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 Johnson
| |-+  Show Posts
| | |-+  Topics

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.

Topics - Johnson

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
General / Site back up?
« on: August 26, 2011, 01:11:54 AM »
test post.

General / New BBS Theme Updates
« on: July 17, 2011, 11:04:34 PM »
Johnson here...

The forum theme has been updated again.

To about 99% of you, these changes will be fairly subtle, but hopefully still a notable improvement. However, about 1% of the BBS was using old themes that were outdated and needed work. These themes have been deprecated.

We are now offering a dark theme (the default) and a light theme (dark text on a lighter background). You can access and set your theme under your profile settings.

We'd like to thank everyone that helps to support Free Talk Live, and let you know that Jacob and myself have worked hard to create a few themes that are visually pleasing while being integrated with the site. We hope you enjoy this improvement.

The next time we upgrade the themes will be even more of an improvement when the software we use for the forums finally reaches version 2.0 final.

Best regards,
The The Free Talk Live BBS Team.

Also as a consolatory note for some of the people using the older themes... you among the 1% -
Those themes didn't have some of the code we have added over time to protect the BBS from spammers, and were a vector for spammers to get into the BBS. Maintaining only two themes will allow us to help keep the BBS more up to date and spam free! (as much as possible)

Episodes & Show Prep / 2010-11-19
« on: November 19, 2010, 10:09:13 PM »

New Apple Store - No different than http://store.steampowered.com/

Steam revolutionized game delivery... Who wants to drive to damned GameStop to buy computer games when you can download them in 5-10 minutes? Likewise, do you really want to drive to an Apple store to buy apple software?

Sure - Apple might not put porn apps in it's app store, just like it doesn't stock them on the shelves in its stores, but that doesn't mean you can't install them....

Wish I could have cleared that up on air, but there just wasn't time.

I hadn't commented on this for a very long time, but I was reminded of my unceremonious and surreptitious banning from FDR recently upon being pleased to see the debate video being posted to youtube.

Anyway, here is the thread... It encompasses ALL my posts on the FDR forums.

You may see the beginning of this now heavily edited thread here:

Although, since it has been made entirely dishonest through selective editing after my banning - I'm not sure it's worth it.

Quote from: Johnson

I was a little frustrated by the Porcfest debate because it was quite obvious that the other guy (Johnson?) was just playing a language game.

Of all the comments here - I would like to address an apology to you. (and hopefully my comments won't spark off an agnostic / atheist debate, since that topic seems to be clearly a dead horse on these forums)

My goal in my debate with Stefan was not to make Atheists "accept the truth" of Agnosticism; So - any efforts there - were, as you aptly put it, at best, a language game. One that made me feel, quite frankly, like I needed a shower after the debate. Afterall, in order to play the part of the Agnostic, when arguing with an Atheist, the Agnostic has to take a somewhat theistic stance in order to defend the possibility of some kind of "higher power".

My reason for claiming agnosticism (and that is the full extent to which I am Agnostic, and it really doesn't extend beyond that claim despite any arguments you might have heard from in that far more public debate) is that when I was acting as an Atheist having discussions with Theists - I felt like it was the exact same circular conversation OVER and OVER and OVER. It was like walking someone through a script, only that at the end of the script, they would just start over again with the same questions, never getting anywhere. I felt akin to banging my head against a brick wall.

So, while playing Agnostic in a debate against an Atheist makes me feel like a dirty dirty man, playing Agnostic in a debate with a Theist grants me a wonderful feeling of liberation. Instead of walking through a script wherein the same exact things are said over and over again - I am immediately able to say

"OK, I accept this possibility that the universe may have been created - but WHY do you believe THIS particular minute detail?" IE: Why is "God" male?
Why are there 72 virgins? Why do you believe there was a man who would walk on water - have you ever seen that? 

