Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Profile of CaptainWhomp
| |-+  Show Posts
| | |-+  Messages

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - CaptainWhomp

Pages: [1]
1
The Polling Pit / Re: Mark is a Nihilist, What are you?
« on: November 22, 2011, 01:38:51 AM »
You Scored as Strong Egoism

Your life is very much guided by the concept of Egoism: You work primarily to promote your own interests.

“I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”
“I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows.”
--Ayn Rand

More info at Arocoun's Wikipedia User Page...

Existentialism       100%
Strong Egoism       100%
Kantianism          95%
Hedonism          75%
Justice (Fairness)    75%
Nihilism          40%
Utilitarianism       15%
Apathy          0%
Divine Command       0%


2
General / Re: Bitcoin
« on: November 20, 2011, 06:06:32 PM »
Bitcoin is anonymous

don't use Crypto, use MtGox that's where all 90% of the bitcoin trading happens and they do not ask for your home address.

vendors would have to look thought the block chain to find your the address you loaded the coins two, and then find out from the exchange site which bank account was used to deposit the money used to buy the bitcoin. (not easy thing to do, you'll need a court order to force the exchange site to give away this info.)

if you want you could make it 100% impossible, for anyone to trace you like this, just send the coins to another wallet once you bought them. in that case the they will hit a dead end when trying to trace a transaction back to you.

compare that to a VSIA or paypal payment.

remember when this happened.

Sony Hacked Again; 25 Million Entertainment Users’ Info at Risk


bitcoin make payments safe, and anonymous.
 

Thanks for the comments. It's still not clear to me how it works. It seems to me that no matter how many transfers you do to how many accounts, it should always be traceable. In fact, the whole bitcoin network as I understand it is built upon the ability to track and record every transaction. But, it's supposedly anonymous, and I'm trying to understand exactly how. Those two things seem to be in contradiction. I'm guessing maybe it has something to do with public/private key encryption so that only the buyer and seller have the records, but the network still must "know" about the transaction.

In other news, I downloaded the bitcoin client, but only because I was hoping to be able to send or receive money with it. But while running it, it seems to be crunching numbers quite a lot. Is it mining? I have no interest in that. Am I completely missing the point of all this?

Thanks.

3
General / Re: Bitcoin
« on: November 20, 2011, 02:26:39 PM »
To anyone who heard the Bitcoin discussion on FTL tonight (Sat, Nov 20), if you want to learn more about Bitcoin, a good starting place is WeUseCoins.org.  Also, if you're ready to buy or sell or store them, I recommend CryptoXChange.com

Many things about bitcoin are unclear to me. For example, Crypto requires that you submit your physical address before performing any trades. Can someone explain to me why that is necessary?

Presumably, if someone wants to use Crypto to buy bitcoins, and then use those coins from their wallet account later for anonymous transactions with other vendors, they shouldn't need any physical address (or the person's name, for that matter).

Also, if the vendor can tell someone's physical address information from a bitcoin address, what would prevent any other party from doing the same?

I'm confused about the claims of anonymity.



4
Is it tasty?

No idea. Looks like you can request a free sample on the website though.

Curry

5
The only "real" way to pack stuff for long term storage is:

Line a bucket with food grade metallic mylar bags
Pour your crap in it and fill it up only enough so that you can seal it
Take it out of the bucket
Flush it with nitrogen
Put in an oxygen absorber in the bag
Vacuum seal it

If you do it that way, it will store pretty much indefenetly. I'm guessing its about $500 in equipment to do it the right way.

Or you can just buy it already done for you. You'd probably have to pack about a ton of stuff before you broke even  in terms of DIY or buying it in a bucket already.

It makes sense to get the freshest available product to store, too. Do it in the fall, after harvest. Etc.

How about this stuff? Seems like it's pretty good, and all the work (nitrogen/vacuuming) is already done for you. You just buy the bucket, or individual packs depending on your paranoia level... :)

http://wisefoodstorage.com/


6
http://www.amazon.com/How-Found-Freedom-Unfree-World/dp/0965603679

It's an excellent book; I've read it. Great man he was. I'm just not one to easily give up hope. I can't stand by while we live in an unfree world. Surely there are others like me. Where are they?


