it really. The government doesn't want people to rely on the public system, to take private health insurance, but its hard to justify the cost, especially when you're younger.


--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

MRO wrote to Boraxman <=-

@MSGID: <623B1D1A.8901.dove-gen@bbses.info>
@REPLY: <623AED8D.55652.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Greenlfc on Wed Mar 23 2022 08:39 pm

The US hasn't been anywhere close to libertarian (small-l) since around 1913 or so. We started the slide to socialism around then and only our history of rugged individualism in some places has slowed it down, but not stopped it. We're going on this ride, and I don't like where it ends up.

Yes, life really took a turn for the worse in those post war boom years. Those rising wages, increasing living standards, civil rights, increased life expectency really was a burden...

well, back then you could get a house, raise a family, have the wife
sit at home. get a nice car. you could walk into a place and have a
job for life.

It's not like that anymore. usa sold itself out. jobs went to india and china.

i'm 45 and worked hard my entire life and I couldn't have a house other than inheriting one. i also didn't handle my finances well, but i
wonder how well they handled it back in the boomer days.

btw, i could have had a couple houses via inheritance but i turned them down because they required fixing up, and i'd have to relocate. also houses can be a financial drain if you have an older one. ---

I did get an inheritance as well, which helped a lot to buy effectively one of the few affordable properties left. In the 4 years since I've bought it, the price of my house according to market data has increased nearly $200K. I don't know how younger people can possible keep up.

It wasn't just the USA which sold itself out, we all did. Offshoring jobs was a foolish move, a false economy. We got "cheap goods", but at the cost of manufacturing, and perhaps, as we may find out soon, the cost of our nations itself as the country which got rich off us giving them our manuacturing base turns on us and seeks to dominate us.

Contrary to what some people say, I think we need more economic Nationalism. I had hopes the USA would head toward that direction with Trump, and with Bannon influencing him, but not much happened in that regard.

I'm all for economic freedom, but not if people are going to use that freedom to white-ant their own nation.

... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-

@MSGID: <623B2FE1.27813.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
@REPLY: <623AED89.55650.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Arelor on
Wed Mar 23 2022 08:23 pm

Are you saying that if I rent a property from you, decide not to pay rent

any

more and refuse to vacate, you can't use force against me?

No, what I am saying is that all modern laws are a variation of "If you don't do X, we crush you," which makes a lot of demands from the government hard to justify unless you do mental gymnastics to ignore
this very fact.

In the case of socialized healthcare, it is a clearcut case of "You
must hire my healthcare system, even if you don't use it, or I fail to provide it. If you don't, I crush you."

It is a hold up at gun point in which we, as a society, have chosen to willingly pretend there is no gun and that the gun holder is working
for our own good.

This is nothing more than the classical miniarchist argument according
to which the government should only be transfered power that is
reasonable to hold in such way. "If you steal stuff, we'll crush you"
is a threat which may be reasonable to enforce. "If you don't register your hamster with the pet registry, we'll crush you" is certainly not.

The government is a corporation that can get away with bullying because
it has convinced everybody that it is something other than a
corporation. Ask yourself whether it would look right for Google to
force everybody to buy healthcare services from it under the promise it will make it available for the needy.

All laws must be enforced at gunpoint. Property doesn't exist without threat of violence, and there has to be a consensus, a forced one, as to what constitues property. You must have a government, or equivalent. It must be coercive. I'm yet to hear a viable model without some form of government and system of laws where compliance is mandatory, and not voluntary.

I'll ask again, how is it possible for you to have property rights, without
1) Force against those who break contract/violate rights
2) Forcing people to accept the same pattern of property rights that you believe should exist.

I do not consider "holding the gun" a problem, because the alternative is worse.

Also, because property can only exist with a state, the state determines what *IS* property and what is not property. Therefore, your legal claim to property is defined by the state, and only exists after the existence of the state. If the state determines that it is entitled to taxation, then taxation is not theft. The state has defined that it is not your rightful property and it has a claim. The argument that it is "theft" doesn't hold, because in order for it to be theft you need a prior system of property rights which enforces your rightful claim to your income.

Capitalism accepts that your right to claim what you produce as yours is alienable and conditional to contract.

--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-

@MSGID: <623B33B2.27814.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
@REPLY: <623AED8B.55651.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Arelor on
Wed Mar 23 2022 08:35 pm

Most "Taxation is theft" card holders don't care if you want to
purchase services from the government. Anarchocapitalists and the like tend to think that if you want to set up a comune or a cooperative or
any socialistic sort of society that is a problem for you and your followers alone.

It is the socialistic types which build political systems and then need
to incorporate everybody they can into them. This is the main reason
why it is very hard to opt-out of heavyweight socialist services: they want to force everybody to participate. If you do as much as complain because it works badly you will be labeled a rebel, unless you imply
that it would work better if it grew bigger.

I don't agree that taxation is theft, that argument is claimed by its adherents to be logically consistent, but it isn't. However, I do agree that if the state abuses taxation, then it becomes illegitimate, or more specifically, it becomes morally justifiable to oppose taxation regimes which become tyrannical, harmful or pathological.

But the issue is how taxation is used, not whether it exists or not. Here the "tax is theft" types fail, because they want to undo the benefits of a state, and in place, offer an untested, untried system based on dubious theory with no real historical precedent or observational evidence to back it up.

"Tax is theft" is also quite dogmatic, and reveals a philosophy contrary to Western ideals.

--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

Greenlfc wrote to Boraxman <=-

@MSGID: <623B5B07.123912.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
On 23 Mar 2022, Boraxman said the following...

You realise that ALL contracts must be enforced, by threat of force?
Even in a pure "voluntaryist" society, you need "men with guns".

Lets say I decide that property is theft, and I don't pay back my mortgage, or refuse to pay rent as I believe it is immoral. Men with
guns will come eventually to kick me off, if I don't comply with earlier demands to vacate.

Here is the key. The *only* appropriate use for government's monopoly
of force is to protect an individual's life, liberty, and property. In the case of you not paying your rent or mortgage, you're infringing on
the rights of the true owner of the property.

That is according to YOUR morals, and YOUR values. According to mine, my view of property rights, autonomy and my morals and values, the state has a right to make a property claim from citizens in a quid-pro-quo where functional civilisation is offered in return.

For you to argue that your morals are right, and mine are wrong, you would need to provide some objective basis for that judgement, and none exists. There is no objective way to categorise one set of morals as "true" and one as "false". Your view and mine are EQUAL in that they are both proposed frameworks of rights.

There are no natural rights. There is no objective ethics, though many have tried to claim they have one.

Modern Western civilisation is based on the premise that we own ourselves, and that we are able to adapt our values, our framework as we develop our philosophy and understanding, and respond to learned experience. Simply claiming a specific set of morals as true, and others as false, is dogmatism, dogmatism which in other ideological systems, has led to tyranny.

We don't do that. Our success is because we allow a marketplace of ideas, and recognise that morals are not absolute, but instead subservient to our needs our situation. We change them, there is no absolute right or wrong. It is incumbent upon us to sell our ideas, to argue how our moral framework is better.

It is for this reason I find Liberatarianism actually a tyranny in disguise. Hans Herman Hoppe represents the end result, the 'telos' of this style of thinking, a justification for exclusion, disposession, pogroms and murder.

Again, a system which claims that property is theft, or that your empty land you own is theft, is also an equally valid system.

You may argue for the merits of yours, how it improves human dignity, quality of life, but you cannot a-priori simply state it is true.

--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

Greenlfc wrote to Boraxman <=-

@MSGID: <623B5B07.123913.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>
On 23 Mar 2022, Boraxman said the following...

Yes, life really took a turn for the worse in those post war boom years. Those rising wages, increasing living standards, civil rights, increased life expectency really was a burden...

All of which covered up things like mounting debt, increased
restrictions on rights, the urbanization of society, and the eventual destruction of the nuclear family. The post-war years were *built* on debt, debt we as a nation can never pay back. The 20th Century was the fun part of a roller coaster that goes "splat" at the end. We're just waiting for the splat.

Urbanisation isn't necessarily a bad thing. All around the world people are seeking to move to cities.

By the way, looking at a graph of US debt in the 20th century, Federal debt drops from the WWII period to the 80s, when it starts to increase, and local debt remains somewhat constant, with a low point soon after WWII (to be expected).

I can say a similar thing is true for Australia. Building things on debt isn't a necessarily bad thing either. You need to borrow to build, ask anyone who has build or bought their own house.

--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

Gamgee wrote to Nightfox <=-

@MSGID: <623BC74F.27828.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
@REPLY: <623B8B02.64996.dove_dove-gen@digitaldistortionbbs.com>

Nightfox wrote to Gamgee <=-

By: Gamgee to MRO on Wed Mar 23 2022 02:42 pm

well, back then you could get a house, raise a family, have the
wife sit at home. get a nice car. you could walk into a place
and have a job for life.

You still can. I know many people like that, including myself.

So..... do you think there's any relationship between not handling your finances well and not being able to buy a house?

It depends on where you live and what industry you work in.