Instead of that person going through THEIR standard repertoire of "Atheist defense" arguments that they have undoubtedly spent silly amounts of time researching or formulating... I've sidestepped all of that and gotten that person to immediately begin engaging in some kinds of rational questioning, as well as using their OWN thoughts and arguments, versus regurgitating the stuff they've read on the internet.

I largely agree that even if you are an Agnostic that accepts the possibility of an "intelligent creator" that there are PLENTY of other things to be questioned in EVERY religion about their claims as to nature of the universe. If you aren't questioning those - then you ARE cowardly. Agnostics need to be engaging in that conversation just as much as Atheists. Religions, ALL Religions - MUST be questioned.

I am hoping that at least SOME Agnostics took away from that debate a sense of purpose and sufficient cause to start actively engaging theists in theological debate, in the same way that you would if someone walked into the room claiming to have just ridden a Pigasus to get there.

Quote from: eulercircles
Johnson, welcome to the forums, and thank you for your honesty.

My big beef is that if two people are going to have a debate, it kind of defeats the purpose if the most important term being considered somehow must remain ill-defined. It seems to me if that's the case, the gig cannot even get off the ground. So why bother?

People have different ideas of God, but they themselves will not say God is undefined or undefinable. They may not themselves know how to define God, if you're talking with a layman, but that does not mean his or her religion itself does not have somespecific conception of what God is. He/she may just be ignorant on the matter. Theists may want to define God in their own way, but when you make God so abstract that it cannot be defined, it's pretty clear, to me anyway, that the person is just not interested in debating. At least he's safe with a nebulous concept (if it indeed is a concept - it seems to me to be incoherent). He/she gets to claim that perhaps there's a god of some sort, but doesn't have to defend it with rational arguments. That's my take, anyway.

I don't want to spark a debate here, as you expressed you did not wish it either - but how do you address one other comment I made?: That the agnostic assumption is that a belief (here, the belief that no god exists) must be 100% certain, without the possibility of being wrong, in order to be claimed to be known? As Daniel Dennett says, "I'm as sure about it as I can be about anything." Unfortunately, he also went on to say you cannot prove a negative, which is not really true (again, the problem there is the inability to properly define). You, of course, have every right not to answer. I ask with all due respect, and in the hopes that you will answer, however.

I also realize that some ideas of 'god' are impersonal, like the Buddhist idea of Brahman, and Advaita Vedanta. These do not appear to me to be theisms. A theistic god is, at least, a person possessing consciousness and knowledge. To me, these ideas are atheistic.

Once again, welcome.

Quote from: Johnson
Well, First EulerCircles, you are replying to stuff that I said in the debate, and not really to my post that I just made... but that said, I will still attempt to formulate an answer.

You talk about 'the layman that doesn't have a defined view of God', as though that is common. In my experience, it is not at all common. Most theists that I've spoken with have very definitive answers for their beliefs about their deity. Within a religion, and even withing a particular sect of a religion, my discovery has been that there is ALMOST ZERO coherent consistency of belief as to the properties of a deity when they aren't easily remembered or outlined by scripture.

So, at that point... You've begun someone on the process of QUESTIONING. Ah - the first step. The first step toward rationality is to start asking questions and actually searching for truth....

Now... as you put it - when you "make God so abstract it cannot be defined" what have you done?

Well, let's walk through THAT thought. 

So, the agnostic proposition is that you can never be 100% certain... Atheists say they are definitely 100% certain - but in order to GET there - any CONVERTED Atheist (and probably most atheists in general) had to at SOME point be LESS than 100% certain. So - becoming atheist is a process - and I would suggest that babies are born agnostic - (or weak atheists) because they have zero understanding of religion, or god, or anything of the sort with respect to those concepts. So - Children growing up have to make choices with regards to beliefs as they are exposed to knowledge...

If you have no concept of fire, you don't know whether or not it will hurt you until you have experienced touching something hot, and then you can form a belief. 