7
No, I mean right now, today. What will you do to protect yourself, assuming you feel the need to protect yourself with a firearm they wont "allow" you to have?

Nevermind, dont tell me. I dont need to know.

Right now I'm naked and crossing my fingers.


8
Ok, you wanna try that......fine.

What will you do in the meantime, the way things are now?

Just that:

Quote
It's lobbying, changing people's minds, meeting politicians at their office, blasting politicians with letters and e-mails, running for federal office ourselves, forming ever-more-powerful groups, and much more. It's actually engaging people on their own turf.

That's what I'll do in the meantime. I'd hope others would join me. I just can seem to find anyone in the liberty movement willing to get their hands dirty.


9
Hey Captain,

I appreciate your post. What about just spreading the message of liberty to other people who will listen? Ya know, tell them that the government VIOLATES the non-aggression principle and therefore is infringing on common decency.

That's if you can get people away from the TV long enough to hold a meaningful conversatio!  :o

I do try. I want to do more than just that.


10
In case I've sounded insensitive I'll just follow up with this -

I'm not trying to bust your balls, CW.

It's just that if I go to the doctor and he tells me I have cancer, I don't tell him to get rid of 90% of it, and I don't tell him to leave just as much cancer as there was back in 1776. Cancer is bad. You get rid of it.

I have him cut it all out, then radiate the entire area.

Maybe eat some broccoli, too.

But if you think that voting will help, there are a lot of libertarian party types who totally agree with you. You certainly aren't alone.


Again, not about voting. My frustration comes from the fact that even within the liberty movement (and even within the LP itself), I don't see much work being done. I go to meetings and there is constant infighting, reading of minutes, bickering for an hour over the contents of a press release, and strict adherence to Robert's Rules of Order of all things. None of that actually gets anything done on the federal level.

Why can't we organize to attack with strategic intelligence? It's takes a lot more than just what we're doing either in NH or at LP meeting offices all over the country. We're just burning away our time. In short, I don't think anybody at any level is doing the right thing. Nobody is focused on the root of the tree, just the branches, as Mark said yesterday in the show. This is the original reason I posted this topic.

And don't worry about busting my balls. They are hard as a rock. I've been through far worse.


11
So what you're saying is that you want us to join up with the KKK so we can get them to lynch fewer black people, is that right?

I don't beg for my freedom with a hole punched piece of paper every few years.

No thanks.

You go vote. I'll be over here, actually being free.

PROTIP - Calling people names or implying cowardice for disagreeing with your methods is a not the sure fire way to win them over. That is the opposite of what is good.

I'm not going to dignify your first straw man comment by responding to it.

You are delusional if you think you are free now. Me, I'm actually willing to do something about not being free.

This is not about voting. It's lobbying, changing people's minds, meeting politicians at their office, blasting politicians with letters and e-mails, running for federal office ourselves, forming ever-more-powerful groups, and much more. It's actually engaging people on their own turf. These government people only respond to civil disobedience and violence with violence of their own, and in much higher quantities than any of us could dish out alone or even in our small groups. They only listen to what is written in the law -- so let's make those words loud and clear for freedom.

In short, there are years of HARD WORK involved in actually making real change. Dirty, uncomfortable, unpleasant work. Running and hiding is the opposite of doing the things which might actually change the country for the better. I'm sorry you feel that it is pointless, but that's exactly the point of view that I'm trying to change.

Thanks for your comment.

12
Quote
Or... Option 3... Change the system ourselves. Heck, do I have to do it alone? Where's the backbone from the libertarian movement?

The problem is that there are very few people who love liberty in the U.S. Some of those people are moving to New Hampshire for the free state project to make some incremental changes to government and to live amongst like-minded people.

Outside of the FSP, I really don't know how successful any libertarianish or freedom-oriented movement is going to be. Hopefully I will be proven wrong!!!  :lol:

Yeah, I've considered moving to the Free State, but I've really found my dream job here, and I'm very hesitant to leave it. It's not something easily duplicated elsewhere. Also, I hate the cold. And I'm not so convinced that civil disobedience is the best course of action either. Sometimes it works, sometimes it backfires. I'm one of those who hasn't given up on repeal. It's just going to take an ample amount of supporters from different walks of life saying the right things, and not backing down at any point or settling for something less than repeal.