Well, yes, to some extent. If those two items are preventing you from getting what you want, perhaps they should be changed?

As far as buying a house, the housing market is crazy right now,
at least where I am. Housing prices are through the roof. Just
looking right now, I see a listing for a house for sale in my
area on Zillow.com for $505,000, and it's only a 960 square foot
house. $699,500 for a 1,185 square foot house. Another is a
1,769 square foot house and they want $649,000 for it.

Agreed, and understood. But...... it's not that bad everywhere.

In Australia, its that bad everywhere, except in the middle of nowhere.


--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

Nightfox wrote to Gamgee <=-

As far as buying a house, the housing market is crazy right now, at
least where I am. Housing prices are through the roof.

This is what happens when the gov't interferes with the market.

Using the Socialist Utopia of California as an example:
+ Many locales actively block the development of new housing.
+ They dump a ton of rules and regulations on anyone who can get permission to build something new, and on the current landlords.

The result: Supply stagnates, demand stays the same (or increases). Anyone who has taken Economics 101 knows that means prices go up.

As far as jobs, companies these days seem to change their plans all the time. They'll start new projects and cancel projects all the time, resulting in layoffs.

Yup. They plan to do something. Then something happens (often it's new gov't regulations) that derails the plan. Since the current plan won't have any payback, they need to cut their losses.

There's no such thing as company loyalty anymore

That hasn't existed for decades now. Nothing new.

I feel like there's no such thing as a job for life anymore.

That hasn't existed for decades now either.


... I'm not laughing at you, I'm laughing with you!
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/09/29 (Linux/64)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi

Boraxman wrote to Greenlfc <=-

There are no natural rights. There is no objective ethics, though many have tried to claim they have one.

And there it is. The marker that you are a "progressive".


... *IT IS* documented, look under "For Internal Use Only."
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/09/29 (Linux/64)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi

Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Arelor on Thu Mar 24 2022 08:23 pm

Also, because property can only exist with a state, the state determines wha *IS* property and what is not property. Therefore, your legal claim to property is defined by the state, and only exists after the existence of the state. If the state determines that it is entitled to taxation, then taxati is not theft. The state has defined that it is not your rightful property a it has a claim. The argument that it is "theft" doesn't hold, because in or for it to be theft you need a prior system of property rights which enforces your rightful claim to your income.

That is hidden circular reasoning. It asumes the State's claims for managing your property are legitimate; therefore, any management of your property by the State is legitimate.

It also breaks off quite badly because the State may decide your money is necessary for keeping up positive discrimination policies, pro gay campaigns and a whole lot of policies which you have mentioned to consider self destructive. Feel free not to call it theft, butif they take your money in order to perpretate what you consider a destructive activity then my bet is you'd have issue with that.

The circular reasoning breaks at the moment you put into question what legitimates the government to manage your property. It can't be the sovereignity confered by the population, since you have already claimed that the population has no say in the outcome of politics and that politics is a rigged game.


--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Dr. What to Nightfox on Thu Mar 24 2022 09:24 am

As far as buying a house, the housing market is crazy right now, at
least where I am. Housing prices are through the roof.

This is what happens when the gov't interferes with the market.

Using the Socialist Utopia of California as an example:
+ Many locales actively block the development of new housing.
+ They dump a ton of rules and regulations on anyone who can get permission to build something new, and on the current landlords.

The result: Supply stagnates, demand stays the same (or increases). Anyone who has taken Economics 101 knows that means prices go up.

Makes sense, though where I am, they've been building new houses and apartments all over the place for the past several years. Some new houses have been sold before they're even finished being built. And new apartment complexes look like people have moved into many of the units right when they're done being built. I have heard of an 'urban growth boundary' in my area though, which probably isn't helping.

Nightfox

Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Dr. What to Nightfox on Thu Mar 24 2022 09:24 am

As far as jobs, companies these days seem to change their plans all
the time. They'll start new projects and cancel projects all the
time, resulting in layoffs.

Yup. They plan to do something. Then something happens (often it's new gov't regulations) that derails the plan. Since the current plan won't have any payback, they need to cut their losses.

There's no such thing as company loyalty anymore

That hasn't existed for decades now. Nothing new.

I feel like there's no such thing as a job for life anymore.

That hasn't existed for decades now either.

Wrong! Government jobs seem to be for life.

... Criminal lawyer. Isn't that redundant?

---
■ Synchronet ■ outwestbbs.com - the Outwest BBS

Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Greenlfc on Thu Mar 24 2022 08:40 pm

I can say a similar thing is true for Australia. Building things on debt is a necessarily bad thing either. You need to borrow to build, ask anyone who has build or bought their own house.

Then again, "debt sucks" card holders are usually not against debt per se, but against contracting more debt that there is a plan for paying off for. Specifically if the money is then missused, and MORE specifically if it is missused in something that won't help pay the debt off later.

See, if I contract debt and use the debt to build a machine, and then I use the machine to produce stuff, I can sell the stuff I produce and then use the money to pay the debt off. If I take debt and use it to bribe unions, pay diversity programs, or pay for benefits for the CHurch, that money goes into a blackhole and is never seen again. And then you still have to pay it back.

End result is that the common citizen is then forced to pay more debt than he can pay off reasonably.

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Arelor on Thu Mar 24 2022 08:23 pm

Also, because property can only exist with a state, the state determines wha *IS* property and what is not property. Therefore, your legal claim to property is defined by the state, and only exists after the existence of the state. If the state determines that it is entitled to taxation, then taxati is not theft. The state has defined that it is not your rightful property a it has a claim. The argument that it is "theft" doesn't hold, because in or for it to be theft you need a prior system of property rights which enforces your rightful claim to your income.

Returning to this circular reasoning, which boils down to:

"The State defines what your claim to property is. Therefore, it is ok for the State to determine what your claim to property is"

According to your proposition, if the State is the source of all property, and the State is legitimated to define what your property is, then it might decide that the legs of everybody whose Internet nick is boraxman belong to the State. Since the government defines what is your property or what isn't, then they could lay legitimate claim on anything, including your legs, your house or your kid.

Needless to say, this is absurd. Therefore the logic falls appart and the premise (that the fact the State has a legitimate, unlimited claim to property because it is the source or property) is false.

There is a reason why US Constitutionalist are so anal with their Constitutional rights, and are always bitching "the Constitution this" and "the Constitution that." The reason is no other than the fact the State is recognized as a rotten entity which cannot be trusted with limitless power. The very existence of bills or rights and the like (which are very, VERY Western) is an open admission that State's power structures will be used to stomp the population if left uncheck.

So here is your non-dogmatic real world example of wide acceptance of the idea that Governments are dangerous to its own subjects. With plenty empirical evidence of what happens when the government is not set hard limits at that. Gotta love those Marry your Rapist laws in 15th Century I guess.

Claiming that "The Alternative to my Government" is worse does not make your proposition good. All it does is convince people to worship Satan instead of the Alternative, but that does not mean eating babies in Black Masses is virtuous.

What actually serves a use is to recognize Satan's dark nature, so when he makes a move to grab more of your stuff, you can recognize it for what it is and act accordingly, instead of falling for Satanist propaganda about his legitimacy to break your butt when he pleases, because he acts with your good at heart.



--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Greenlfc on Thu Mar 24 2022 08:36 pm

That is according to YOUR morals, and YOUR values. According to mine, my vi of property rights, autonomy and my morals and values, the state has a right make a property claim from citizens in a quid-pro-quo where functional civilisation is offered in return.

Why does the State have claim to property but a Security Company doesn't?

The Spanish State fails to secure lots of property. Occupy style people often get into houses while their owners are out on vacation and then won't let them in. Many people who can actually afford rent move into a house and then refuse to pay the rent because the government is not going to enforce rental contracts. What happens is you end up paying a Security Company to enforce your property claims, this is, you pay a group of tough guys who move in and one way or another remove the offending party from property.

Since the State is failing to enforce property rights there, your logic dictates we should be bending knee to some sort of Desocupa styled agency?



--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Dr. What to Boraxman on Thu Mar 24 2022 09:24 am

Boraxman wrote to Greenlfc <=-

There are no natural rights. There is no objective ethics, though many have tried to claim they have one.

And there it is. The marker that you are a "progressive".

... *IT IS* documented, look under "For Internal Use Only."
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

Actually, his proposals are more in line with Rivera's Fascism than with modern progressives.

Which makes acusing Libertarians of making baseless untested propositions funny, because Spain had a Rivera influenced political system for decades and it was proven to suck big time.

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Arelor on Thu Mar 24 2022 08:23 pm

Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-

@MSGID: <623B2FE1.27813.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
@REPLY: <623AED89.55650.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Arelor on
Wed Mar 23 2022 08:23 pm

Are you saying that if I rent a property from you, decide not to pay rent

any

more and refuse to vacate, you can't use force against me?

No, what I am saying is that all modern laws are a variation of "If you don't do X, we crush you," which makes a lot of demands from the government hard to justify unless you do mental gymnastics to ignore this very fact.

In the case of socialized healthcare, it is a clearcut case of "You must hire my healthcare system, even if you don't use it, or I fail to provide it. If you don't, I crush you."