So in that process of becoming an Atheist, one asks themselves questions and uses logic and reasoning and finally reach the point where one understands that the concept called God is irrational nonsense.

SO - My personal goal here... yeah wellllll here it is... I would really like to see Religion... All of it... every last one... every irrational and silly belief from Astral Projection to Zoroastrianism wiped out. Of course, this is never going to happen in my lifetime but that doesn't stop me from the noble process of trying to flip the light switch of reason on head by head.

So, if becoming an Atheist is a process - which I believe it to be, and I've had extensive conversation with many former theists - then I believe that the most efficient way to bring a theist over to being a rational logical being is by having that person question THEIR OWN false premises.

So, if I ask enough questions to the point of where someone has "made God so abstact that it cannot be defined" anymore... then taking the next step in saying that "God does not, and cannot exist" is MUCH smaller.

Now - if there is SUCH a wide chasm between you and the theist that they perceive - The theist shuts down. If they say "Well, I believe in this magical man that healed people and turned water into wine and..." you interrupt telling them how ridiculous their ideas are and that theist knows that you don't even have the slightest inkling of understanding where they are coming from... they shut down and see it as a pointless exercise to try and have a discussion with you.

Whereas... If you have established the BASIC PREMISE with the theist, and the ONE TENET that most hold MOST DEARLY which is that the universe was CREATED - then you will ALWAYS have a basis for conversation. An agreement point to back up to - and start over. The conversation is never closed. You can always say "well, I accept the possibility that the universe might have been created, but why do you believe that Jesus walked on water - how does that make any sense...?" I think chipping away at smaller beliefs leads to much larger questions.

In a sense - I kind of see it as being similar to when a Psychologist temporarily plays along with the delusions of the Schizophrenic in order to help that person get treatment...

Now, maybe 1% of the population experiences fullblown schizophrenia, but a much larger portion of humanity shows quite a few similar symptoms. I think questioning irrationality and trying to help people see things a little more clearly is just the right thing to do.

I'm not really concerned with the beliefs of agnostics to be honest. I don't really care if there are people out there that aren't 100% sure of something. They aren't the ones that are going to lead the march to cut out my tongue for questioning their imaginary friend... and they also aren't the one's who have already ensured that I can't go to the local store and buy alcohol on Sunday.  If I could make all THEISTS into AGNOSTICS who live their lives no differently from atheists... Well, at that point I can tell you that the question of certainty really doesn't concern me much at all. If that makes sense. 

Quote from: eulercircles
Johnson, is this why you get to be a radio talk show host, because you can talk a lot without necessarily saying much at all? Or is it just because your voice is easy on the ears?

Quote from: Johnson
Well then, my conversation with you is over. In the future, you really shouldn't blame your own reading comprehension issues on others.

Quote from: eulercircles
I don't think there is a problem with my reading comprehension. As I am sure many others here who have been in this discussion all along are aware of, your entire approach is characteristic of the WHOLE issue to begin with. There is no clear language; no concise and substantive arguments. There are just dodgy, apparently empty sentences. We've gotten the same from other self-styled 'agnostics' who take issue with self-styled 'atheists', and it was the same story in your debate with Stef.

I apologize if my comments appear to you to be unfair or 'mean'. But I will not accept that they are inaccurate. This is not a rhetorical device on my part, and it is certainly not me singling you out and trying to beat you up. If I am seen as a callous or unsavory fellow for unabashedly pointing out the truth, what we can all see before our very eyes, then so be it. I guess I am just not always patient.

Quote from: Johnson
Well, since you at least made the piss-poor attempt at an apology, I will continue with the same level of congeniality. THEN I will be done with you.

Quote from: eulercircles
I don't think there is a problem with my reading comprehension.
Of course you don't. I don't think you pay enough attention to anything that isn't your own self important drivel to actually grasp the fact that you have missed what is going on.