Maybe it's true that most of the liberty lovers are gone from the USA, but I don't think politics is necessarily controlled by the majority anyway. I think even the Occupy people, for completely different reasons, would agree on that point. The key is just to find out where the influences lie and then unceasingly lobby and demand. Even a small group should be able to do this.

Maybe someday I'll have the cash to buy a summer home in NH. But even NH is still under the federal jurisdiction, which is the main root of the problem, so I don't see how it's going to help much even if NH becomes completely libertarian.


13
Seems to me you have two choices considering your circumstances.

1 - Sit around and wait for them to change the laws allowing you to be legal.

2 - Do it on the sly with the whole "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6" thing in mind in respect to protecting yourself.

Not saying you should do either or...... just saying, thats about all you have to go with.

Or... Option 3... Change the system ourselves. Heck, do I have to do it alone? Where's the backbone from the libertarian movement?

They say it takes but one charismatic politician to change the tone and attitudes of Washington. Well, it's high time that this politician is on our side for a change. Or maybe it takes more than that, dozens of supporting politicians, thousands of letters to politicians and representatives, and key access to gun rights lobbyists. I don't know, but it's never impossible. This is the option that I'm trying to get everyone to see.

As for the civil disobedience, I'd much rather fight with all my power to legally possess, for example, my own MP5 or 9 MM than go under the table resulting in 100 SWAT team members pointing their own 100 MP5's/9 MM's at me to my one. That's suicide. Plus, IMHO, it would only hurt the gun rights movement to do that, not help it along, which I think is the pragmatic issue.

The trouble is that there's no one in Washington (except maybe Ron Paul) talking about repealing anything (except perhaps Obamacare, but again that's just because it's a recent event. Big whoop.). Even Ron hasn't said much about the Gun Control Act of 1968 recently, although he had a bill in the House for its repeal at every Congressional session for almost a decade.

I believe there is no legislation bigger than us. If we demand it's repeal with enough force, it will happen. We just can't continue to have these weak and defeated attitudes.




14
The thing people should be worried about is the slow grindstone of hundreds of little laws, not some big sweeping event.  

Well I disagree with this conclusion, for the reasons I have put forth in the original message. I'll repeat that I am currently disallowed via the FBI from owning or possessing even a single .22 pistol peashooter in order to act as a self-defense weapon within my own home. No American deserves that kind of treatment, and especially one which hasn't done anything untoward like myself. And this is nothing to worry about?

I suppose I've always been a fighter. I don't understand the arguments of the big government apologists which seem to dismiss the heart of the all the real issues, which often stem from laws and edicts enacted much earlier last century, not today. The shock wave of big government started a long time ago, we're just now feeling the waves. My definition of freedom is a lot freer than the state of things in America today. Isn't that the point of the libertarian movement?

We need intricate, complex, and well-thought-out political strategies, not to hide our heads in the sand.


15
There are a huge number of federal and state gun control laws out there, as most of you know. However, most of the problems with gun control stem, in my view, from just a few acts of Congress on the federal level. (See below, abridged from http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa092699.htm)

Quote
1934
The National Firearms Act of 1934 regulating only fully automatic firearms like sub-machine guns is approved by Congress.

1938
The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 places the first limitations on selling ordinary firearms. Persons selling guns are required to obtain a Federal Firearms License, at an annual cost of $1, and to maintain records of the name and address of persons to whom firearms are sold. Gun sales to persons convicted of violent felonies were prohibited.

1968
The Gun Control Act of 1968 - "...was enacted for the purpose of keeping firearms out of the hands of those not legally entitled to possess them because of age, criminal background, or incompetence." -- Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms The Act regulates imported guns, expands the gun-dealer licensing and record keeping requirements, and places specific limitations on the sale of handguns. The list of persons banned from buying guns is expanded to include persons convicted of any non-business related felony, persons found to be mentally incompetent, and users of illegal drugs.