It is a hold up at gun point in which we, as a society, have chosen to willingly pretend there is no gun and that the gun holder is working for our own good.

This is nothing more than the classical miniarchist argument according to which the government should only be transfered power that is reasonable to hold in such way. "If you steal stuff, we'll crush you" is a threat which may be reasonable to enforce. "If you don't register your hamster with the pet registry, we'll crush you" is certainly not.

The government is a corporation that can get away with bullying because it has convinced everybody that it is something other than a corporation. Ask yourself whether it would look right for Google to force everybody to buy healthcare services from it under the promise it will make it available for the needy.

All laws must be enforced at gunpoint. Property doesn't exist without threa of violence, and there has to be a consensus, a forced one, as to what constitues property. You must have a government, or equivalent. It must be coercive. I'm yet to hear a viable model without some form of government an system of laws where compliance is mandatory, and not voluntary.

I'll ask again, how is it possible for you to have property rights, without 1) Force against those who break contract/violate rights
2) Forcing people to accept the same pattern of property rights that you believe should exist.

I do not consider "holding the gun" a problem, because the alternative is worse.

Also, because property can only exist with a state, the state determines wha *IS* property and what is not property. Therefore, your legal claim to property is defined by the state, and only exists after the existence of the state. If the state determines that it is entitled to taxation, then taxati is not theft. The state has defined that it is not your rightful property a it has a claim. The argument that it is "theft" doesn't hold, because in or for it to be theft you need a prior system of property rights which enforces your rightful claim to your income.

Capitalism accepts that your right to claim what you produce as yours is alienable and conditional to contract.

If it weren't for Lincoln giving the emancipation proclamation, the Civil War could've been spun into a war about protection of personal property. This would've hurt the US, since the repercussions of the law would span far more than slavery. Proclaiming people aren't property cleared things up

---
■ Synchronet ■ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net

Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Arelor to Boraxman on Thu Mar 24 2022 12:18 pm

Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Greenlfc on Thu Mar 24 2022 08:36 pm

That is according to YOUR morals, and YOUR values. According to mine, my of property rights, autonomy and my morals and values, the state has a ri make a property claim from citizens in a quid-pro-quo where functional civilisation is offered in return.

Why does the State have claim to property but a Security Company doesn't?

The Spanish State fails to secure lots of property. Occupy style people ofte get into houses while their owners are out on vacation and then won't let th in. Many people who can actually afford rent move into a house and then refu to pay the rent because the government is not going to enforce rental contracts. What happens is you end up paying a Security Company to enforce y property claims, this is, you pay a group of tough guys who move in and one or another remove the offending party from property.

Since the State is failing to enforce property rights there, your logic dictates we should be bending knee to some sort of Desocupa styled agency?

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

My next door neighbors have a second home in Italy. It's family property
that belonged to their grandparents. The last time they visited, all the furniture was placed in storage and the house was being used as a government office. The main office was under renovation,so they commandeered the house.
I have no idea if they were compensated for it's use.

---
■ Synchronet ■ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net

Dr. What wrote to Boraxman <=-

@MSGID: <623C6F6A.123932.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>

Boraxman wrote to Greenlfc <=-

There are no natural rights. There is no objective ethics, though many have tried to claim they have one.

And there it is. The marker that you are a "progressive".

Tell me then, how do you determine, objectively, outside of an individuals subjective valation, what is right and what is wrong?



--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-

@MSGID: <623C8EBF.27841.dove-general@palantirbbs.ddns.net>
@REPLY: <623C4073.55679.dove-gen@bbs.mozysswamp.org>
Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Arelor on
Thu Mar 24 2022 08:23 pm

Also, because property can only exist with a state, the state determines wha *IS* property and what is not property. Therefore, your legal claim to property is defined by the state, and only exists after the existence of the state. If the state determines that it is entitled to taxation, then taxati is not theft. The state has defined that it is not your rightful property a it has a claim. The argument that it is "theft" doesn't hold, because in or for it to be theft you need a prior system of property rights which enforces your rightful claim to your income.

That is hidden circular reasoning. It asumes the State's claims for managing your property are legitimate; therefore, any management of
your property by the State is legitimate.

It also breaks off quite badly because the State may decide your money
is necessary for keeping up positive discrimination policies, pro gay campaigns and a whole lot of policies which you have mentioned to
consider self destructive. Feel free not to call it theft, butif they
take your money in order to perpretate what you consider a destructive activity then my bet is you'd have issue with that.

The circular reasoning breaks at the moment you put into question what legitimates the government to manage your property. It can't be the sovereignity confered by the population, since you have already claimed that the population has no say in the outcome of politics and that politics is a rigged game.

The population does have a say in democracies, in societies which recognise a right to self-ownership and self-governance. I do concur with critiques that we have now does not match this ideal, but that idea is sound. Modern Liberal Democracy is based on the idea that because the state represents the will of the people (in theory), and we are by means of the system in place, governing ourselves. This is a preferable form of governance than autocracy.

The states claims are legitimate because we believe them to be so. That is the same for any system. Monarchies, theocracies even anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist states. All these are legitimate when we believe them to be so. To argue that because YOU don't consider it legitimate, and therefore it is a tyranny, that is an accusation against ALL system, including yours. All systems without exception.

The claim of circular reasoning doesn't hold. The circle is broken by recognition that the state is legitimate, and it is legitimate according to Western values because of the reasons stated before. If we, en masse, did not believe the state to be legitimate, then so be it, it is no longer legitimate. It could force itself, but then it would be a tyranny. A state which takes our money under the pretext of providing basic social service sand uses it to keep up discriminatory policies, etc, would, should, according to Western values, be considered illegitimate.

This is the flaw in Libertarian reasoning. It proposes that an axiom alone can render a state legitimate, which is closer to how tyrannies operate (adopt our values, no choice what they are, or else). The "voluntary" nature is a lie, because it too must act like a state and enforce management of property. There is no "natural" state of property rights. The moment you accept that someone can own a block of land they don't actually live on and make those on it trespassers, you have a state, and you are at the exact same point where we are now, with a claim that the management of property is legitimate, and the entity deciding so, enforcing that, is legitimate.

Now, if your claim was the state is usurping its power, abusing the system, is failing to uphold the ideals that modern Western civlised culture is based of, and that those in power should be replaced, by means of revolution with those who CAN uphold those ideals, then that is a claim I can agree with. But what people want to do, is use this problem as a means of sneaking in their own ideal

--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-

I can say a similar thing is true for Australia. Building things on debt is a necessarily bad thing either. You need to borrow to build, ask anyone who has build or bought their own house.

Then again, "debt sucks" card holders are usually not against debt per
se, but against contracting more debt that there is a plan for paying
off for. Specifically if the money is then missused, and MORE
specifically if it is missused in something that won't help pay the
debt off later.

See, if I contract debt and use the debt to build a machine, and then I use the machine to produce stuff, I can sell the stuff I produce and
then use the money to pay the debt off. If I take debt and use it to
bribe unions, pay diversity programs, or pay for benefits for the
CHurch, that money goes into a blackhole and is never seen again. And
then you still have to pay it back.

End result is that the common citizen is then forced to pay more debt
than he can pay off reasonably.

Some people in Australia, generally the fiscally illiterate mainstream "right wing" codgers, say debt is bad. Period. Oddly, they are silent on the massive private debt we have.

The Liberal party play to this demographic, and seek to pay off debt, but in doing so, cut back spending creating infrastructure debt. Things we need don't get build because they want the metrics to look good.

--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-

Returning to this circular reasoning, which boils down to:

"The State defines what your claim to property is. Therefore, it is ok
for the State to determine what your claim to property is"

According to your proposition, if the State is the source of all
property, and the State is legitimated to define what your property is, then it might decide that the legs of everybody whose Internet nick is boraxman belong to the State. Since the government defines what is your property or what isn't, then they could lay legitimate claim on
anything, including your legs, your house or your kid.

Needless to say, this is absurd. Therefore the logic falls appart and
the premise (that the fact the State has a legitimate, unlimited claim
to property because it is the source or property) is false.

There is a reason why US Constitutionalist are so anal with their Constitutional rights, and are always bitching "the Constitution this"
and "the Constitution that." The reason is no other than the fact the State is recognized as a rotten entity which cannot be trusted with limitless power. The very existence of bills or rights and the like
(which are very, VERY Western) is an open admission that State's power structures will be used to stomp the population if left uncheck.

So here is your non-dogmatic real world example of wide acceptance of
the idea that Governments are dangerous to its own subjects. With
plenty empirical evidence of what happens when the government is not
set hard limits at that. Gotta love those Marry your Rapist laws in
15th Century I guess.

Claiming that "The Alternative to my Government" is worse does not make your proposition good. All it does is convince people to worship Satan instead of the Alternative, but that does not mean eating babies in
Black Masses is virtuous.

What actually serves a use is to recognize Satan's dark nature, so when
he makes a move to grab more of your stuff, you can recognize it for
what it is and act accordingly, instead of falling for Satanist
propaganda about his legitimacy to break your butt when he pleases, because he acts with your good at heart.