Quote from: eulercircles
As I am sure many others here who have been in this discussion all along are aware of, your entire approach is characteristic of the WHOLE issue to begin with. There is no clear language; no concise and substantive arguments. There are just dodgy, apparently empty sentences. We've gotten the same from other self-styled 'agnostics' who take issue with self-styled 'atheists', and it was the same story in your debate with Stef.

And this is why, you sir, are a MORON. I AM NOT AN AGNOSTIC you reading incompetent buffoon. I made that clear using "concise language" up above, that was apparently not concise enough for YOU, I made it clear that even PRETENDING to be an agnostic while debating an ATHEIST made me feel dirty, and also said for you to address my posts HERE and NOT the debate with Stef, as that's not particularly relevant to what I am saying here. You are apparently incapable of doing that, and that's why I no longer want anything to do with you. There's something not right about you. You're a CREEP.

Quote from: eulercircles
I apologize if my comments appear to you to be unfair or 'mean'. But I will not accept that they are inaccurate. This is not a rhetorical device on my part, and it is certainly not me singling you out and trying to beat you up. If I am seen as a callous or unsavory fellow for unabashedly pointing out the truth, what we can all see before our very eyes, then so be it. I guess I am just not always patient.

You're an ASS is what you are, and your DISINGENUOUS apology reveals you for being a dishonest *** who is merely trying to engage me in some kind of a dick-waving contest because you THOUGHT that I was an Agnostic and that you could boost your feeble ego by repeating Stef's arguments from the debate and congratulate yourself after 'winning' an internet debate.  I'm NOT an Agnostic though - and what you heard was me PLAYING DEVIL'S ADVOCATE for 3 hours for RADIO ENTERTAINMENT - because I *LIE* to Religious people.  I'm sorry you are STILL having trouble figuring that out even though I've spelled it out already.

I also enjoy your asinine attempt at collectivizing people around you to again puff up your own pathetic ego. "Many others... are aware"  "We can all see"... Don't try to speak for anyone but your own churlish self when you try to take ME down a peg.

If you want to continue this conversation - I EXPECT A GENUINE and heartfelt apology. I don't expect some ego ridden nonsense full of weasely and self congratulatory language. If you don't want to continue the conversation, and base it off of what has ACTUALLY been said - then feel free to forgo a reply. I think enough time has already been wasted here.

So, I've had this idea rattling around in my head for a while, and I want to put it out there to get everyone's thoughts.

The idea is this: I would like to see some browser addons / plugins be created that redirect forgetful people like myself through the FTL gateways for sites like Amazon, NewEgg, etc.

That way if you go to amazon.com it instead redirects you through amazon.freetalklive.com (at least once)

This would be useful for people like myself who are forgetful, and also for some to install on family member's computers that would be willing to help out, but would NEVER remember. This could potentially generate a lot of money for FTL (or it could be too much of a burden for anyone to download and install software and be a total black hole of an idea)

It also opens up a potentially shady useage of having people install it convertly on a bunch of computers which is probably not good...

I think however, that most people would just use it to force themselves to remember and to enlist the help of family and friends...

What do you think?

General / Capacity to enter into a contact: A philosophy challenge
« on: January 16, 2010, 10:06:08 PM »
So, I have asked this question of Ian Freeman, Gardner Goldsmith, and Stefan Molyneaux, - and I haven't received any answers... Therefore, I want to crowdsource this...

It seems to me that liberty lovers are in need of a simplified, single sentence principle that can be followed with regard to judging a person's capacity to enter into a contract. I think the Libertarian oath can be modified, or that some kind of similar blurb could be created...

By 'capacity', I am referring to individuals such as children, the mentally handicapped, and the insane or otherwise 'thinking impaired' individuals.

What I'm seeking is something boiled down... Its my belief that if some kind of principle that can be followed in this matter, and focused on in liberty discussions as other principles are, it would really help win hearts and minds of people that might otherwise turn away from liberty in a discussion about an issue that involves someone who is 'thinking impaired'.