1994
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Public Law 103-159) imposes a five-day waiting period on the purchase of a handgun and requires that local law enforcement agencies conduct background checks on purchasers of handguns.

Although all of these are bad for the right to keep and bear arms, are unconstitutional, and are generally against any libertarian notion of civil rights, civil liberties, and sovereign citizenship, there are two among these four which stand out to me as particularly egregious. Those are the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 and the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Why? Take a look at all the legislations and tell me what is particularly different about those two laws as opposed to the others. See it yet? Those two laws create a divide between those United States citizens who may own firearms (for whatever reason) and those who may not. They create a form of legalized discrimination against the "not allowed" group in favor of the "allowed" group. If this group division were between Latinos and everybody else (for example), everyone would be appalled. So what makes this form of discrimination okay, especially in light of the basic civil rights to self-defense that every citizen should be allowed to exercise?

Well, like many government mandates, the laws may be well-intentioned. They're trying to be preventative, but in doing so, they are depriving citizens of their basic rights and liberties. Every person has the right to defend themselves against violent attack, and yes, that even includes former felons. In fact, it can be argued that, since many felons live in poor neighborhoods with high crime rates, the need for these citizens to have access to self-defense weapons is all the more acute. I believe that every libertarian should be willing to fight for the basic human rights of even ex-felons.

Aside from only felons, however, the Gun Control Act of 1968 also creates other classes of "disallowed" people: 1.) people with a mental handicap or illness, or 2.) recreational drug users. Even if you agree that felons should be restricted from owning guns, how about these two groups of people? This legislation sticks out to me as the most discriminatory and anti-freedom gun legislation on the books. Furthermore, the terms "mental illness", "mental defective", and "mental incompetent" can be extremely subjective. Anorexia is classified as a mental illness, so is bipolar disorder and major depression. I doubt many of those diagnosed with a mental illness would be too happy about being called "incompetent", or seen as a threat to society. Further, more and more common, everyday issues in life are being called "mental illnesses" by doctors and medical academics all the time. Are we really to deny all of these people their basic 2nd Amendment rights? On what grounds?

On a personal note, I am also personally affected by this legislation. About 15 years ago, I was a patient at a mental hospital for about a month to work through some issues. I had major depression and other symptoms of mental illness. I definitely needed to seek help, and I got it at the hospital. I saw a psychiatrist for another several months after my hospital stay, and after that time both my doctor and I agreed that I was fine and needed no more medical attention. I haven't had any episodes or incidents since that time, but 15 years later, I am not eligible to own a firearm to protect my home. Considering the fact that my home was broken into last year and robbed while I was at work, I feel more than ever like a self-defense weapon is necessary. I consider the fact that I am unable to obtain one more than unfair. It's downright wrong. Is this America or not?

The reason I am writing this is not to tell you about my issues, but rather to try and understand why libertarianism is always so much on the defensive. We gripe and complain about new bills proposed in Congress and say, "Oh no! That will make things even worse!", and we oppose those current bills in hoping to stop them. Sometimes we succeed, sometimes we fail, but that's the problem -- gradually, government always grows and nothing is repealed. Why do we allow this to continue? Why don't we take aim at past acts and legislations, and set poised to be on the *attack* for a change? Why do we always have to say "no" to the new, and forget about the real roots of the problem?

In the case of gun control, why aren't we unceasingly and unapologetically demanding the repeal of the four above federal gun control laws, and in particular the discriminatory Federal Firearms Act of 1938 and the Gun Control Act of 1968? Why are we so sheepish and complacent? I'm tired of always being on the defensive. It's time for us to rise up and start demanding our basic rights and liberties back. I'm willing to fight for it. We need political strategies to repeal. We need open dialogues about issues of real importance: Repealing old, bad laws based upon bad philosophies. We need to be talking about repealing federal gun control, repealing the New Deal, stopping the Drug War, ending the Fed, and just basically demanding our (real) lives as Americans back once again! Are we so shy and dejected that we cannot even fight for those freedoms which are rightfully ours? Why do we put up with this so much, for so many years?

Since when do we ask permission to be free? Since when do we accept "no" as an answer to that request?




Pages: [1]

Page created in 0.033 seconds with 30 queries.