It is not my proposition, it is a description of reality. Property can only come from an authority to back it up. If you want to challenge this statement, then offer a means by which you can make someone a trespasser on land you own, without an authority to enforce it and without forcing the idea that you CAN have that land as your property onto all.

Property is not a natural right, it is a social consensus. You have property because *I* recognise that it is your property, and everyone else does (and has to). Without us recognising your claim, you have no right to property.

Do you have a means by which everyone will universally recognise all the same property claims voluntarily, without any deviation?

The reason the West is the Best is because we managed to squeeze in Constitutions, a Bill of Rights, rule of law, and checks and balances that keep the state in check, INCLUDING an armed population. You cannot have freedom if you are not willing to oppose the state. Opposing the state is very legitimate when it needs to be opposed and I think there are cases in the West where this warranted now. The US is almost, if not already, a fascist state.

But that is not the same as opposing the idea of a state and saying that the idea of a state is bad.

So three questions,
1) How do you have property without some state, or state like system.
2) Can I choose not to accept your patter of property rights?
3) How would an alternative actually work?


--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

Moondog wrote to Boraxman <=-

All laws must be enforced at gunpoint. Property doesn't exist without threa
of violence, and there has to be a consensus, a forced one, as to what constitues property. You must have a government, or equivalent. It must be coercive. I'm yet to hear a viable model without some form of government an system of laws where compliance is mandatory, and not voluntary.

I'll ask again, how is it possible for you to have property rights, without 1) Force against those who break contract/violate rights
2) Forcing people to accept the same pattern of property rights that you believe should exist.

I do not consider "holding the gun" a problem, because the alternative is worse.

Also, because property can only exist with a state, the state determines wha *IS* property and what is not property. Therefore, your legal claim to property is defined by the state, and only exists after the existence of the state. If the state determines that it is entitled to taxation, then taxati is not theft. The state has defined that it is not your rightful property a it has a claim. The argument that it is "theft" doesn't hold, because in or for it to be theft you need a prior system of property rights which enforces your rightful claim to your income.

Capitalism accepts that your right to claim what you produce as yours is alienable and conditional to contract.

If it weren't for Lincoln giving the emancipation proclamation, the
Civil War could've been spun into a war about protection of personal property. This would've hurt the US, since the repercussions of the
law would span far more than slavery. Proclaiming people aren't
property cleared things up

I will point out that while you cannot make someone your property permanently, you can do it on a temporary basis by renting them (i.e., employing them). If people were not property, you would not able able to rent them.

--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

Denn wrote to Dr. What <=-

I feel like there's no such thing as a job for life anymore.

That hasn't existed for decades now either.

Wrong! Government jobs seem to be for life.

I could argue that doing a job implies doing work. Since most of those people do no useful work, they don't have a job. They have an "appointment" just like the judges on the Supreme Court do.

But now we are getting into the whole "4th branch of gov't - The Bureaucracy" discussion.


... Plastic explosives will be appropriate later in the week.
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/09/29 (Linux/64)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi

Arelor wrote to Dr. What <=-

There are no natural rights. There is no objective ethics, though many have tried to claim they have one.

And there it is. The marker that you are a "progressive".

Actually, his proposals are more in line with Rivera's Fascism than
with modern progressives.

Ya, "Progressive" wasn't really the term I was looking for. But I can't remember what the correct philosophical term was. "Deconstructionalist" wasn't quite it either.

I'm sort of like what Gandalf said "A worthy man, but his memory is like a lumber-room: thing wanted always buried."

Which makes acusing Libertarians of making baseless untested
propositions funny, because Spain had a Rivera influenced political
system for decades and it was proven to suck big time.

Which is what always happens with these types of philosophies: they ignore reality and human nature, and end up failing badly. Yet the "intellectuals" keep pushing them.


... A dry sense of humor is better than slobbering everywhere
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/09/29 (Linux/64)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi

Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-

Returning to this circular reasoning, which boils down to:

"The State defines what your claim to property is. Therefore, it is ok
for the State to determine what your claim to property is"

Which is the normal argument for the leftie Elites: Let the "experts" decide for you. They are way smarter than you. (Which implies that they think you are too stupid to decide for themselves.)

They also ignore that in EVERY instance where this has happened, the gov't has turned corrupt and taken everything for the few at the "top".


... A bird in the hand is better than one overhead!
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/09/29 (Linux/64)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi

Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Dr. What to Denn on Fri Mar 25 2022 08:34 am

I feel like there's no such thing as a job for life anymore.

That hasn't existed for decades now either.

Wrong! Government jobs seem to be for life.

I could argue that doing a job implies doing work. Since most of those people do no useful work, they don't have a job. They have an "appointment" just like the judges on the Supreme Court do.

But they're there sucking the tax coffers, I do agree many don't really work.
the ones that do work usually screw over the tax payers.

... Arsonists of the world, ignite!

---
■ Synchronet ■ outwestbbs.com - the Outwest BBS

Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Arelor on Fri Mar 25 2022 08:41 pm

The population does have a say in democracies, in societies which recognise right to self-ownership and self-governance. I do concur with critiques tha we have now does not match this ideal, but that idea is sound. Modern Liber Democracy is based on the idea that because the state represents the will of the people (in theory), and we are by means of the system in place, governin ourselves. This is a preferable form of governance than autocracy.

The states claims are legitimate because we believe them to be so. That is same for any system. Monarchies, theocracies even anarcho-capitalist/voluntaryist states. All these are legitimate when we believe them to be so. To argue that because YOU don't consider it legitima and therefore it is a tyranny, that is an accusation against ALL system, including yours. All systems without exception.

The claim of circular reasoning doesn't hold. The circle is broken by recognition that the state is legitimate, and it is legitimate according to Western values because of the reasons stated before. If we, en masse, did n believe the state to be legitimate, then so be it, it is no longer legitimat It could force itself, but then it would be a tyranny. A state which takes money under the pretext of providing basic social service sand uses it to ke up discriminatory policies, etc, would, should, according to Western values, considered illegitimate.

This is the flaw in Libertarian reasoning. It proposes that an axiom alone render a state legitimate, which is closer to how tyrannies operate (adopt o values, no choice what they are, or else). The "voluntary" nature is a lie, because it too must act like a state and enforce management of property. Th is no "natural" state of property rights. The moment you accept that someon can own a block of land they don't actually live on and make those on it trespassers, you have a state, and you are at the exact same point where we now, with a claim that the management of property is legitimate, and the ent deciding so, enforcing that, is legitimate.

Now, if your claim was the state is usurping its power, abusing the system, failing to uphold the ideals that modern Western civlised culture is based o and that those in power should be replaced, by means of revolution with thos who CAN uphold those ideals, then that is a claim I can agree with. But wha people want to do, is use this problem as a means of sneaking in their own ideal

Modern Democracies' claim to legitimacy is that their sovereignity comes from its citizens. Since the citizens delegate their power on the government's agencies then the government agencies' actions are legitimized as an extension of the will of the people.

Now, as you have pointed out, governing agencies rarely act as an extension of the will of the people. Frankly, I can't remember many politicians here who got elected and then _tried_ to carry out their political promises. That alone puts a heavy dent in governments' claim to legi¡timacy, since if their power is not an extension of the will of the people, their justification is proven false.

So you see, it is just not a single axiom hacking at the idea that governing bodies aren't full of shit.

That something is right or wrong depending on how many people supports the idea is moral relativism. If you buy into that idea you must then conceede that Identitary Politics and measures which priorize ethnic and non heterosexual minorities over normative mayorities are morally right, since such ideas pack much more support from Western population in general than the alternative.

So you either recognize those policies as legit and change your political views, or recognize your proposition for moral relativism as absurd.

The claim against your circular reasoning holds because you are taking the Government's right over property as a tautology and then running around in circles with it. "The government has the right to define your claim to
property by virtue of being a legitimate definer of property." Which I have reduced to absurd too in an earlier message.

And yes, something I have actually argued is that governing agencies are usurping the power transfered to them by citizens - if such transfer can be done. I don't think a citizen can transfer to the government rights a citizen has not, but modern Democracies claim it is so done.

It is funny you make a case against voluntarism since your proposed economical model is presented as a voluntarist one by a number of groups :-)

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
￭ Synchronet ￭ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Arelor on Fri Mar 25 2022 08:58 pm

The reason the West is the Best is because we managed to squeeze in Constitutions, a Bill of Rights, rule of law, and checks and balances that k the state in check, INCLUDING an armed population. You cannot have freedom you are not willing to oppose the state. Opposing the state is very legitim when it needs to be opposed and I think there are cases in the West where th warranted now. The US is almost, if not already, a fascist state.

Ok, I think you got it. Great as far as I am concerned.

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Arelor on Fri Mar 25 2022 08:58 pm

But that is not the same as opposing the idea of a state and saying that the idea of a state is bad.

So three questions,
1) How do you have property without some state, or state like system.
2) Can I choose not to accept your patter of property rights?
3) How would an alternative actually work?

I see States as Wintel hardware. They suck for a number of reasons but we keep rolling with them because that is what most of the population can afford.

Modern States are actually QUITE recent so there is no shortage of examples of alternatives. Actually, most of mankind's (Pre)?History has been spent in tribalistic-like anarchy and we haven't all died, so there is that.

Feudal systems work without a State. They consist on people swearing fealty to more powerful people, who swears fealty to people who is even more powerful than them. Kings didn't use to be heads of State, but just men with a lot of support. If they messed up with their own oaths they lost all their support. Variations of this still exist in the world.

Honestly, I think the best no-State alternative would be similar to Spanish Neighbourhood Juntas (which, by the way, are recognized as administrative bodies). They are like town halls which rent land from villagers and then use it to produce stuff, which they sell, and then the benefits are invested in town infrastructure. Or they own a percentage of the village and rent it to third parties, and invest the profits in village infrastructure. Or, most usually, a mix of both. They get bonus support points because the govnerment tried to stomp them not long ago - with a very serious backslash. Corruption is very low because everybody knows everybody and issues would be noticed very very quickly. Involvement is very direct because if something is not working you can talk about it with the Junta members in the bar and you can replace them just as quickly if they prove themselves useless.

Oh, and the current lieutenant in mine has an awesome horse who he loves so much, and will let me visit him anytime I want.

The big issue with Neighbourhood Juntas is they only work with small populations in which everybody knows everybody, so they aren't really a general solution for, say, anything larger than my village. Lots of Spanish anarchists would split cities up in hundreds of small neighbourhood Juntas but I don't think the concept translates well to urban areas at all. I guess cities are stuck with Wintel hardware.

So let's recap:

1 - There are Stateless political models which work without imploding (and this can be proved) Heck, Revolutionary Catalonia in the 30s consisted on a bunch of trade unions, cooperatives and militias and lasted 3 whole years before Franco stomped them. Bonus points because I think you would have liked it.
2 - They are not Universaly aplicable and/or are morally bankrupt in their own way.
3 - Modern States are morally bankrupt, but have too much staying power in the places where they are implemented, so the places that have them are stuck with them. However, it is important for the population to acknowledge that their governing State is morally bankrupt in order to limit its ability to spread its filth.


That pretty much sums up what I think. I hope it makes sense now.

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Denn to Dr. What on Fri Mar 25 2022 08:54 am

Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Dr. What to Denn on Fri Mar 25 2022 08:34 am

I feel like there's no such thing as a job for life anymore.

That hasn't existed for decades now either.

Wrong! Government jobs seem to be for life.

I could argue that doing a job implies doing work. Since most of those people do no useful work, they don't have a job. They have an "appointment" just like the judges on the Supreme Court do.

But they're there sucking the tax coffers, I do agree many don't really wor
the ones that do work usually screw over the tax payers.

I am very bitter with this subject.

There is a meaningful number of public servants who work a lot but acomplish nothing. The FDA-like types are among the worst because they will visit your business, tell you to spend a load of money in licenses and certifications, and when they leave... the business is no safer than before. At all.

Then there are the ones who work in departments which are actually useful (such as water distribution) but most often there is only one guy doing all the work while five others are playing minesweeper at their workstations.


--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-

Modern Democracies' claim to legitimacy is that their sovereignity
comes from its citizens. Since the citizens delegate their power on the government's agencies then the government agencies' actions are legitimized as an extension of the will of the people.

Now, as you have pointed out, governing agencies rarely act as an extension of the will of the people. Frankly, I can't remember many politicians here who got elected and then _tried_ to carry out their political promises. That alone puts a heavy dent in governments' claim
to legi¡timacy, since if their power is not an extension of the will of the people, their justification is proven false.

So you see, it is just not a single axiom hacking at the idea that governing bodies aren't full of shit.

That something is right or wrong depending on how many people supports
the idea is moral relativism. If you buy into that idea you must then conceede that Identitary Politics and measures which priorize ethnic
and non heterosexual minorities over normative mayorities are morally right, since such ideas pack much more support from Western population
in general than the alternative.

So you either recognize those policies as legit and change your
political views, or recognize your proposition for moral relativism as absurd.

The claim against your circular reasoning holds because you are taking
the Government's right over property as a tautology and then running around in circles with it. "The government has the right to define your claim to property by virtue of being a legitimate definer of property." Which I have reduced to absurd too in an earlier message.

And yes, something I have actually argued is that governing agencies
are usurping the power transfered to them by citizens - if such
transfer can be done. I don't think a citizen can transfer to the government rights a citizen has not, but modern Democracies claim it is
so done.

It is funny you make a case against voluntarism since your proposed economical model is presented as a voluntarist one by a number of
groups :-)

It would be a tautology if we said that property exists due to an authority which makes it real, but that authority only exists because of property rights.

A state can come to exist without prior property rights, but the other way around cannot happen. Hence no tautology.

Regarding morality, I would agree that our current state, our current democracy of fundamentally broken. When Big Tech is able to cancel people, deny them access to the public square, when there is "Cancel Culture", declaration of hate-speech, it is not conducive to free and open discussion. When Australia was having the referendum on gay marriage, people are arguing that those against it shouldn't be allowed to argue their case because it was hateful and would cause distress.

It isn't enough to have politicians which represent the will of the people, you need to have free and open discussion, where people can express their ideas.

But the solution to this is to demand freedom of speech, demand representation, demand a return to those values we claim to hold (and really don't anymore). You can only have this if you deny people the right to silence others, to censure them, or just economically cut them off.

But if what you want is moral absolutism, you have to state how this is done. What absolute values are we going to abide by? What authority is going to determine what is property and what is not property?


--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-

But that is not the same as opposing the idea of a state and saying that the idea of a state is bad.

So three questions,
1) How do you have property without some state, or state like system.
2) Can I choose not to accept your patter of property rights?
3) How would an alternative actually work?

I see States as Wintel hardware. They suck for a number of reasons but
we keep rolling with them because that is what most of the population
can afford.

Modern States are actually QUITE recent so there is no shortage of examples of alternatives. Actually, most of mankind's (Pre)?History has been spent in tribalistic-like anarchy and we haven't all died, so
there is that.

Feudal systems work without a State. They consist on people swearing fealty to more powerful people, who swears fealty to people who is even more powerful than them. Kings didn't use to be heads of State, but
just men with a lot of support. If they messed up with their own oaths they lost all their support. Variations of this still exist in the
world.

Honestly, I think the best no-State alternative would be similar to Spanish Neighbourhood Juntas (which, by the way, are recognized as administrative bodies). They are like town halls which rent land from villagers and then use it to produce stuff, which they sell, and then
the benefits are invested in town infrastructure. Or they own a
percentage of the village and rent it to third parties, and invest the profits in village infrastructure. Or, most usually, a mix of both.
They get bonus support points because the govnerment tried to stomp
them not long ago - with a very serious backslash. Corruption is very
low because everybody knows everybody and issues would be noticed very very quickly. Involvement is very direct because if something is not working you can talk about it with the Junta members in the bar and you can replace them just as quickly if they prove themselves useless.

Oh, and the current lieutenant in mine has an awesome horse who he
loves so much, and will let me visit him anytime I want.

The big issue with Neighbourhood Juntas is they only work with small populations in which everybody knows everybody, so they aren't really a general solution for, say, anything larger than my village. Lots of Spanish anarchists would split cities up in hundreds of small neighbourhood Juntas but I don't think the concept translates well to urban areas at all. I guess cities are stuck with Wintel hardware.

So let's recap:

1 - There are Stateless political models which work without imploding
(and this can be proved) Heck, Revolutionary Catalonia in the 30s consisted on a bunch of trade unions, cooperatives and militias and
lasted 3 whole years before Franco stomped them. Bonus points because I think you would have liked it. 2 - They are not Universaly aplicable and/or are morally bankrupt in their own way.
3 - Modern States are morally bankrupt, but have too much staying power
in the places where they are implemented, so the places that have them
are stuck with them. However, it is important for the population to acknowledge that their governing State is morally bankrupt in order to limit its ability to spread its filth.

That pretty much sums up what I think. I hope it makes sense now.

OK, I understand that. To recap, my objection initially was to the statement "taxation is theft". I am quite precise with my language, and one thing I don't like is sloppy use of terms. For example, it drives me up the wall when people use the term "literally" as emphasis. Like people who say "this literally drives me up the wall". No, it doesn't.

Anyway, the issue with that statement is that property rights are decided by an authority. That does not have to be a nation state, it could be the Neighbourhood Junta. It could be the tribe, the family, it doesn't matter. What is required is that those within that jurisdiction abide, and have to abide. That system will determine what is, and what isn't, property. The definition of theft falls within that framework. People within that system still have to accept that people can own land, and that the town hall can rent it. Another system, which may be "anarchist" may not allow excess land ownership, another system may privatise ALl land, another system may not allow ownership of land, but you can only rent it from the "state" which could be run by a peoples council, i.e., you pay for ongoing monopolisation of the use of some land. One system could argue that the last one I described is 'stealing' by extracting rent, but its not stealing according to their legal framework.

Lastly, I'm using the term 'state' and 'government' in the broadest possible sense, which is why I later just used 'state like system'. Really, the 'state like syste' could just even be tradition, but that would only work on a small, tribal scale. Nevertheless, it would need codes, laws, judiciary. There would need to be a way to agree on what is property. The confusion comes because people usually put forward rhetoric against the state, and government, but don't really elucidate the replacement, making people think they are anarchists. Some Libertarians ARE anarchists (Anarcho-Capitalists), and that philosophy is utterly confusing.

As I said, I do not disagree with critiques of our current state, our current government, if its moral bankruptcy. I am not going to stand in the way of anyone attacking our "elite", our "elite" deserve to be treated as enemies of the people. But by the same token, people don't want to tear everything apart, or leave a power vaccuum for corporations to fill, so we need to balance speech criticising the system with solid replacements.

For any system to scale, it is going to need some type of governing entity, which will have to use some framework to create a system of laws and property rights. Without that, we have nothing.

So unless we are able to descale our societies down to small communes, the cry "taxation is theft" is pointless.

--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

Dr. What wrote to Arelor <=-

@MSGID: <623DB508.123954.dove-gen@vert.synchro.net>

Arelor wrote to Boraxman <=-

Returning to this circular reasoning, which boils down to:

"The State defines what your claim to property is. Therefore, it is ok
for the State to determine what your claim to property is"

Which is the normal argument for the leftie Elites: Let the "experts" decide for you. They are way smarter than you. (Which implies that
they think you are too stupid to decide for themselves.)

They also ignore that in EVERY instance where this has happened, the
gov't has turned corrupt and taken everything for the few at the "top".

And you are the expert who is going to decide? Who then? Who is going to determine what is property and not?

I don't appreciate people making suggestions I'm a fascist, simply because they are unable to answer.

--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Moondog on Fri Mar 25 2022 09:02 pm

Moondog wrote to Boraxman <=-

All laws must be enforced at gunpoint. Property doesn't exist without thr
of violence, and there has to be a consensus, a forced one, as to what constitues property. You must have a government, or equivalent. It must coercive. I'm yet to hear a viable model without some form of government system of laws where compliance is mandatory, and not voluntary.

I'll ask again, how is it possible for you to have property rights, witho 1) Force against those who break contract/violate rights
2) Forcing people to accept the same pattern of property rights that you believe should exist.

I do not consider "holding the gun" a problem, because the alternative is worse.

Also, because property can only exist with a state, the state determines *IS* property and what is not property. Therefore, your legal claim to property is defined by the state, and only exists after the existence of state. If the state determines that it is entitled to taxation, then tax is not theft. The state has defined that it is not your rightful propert it has a claim. The argument that it is "theft" doesn't hold, because in for it to be theft you need a prior system of property rights which enfor your rightful claim to your income.

Capitalism accepts that your right to claim what you produce as yours is alienable and conditional to contract.

If it weren't for Lincoln giving the emancipation proclamation, the Civil War could've been spun into a war about protection of personal property. This would've hurt the US, since the repercussions of the law would span far more than slavery. Proclaiming people aren't property cleared things up

I will point out that while you cannot make someone your property permanentl you can do it on a temporary basis by renting them (i.e., employing them). people were not property, you would not able able to rent them.

Voluntary servitude is based on an agreement, while involuntary is forced upon
an individual.

Slavery in the US from my understanding started out as a form
of debtor's prison where the slave owed money and worked off their debt. Several of the founders of Australia were probably debtors with skilled
trades sent from the UK sent over via their penal system.

Eventually slaves were involuntarily brought over from Africa. These slaves, though kidnapped or rounded up, were intended to be released after a defined amount of time. That changed when the courts sided with a slave owner who claimed the "catch and release" system put the poorer slave owners at a disadvantage when it came to release a slave, and allowed them to keep slaves indefinitely.

---
■ Synchronet ■ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net

Slavery in the US from my understanding started out as a form
of debtor's prison where the slave owed money and worked off their debt. Several of the founders of Australia were probably debtors with skilled trades sent from the UK sent over via their penal system.

Indentured servatude. The debt was usually the cost of passage to the new world. The agreement usually included a clause that, if the servant broke
the terms of the agreement (tried to leave before the debt was worked off,
as an example), the person they had the agreement with could hold them as a servant indefinantly.

There were some cases that were tried in court. One, in the late 1600's in Virgina, was noteworthy because the agreement holder was black (and a
former servant), while the debtors were European and one black.

The debtors claimed that they left the agreement holder because he was the
one not honoring the agreement (their release time had passed, I think), and they found another farmer who would. The argreement holder lost the original case but, on the appeal, the black debtor was forced to go back to the
original agreement holder.

This case, and a few others, were cited in future cases where agreement
holders were attempting to prove that these agreements meant they "owned"
and debtor that broke an agreement and, later, were also cited as proof that slavery was already state sanctioned and therefore was legal.


* SLMR 2.1a * He's as sharp as a marble.

---
■ Synchronet ■ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Dumas Walker to MOONDOG on Sun Mar 27 2022 11:01 am

This case, and a few others, were cited in future cases where agreement holders were attempting to prove that these agreements meant they "owned" and debtor that broke an agreement and, later, were also cited as proof that slavery was already state sanctioned and therefore was legal.

they would also do stuff where they said they had cost the owner money but damaging equipment or whatever, and then tack on years.
---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Hello Moondog!

** On Thursday 24.03.22 - 14:16, Moondog wrote to Arelor:

My next door neighbors have a second home in Italy. It's
family property that belonged to their grandparents. The
last time they visited, all the furniture was placed in
storage and the house was being used as a government
office. The main office was under renovation,so they
commandeered the house. I have no idea if they were
compensated for it's use.

WHO did the commandeering? The neighbours? The gov't?

--- OpenXP 5.0.51
* Origin: Ogg's Dovenet Point (723:320/1.9)
■ Synchronet ■ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

Moondog wrote to Boraxman <=-

Moondog wrote to Boraxman <=-

All laws must be enforced at gunpoint. Property doesn't exist without thr
of violence, and there has to be a consensus, a forced one, as to what constitues property. You must have a government, or equivalent. It must coercive. I'm yet to hear a viable model without some form of government system of laws where compliance is mandatory, and not voluntary.

I'll ask again, how is it possible for you to have property rights, witho 1) Force against those who break contract/violate rights
2) Forcing people to accept the same pattern of property rights that you believe should exist.

I do not consider "holding the gun" a problem, because the alternative is worse.

Also, because property can only exist with a state, the state determines *IS* property and what is not property. Therefore, your legal claim to property is defined by the state, and only exists after the existence of state. If the state determines that it is entitled to taxation, then tax is not theft. The state has defined that it is not your rightful propert it has a claim. The argument that it is "theft" doesn't hold, because in for it to be theft you need a prior system of property rights which enfor your rightful claim to your income.

Capitalism accepts that your right to claim what you produce as yours is alienable and conditional to contract.

If it weren't for Lincoln giving the emancipation proclamation, the Civil War could've been spun into a war about protection of personal property. This would've hurt the US, since the repercussions of the law would span far more than slavery. Proclaiming people aren't property cleared things up

I will point out that while you cannot make someone your property permanentl you can do it on a temporary basis by renting them (i.e., employing them). people were not property, you would not able able to rent them.

Voluntary servitude is based on an agreement, while involuntary is
forced upon
an individual.

Slavery in the US from my understanding started out as a form
of debtor's prison where the slave owed money and worked off their
debt. Several of the founders of Australia were probably debtors with skilled trades sent from the UK sent over via their penal system.

Eventually slaves were involuntarily brought over from Africa. These slaves, though kidnapped or rounded up, were intended to be released
after a defined amount of time. That changed when the courts sided
with a slave owner who claimed the "catch and release" system put the poorer slave owners at a disadvantage when it came to release a slave,
and allowed them to keep slaves indefinitely.

Slavery has also been based on a voluntary agreement too. Some schools of libertarian thought allow this as a valid contract. Should we allow voluntary slavery? Should we a allow a contract where someone sells all their future labour? I can think of some entrepreneurs that could create a business model which involves exactly this. They wouldn't call it slavery, it would have some "hip" name like "gig economy" that makes it sound innovative. Imagine if someone could enter an economic agreement with a company, where that company managed their finances, owned their labour, and in returned, provided "life management". They could provide advantages such as pooling the clients resources for economies of scale, handling housing, insurance etc.

This isn't far fetched, we already have companies which trade labour (labour hire companies), already have companies which take over your debt, restructure it, manage your finances. Why not combine all this? You sign up with the company, they hire you out, and in return use the wealth to provide what you want. Voluntary slavery.

My argument is that the voluntariness of such a contract isn't the only thing that matters. With some imagination and entrepreneurial thinking, you can imagine situations where people voluntary come into similar states.

Does a free society honour such contracts, or forbid them to ensure that the economic system cannot result in people losing freedom and self ownership?


--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

Re: The stay home and not
By: Ogg to Moondog on Sun Mar 27 2022 03:59 pm

Hello Moondog!

** On Thursday 24.03.22 - 14:16, Moondog wrote to Arelor:

My next door neighbors have a second home in Italy. It's
family property that belonged to their grandparents. The
last time they visited, all the furniture was placed in
storage and the house was being used as a government
office. The main office was under renovation,so they
commandeered the house. I have no idea if they were
compensated for it's use.

WHO did the commandeering? The neighbours? The gov't?

The city government

---
■ Synchronet ■ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net

This case, and a few others, were cited in future cases where agreement holders were attempting to prove that these agreements meant they "owned" and debtor that broke an agreement and, later, were also cited as proof tha
slavery was already state sanctioned and therefore was legal.

they would also do stuff where they said they had cost the owner money but dam
ing equipment or whatever, and then tack on years.

The debt owner in the case in question did not sound real honest, so he may have been one that did that. It was definately not always the servant's
fault.


* SLMR 2.1a * I HATE call waitinNO CARRIER

---
■ Synchronet ■ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to Moondog on Mon Mar 28 2022 08:03 pm

Moondog wrote to Boraxman <=-

Moondog wrote to Boraxman <=-

All laws must be enforced at gunpoint. Property doesn't exist without
of violence, and there has to be a consensus, a forced one, as to what constitues property. You must have a government, or equivalent. It m coercive. I'm yet to hear a viable model without some form of governm system of laws where compliance is mandatory, and not voluntary.

I'll ask again, how is it possible for you to have property rights, wi 1) Force against those who break contract/violate rights
2) Forcing people to accept the same pattern of property rights that y believe should exist.

I do not consider "holding the gun" a problem, because the alternative worse.

Also, because property can only exist with a state, the state determin *IS* property and what is not property. Therefore, your legal claim t property is defined by the state, and only exists after the existence state. If the state determines that it is entitled to taxation, then is not theft. The state has defined that it is not your rightful prop it has a claim. The argument that it is "theft" doesn't hold, because for it to be theft you need a prior system of property rights which en your rightful claim to your income.

Capitalism accepts that your right to claim what you produce as yours alienable and conditional to contract.

If it weren't for Lincoln giving the emancipation proclamation, the Civil War could've been spun into a war about protection of personal property. This would've hurt the US, since the repercussions of the law would span far more than slavery. Proclaiming people aren't property cleared things up

I will point out that while you cannot make someone your property permane you can do it on a temporary basis by renting them (i.e., employing them) people were not property, you would not able able to rent them.

Voluntary servitude is based on an agreement, while involuntary is forced upon
an individual.

Slavery in the US from my understanding started out as a form
of debtor's prison where the slave owed money and worked off their debt. Several of the founders of Australia were probably debtors with skilled trades sent from the UK sent over via their penal system.

Eventually slaves were involuntarily brought over from Africa. These slaves, though kidnapped or rounded up, were intended to be released after a defined amount of time. That changed when the courts sided with a slave owner who claimed the "catch and release" system put the poorer slave owners at a disadvantage when it came to release a slave, and allowed them to keep slaves indefinitely.

Slavery has also been based on a voluntary agreement too. Some schools of libertarian thought allow this as a valid contract. Should we allow volunt slavery? Should we a allow a contract where someone sells all their future labour? I can think of some entrepreneurs that could create a business mode which involves exactly this. They wouldn't call it slavery, it would have s "hip" name like "gig economy" that makes it sound innovative. Imagine if someone could enter an economic agreement with a company, where that company managed their finances, owned their labour, and in returned, provided "life management". They could provide advantages such as pooling the clients resources for economies of scale, handling housing, insurance etc.

This isn't far fetched, we already have companies which trade labour (labour hire companies), already have companies which take over your debt, restructu it, manage your finances. Why not combine all this? You sign up with the company, they hire you out, and in return use the wealth to provide what you want. Voluntary slavery.

My argument is that the voluntariness of such a contract isn't the only thin that matters. With some imagination and entrepreneurial thinking, you can imagine situations where people voluntary come into similar states.

Does a free society honour such contracts, or forbid them to ensure that the economic system cannot result in people losing freedom and self ownership?

Voluntary servitude exists. Terms for employment at most companies would probably qualify since the servitude is based on compensation for time
served.

---
■ Synchronet ■ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net

Hello Moondog!

** On Monday 28.03.22 - 14:09, Moondog wrote to Ogg:

My next door neighbors have a second home in Italy. [...]

The main office was under renovation,so they
commandeered the house. [...]

WHO did the commandeering? The neighbours? The gov't?

The city government

Sounds like there may have been a delinquency in paying
property taxes or something?

Did the gov't just swoop in without trying to reach the owners?

The gov't here in Canada usually swoops in and forces
forclosure or sale on a property when an unreasonable amount of
time has passed with unpaid taxes.


--- OpenXP 5.0.51
* Origin: Ogg's Dovenet Point (723:320/1.9)
■ Synchronet ■ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

--- GAMGEE wrote ---

the doctor wrote to GAMGEE <=-

Haha! That actually made me LOL for real. :-)

Thanks for not being easily offended, like so many.

All good, cheers.

I'm glad you liked it. I'm tired of the always offended people... and
I've had enough of eternal september...

---
"No matter where you go, there you are..."


---
* TARDIS BBS - Home of QUARKware * telnet bbs.cortex-media.info

Moondog wrote to Boraxman <=-

> > I will point out that while you cannot make someone your property permane

you can do it on a temporary basis by renting them (i.e., employing them) people were not property, you would not able able to rent them.

Voluntary servitude is based on an agreement, while involuntary is forced upon
an individual.

Slavery in the US from my understanding started out as a form
of debtor's prison where the slave owed money and worked off their debt. Several of the founders of Australia were probably debtors with skilled trades sent from the UK sent over via their penal system.

Eventually slaves were involuntarily brought over from Africa. These slaves, though kidnapped or rounded up, were intended to be released after a defined amount of time. That changed when the courts sided with a slave owner who claimed the "catch and release" system put the poorer slave owners at a disadvantage when it came to release a slave, and allowed them to keep slaves indefinitely.

Slavery has also been based on a voluntary agreement too. Some schools of libertarian thought allow this as a valid contract. Should we allow volunt slavery? Should we a allow a contract where someone sells all their future labour? I can think of some entrepreneurs that could create a business mode which involves exactly this. They wouldn't call it slavery, it would have s "hip" name like "gig economy" that makes it sound innovative. Imagine if someone could enter an economic agreement with a company, where that company managed their finances, owned their labour, and in returned, provided "life management". They could provide advantages such as pooling the clients resources for economies of scale, handling housing, insurance etc.

This isn't far fetched, we already have companies which trade labour (labour hire companies), already have companies which take over your debt, restructu it, manage your finances. Why not combine all this? You sign up with the company, they hire you out, and in return use the wealth to provide what you want. Voluntary slavery.

My argument is that the voluntariness of such a contract isn't the only thin that matters. With some imagination and entrepreneurial thinking, you can imagine situations where people voluntary come into similar states.

Does a free society honour such contracts, or forbid them to ensure that the economic system cannot result in people losing freedom and self ownership?

Voluntary servitude exists. Terms for employment at most companies
would probably qualify since the servitude is based on compensation for time served.

I should point out that 'voluntary servitude' is a broad term, which can encompass contracts where one person agrees on some standing order, to produce and sell a particular number of units, or provide a particular service, on an ongoing basis. This isn't servitide as commonly defined, but it could be considered servitude by some broad application of the definition.

Slavery ownership is the passing of *onesself* as the object. This too can be done voluntarily, but is slavery, as the person becomes the property of someone else.

--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

the doctor wrote to GAMGEE <=-

I'm glad you liked it. I'm tired of the always offended people... and I've had enough of eternal september...

Eternal September was always like working semester rush at the University bookstore. When the dust settled and all of the wonks went back to their studies, greek rush, etc., you'd be left with one or two people who really
got it, and they'd hang around.


... They'll start going ripe on us pretty soon.
--- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.

Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Dream Master to cr1mson on Thu Mar 10 2022 09:02 am

I remember the good ol' days where you'd turn on the computer and it'd spin-up and take two or three minutes to finish loading. Now, give it 10 seconds. I think, for me anyway, its about being able to gain access to my computers immediately and not having to wait to boot, login, etc., etc.

But, when do you get the coffees?


- nostalia

---
■ Synchronet ■ Techrono BBS - techrono.synchro.net

Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: nostalia to Dream Master on Mon Jun 06 2022 06:30 pm

Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Dream Master to cr1mson on Thu Mar 10 2022 09:02 am

I remember the good ol' days where you'd turn on the computer and it'd spin-up and take two or three minutes to finish loading. Now, give it 10 seconds. I think, for me anyway, its about being able to gain access to my computers immediately and not having to wait to boot, login, etc., etc.

But, when do you get the coffees?

- nostalia

I just hibernate my laptop to get the same effect. It's slower to start becaues I've chosen a spinning hard drive, that and the laptop is itself old, but if I just hibernate, it only loads a ram image from the disk, and is back up. Only takes several seconds. No need to boot the computer each time.

---
■ Synchronet ■ MiND'S EYE BBS - Melb, Australia - mindseye.synchronetbbs.org

nostalia wrote to Dream Master <=-

I remember the good ol' days where you'd turn on the computer and it'd spin-up and take two or three minutes to finish loading. Now, give it 10 seconds. I think, for me anyway, its about being able to gain access to my computers immediately and not having to wait to boot, login, etc., etc.

But, when do you get the coffees?

I used to rely on the slow boot-up time of my Dell D630, with a spinning
drive and a ton of work-related management, inventory and security tools for
a chance to walk to the kitchen and get a cup of coffee. By the time I
walked to the kitchen, got the coffee, said hi to a few people and walked back, it had finished booting.

SSDs took that valuable time from me!


... All those updates, and still imperfect!
--- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.

Boraxman wrote to nostalia <=-

I just hibernate my laptop to get the same effect. It's slower to
start becaues I've chosen a spinning hard drive, that and the laptop is itself old, but if I just hibernate, it only loads a ram image from the disk, and is back up. Only takes several seconds. No need to boot the computer each time.

If you're sticking with a spinning drive, swapping the drive out for a
Hybrid SSD makes a world of difference. Picture a SATA drive with 4-8 GB of cache stuck on the side of it. It boots like a SATA drive, loading all of
the apps you use into the cache on first load, so the next time you open the app, it's served from the fast flash cache.




... All those updates, and still imperfect!
--- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.

Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: poindexter FORTRAN to nostalia on Tue Jun 07 2022 07:22 am

SSDs took that valuable time from me!

Ya.. darn the new tech making things so fast!

---
■ Synchronet ■ Techrono BBS - techrono.synchro.net

Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to nostalia on Tue Jun 07 2022 09:28 pm

Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: nostalia to Dream Master on Mon Jun 06 2022 06:30 pm

Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Dream Master to cr1mson on Thu Mar 10 2022 09:02 am

I remember the good ol' days where you'd turn on the computer and it'd spin-up and take two or three minutes to finish loading. Now, give it 10 seconds. I think, for me anyway, its about being able to gain access to my computers immediately and not having to wait to boot, login, etc., etc.

But, when do you get the coffees?

I just hibernate my laptop to get the same effect. It's slower to start becaues I've chosen a spinning hard drive, that and the laptop is itself old, but if I just hibernate, it only loads a ram image from the disk, and is back up. Only takes several seconds. No need to boot the computer each

i'm afraid of memory holes. i just leave the computer on and locked.
---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: poindexter FORTRAN to Boraxman on Tue Jun 07 2022 07:25 am

Boraxman wrote to nostalia <=-

I just hibernate my laptop to get the same effect. It's slower to start becaues I've chosen a spinning hard drive, that and the laptop is itself old, but if I just hibernate, it only loads a ram image from the disk, and is back up. Only takes several seconds. No need to boot the computer each time.

If you're sticking with a spinning drive, swapping the drive out for a Hybrid SSD makes a world of difference. Picture a SATA drive with 4-8 GB of cache stuck on the side of it. It boots like a SATA drive, loading all of the apps you use into the cache on first load, so the next time you open the app, it's served from the fast flash cache.

Tempting. I just swapped out the drive only a month or two ago, so not required.

Besides, this laptop takes IDE drives, not SATA.

---
■ Synchronet ■ MiND'S EYE BBS - Melb, Australia - mindseye.synchronetbbs.org

Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: MRO to Boraxman on Thu Jun 09 2022 05:05 am

Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Dream Master to cr1mson on Thu Mar 10 2022 09:02 am

I remember the good ol' days where you'd turn on the computer and it'd spin-up and take two or three minutes to finish loading. Now, give it 10 seconds. I think, for me anyway, its about being able to gain access to my computers immediately and not having to wait to boot, login, etc., etc.

But, when do you get the coffees?

I just hibernate my laptop to get the same effect. It's slower to start becaues I've chosen a spinning hard drive, that and the laptop is itself old, but if I just hibernate, it only loads a ram image from the disk, and is back up. Only takes several seconds. No need to boot the computer each

i'm afraid of memory holes. i just leave the computer on and locked.

Memory holes? You mean having the RAM written to the hard disk?

I hate leaving stuff on unecessarily.

---
■ Synchronet ■ MiND'S EYE BBS - Melb, Australia - mindseye.synchronetbbs.org

Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: MRO to Boraxman on Thu Jun 09 2022 05:05 am

I just hibernate my laptop to get the same effect. It's slower to start becaues I've chosen a spinning hard drive, that and the laptop is itself old, but if I just hibernate, it only loads a ram image from the disk, an is back up. Only takes several seconds. No need to boot the computer ea

i'm afraid of memory holes. i just leave the computer on and locked.

I don't know.

If you are using consumer grade hardware (ie. cheap laptop) then the chances of producing a non-correctable RAM error are low but non trivial.

I don't have the numbers here but if a certain RAM card produces an error per every 4 GB per every X hours of operation, the more time you leave the computer running the higher the chance you hit a RAM error.

Consumer grade hardware is not designed for running 24/7. You can do it but I'd certainly prefer to shut it down when not in use XD

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Boraxman to MRO on Thu Jun 09 2022 09:05 pm

i'm afraid of memory holes. i just leave the computer on and locked.

Memory holes? You mean having the RAM written to the hard disk?

I hate leaving stuff on unecessarily.

i'm just afriad of losing resources that cant be gained unless i reboot.
---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Arelor to MRO on Thu Jun 09 2022 06:42 am

If you are using consumer grade hardware (ie. cheap laptop) then the chances of producing a non-correctable RAM error are low but non trivial.

I don't have the numbers here but if a certain RAM card produces an error per every 4 GB per every X hours of operation, the more time you leave the computer running the higher the chance you hit a RAM error.

Consumer grade hardware is not designed for running 24/7. You can do it but I'd certainly prefer to shut it down when not in use XD

my mobo is supposed to be military grade.
i think that's just BS though
---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: MRO to Arelor on Thu Jun 09 2022 07:30 am

my mobo is supposed to be military grade.
i think that's just BS though

Yeah, it sounds like a marketing scam XD If it comes with ECC memory then the chances of getting RAM corruption because you left it on for long get astronomically low anyway.

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Arelor to MRO on Thu Jun 09 2022 03:50 pm

Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: MRO to Arelor on Thu Jun 09 2022 07:30 am

my mobo is supposed to be military grade.
i think that's just BS though

Yeah, it sounds like a marketing scam XD If it comes with ECC memory then

no there are actual different grades of electronics and military is one spec.

my memory i put in myself.
---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: Arelor to MRO on Thu Jun 09 2022 06:42 am

I just hibernate my laptop to get the same effect. It's slower to start becaues I've chosen a spinning hard drive, that and the laptop is itself old, but if I just hibernate, it only loads a ram image from the disk, an is back up. Only takes several seconds. No need to boot the computer ea

i'm afraid of memory holes. i just leave the computer on and locked.

I don't know.

If you are using consumer grade hardware (ie. cheap laptop) then the chances of producing a non-correctable RAM error are low but non trivial.

I don't have the numbers here but if a certain RAM card produces an error per every 4 GB per every X hours of operation, the more time you leave the computer running the higher the chance you hit a RAM error.

Consumer grade hardware is not designed for running 24/7. You can do it but I'd certainly prefer to shut it down when not in use XD

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

Very unlikely that such an error would cause a problem. I did use a computer which had dodgy RAM, and that could cause the occasional crash or corruption, but even then it was usable.

I switch it off for power saving, and because it is less wear and tear on the hard drives if they aren't spinning. My rule of thumb is if I' not going to be using the computer for more than 30-60 minutes or more, I switch it off, otherwise if I'm just walking away for a bit, and will be back, I'll leave it running.

---
■ Synchronet ■ MiND'S EYE BBS - Melb, Australia - mindseye.synchronetbbs.org

Boraxman wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-

Besides, this laptop takes IDE drives, not SATA.

That does make it challenging. I did find an IDE SSD a couple of years back for an old Thinkpad T42 I couldn't bear to part with.

Best. Laptop. Keyboard. Ever.

Even though you're still limited to IDE transfer speeds, the lack of appreciable seek time made a huge difference.


... Where is the center of the maze?
--- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
■ Synchronet ■ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.

Re: Re: The stay home and not
By: poindexter FORTRAN to Boraxman on Thu Jun 09 2022 08:38 am

Boraxman wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-

Besides, this laptop takes IDE drives, not SATA.

That does make it challenging. I did find an IDE SSD a couple of years back for an old Thinkpad T42 I couldn't bear to part with.

Best. Laptop. Keyboard. Ever.

Even though you're still limited to IDE transfer speeds, the lack of appreciable seek time made a huge difference.

... Where is the center of the maze?

It is the best laptop keyboard. I've been spoiled. Using other laptops is just painful in comparison.

The HDD speed is fine. Bootup is sluggish compared to my desktop but hibernating solves that problem. Most other programs I use are light, so it really doesn't make that much of a difference at all.

---
■ Synchronet ■ MiND'S EYE BBS - Melb, Australia - mindseye.synchronetbbs.org