Stefan asked me if I had any suggestions as to an answer to this, and really... I wish I had suggestions, but it is such a difficult question, because judgement capacity is not easily measurable - and current standards for judgement capacity are very arbitrary: Adult at 18 years old, .01 blood alcohol level, below 60 IQ, 21 to drink, 16 to have sex.... Who picked these... and why? ETC
 Combining all those into a rational philosophy that people would accept and perceive as logical and functional is a question for which I don't have nearly enough information, as I don't deal with this stuff often in my daily life (not as much as you guys for sure). I suppose looking at any documentation on how the arbitrary standards were reached MIGHT be helpful, but I'm not even certain of that...
How do you codify the principle behind the force necessary to care for or corral those with mental shortcomings into something consistent rather than an arbitrary litany of nonsensical rules laid out by governments? 

The Polling Pit / FTL Image Gallery - Would you use it?
« on: December 10, 2009, 01:06:38 AM »
This page is already basically done, but might be scrapped. Your thoughts?

The Polling Pit / What is your relationship status?
« on: July 01, 2009, 05:30:49 PM »
Here is where I will attempt to be psychic and predict the bitching about how I put together this poll:
Yes, I understand committed and open are not exclusive terms. Yes, I also understand that one can be divorced or separated and also in some kind of relationship, but SMF doesn't offer that kind of advanced polling, so please just choose whatever matches more specifically (take into consideration that this is for advertisers)

So, was I psychic?

The Polling Pit / Casting the Free Talk Live Movie
« on: June 05, 2009, 06:57:20 PM »

So, I'm just messing around based on the fact that not too long ago I watched the movie "The Machinist" and Christian Bale looks SOOOO much like Ian in it...
(Although, I'll give Ian credit and say that I don't think he's THAT Anorexic so, Bale actually manages to be skinnier than Ian in this movie) and he also manages to have a propensity for going around shirtless, and for some reason (maybe it's the thinness) he also seems to adopt some of Ian's mannerisms.


So, I got to thinking... "who would be cast for Mark...?" and I think it really comes down to

Dougray Scott


Clive Owen

Which do you think is a better match? Or would you suggest someone else?

Anyway... I think the casting for Ian would surely be in the bag...

and unfortunately, if I had to cast myself it'd probably be either...
Kevin Smith


General / Internet Anonymity
« on: June 04, 2009, 06:39:28 PM »
Do you do anything to become anonymous on the internet? If so, what do you use?

Have you ever done any anonymous sharing, or bit-torrenting, and if you did - how?

General / Programming Question - Regular Expressions
« on: May 30, 2009, 02:53:02 AM »
Ok, time to geek out and test the theory that basically almost every liberty minded person also happens to be a programmer... so, someone here should be able to answer me...

Perl Compatible regular expressions...

I need to modify a regular expression that parses a URL out of a block of text.

It's currently two expressions


Code: [Select]
.*<.*?href=" with (nothing)


Code: [Select]
".*?>.* with (nothing)

by (nothing) I mean that part is empty... the goal is to take the block of text and edit out everything that is not part of a URL, so that I am left with just the URL...

The problem is that when there are two URLs in the block of text, the whole thing explodes and doesn't work right at all...
Is there a way to modify the expressions to pluck out only the FIRST instance of a url?  I am a complete n00b to regular expressions.

General / Conversation with an Anarchosyndicalist Activist
« on: May 29, 2009, 02:30:08 PM »
This is really just posted for your reading entertainment. I thought it was interesting to have a conversation with a devout anarchosyndicalist, and thought others might possibly enjoy seeing it.

This conversation began when the VERY VERY ACTIVE (has been arrested) Anarchosyndicalist posted a link to a news story I had already read.
The New Socialism: Global Collectivist Society Is Coming Online

This anarchosyndicalist activist is a close family relative of mine... So, I decided it was time to have a conversation. I'd think the "anarcho" part of our philosophical mentalities would provide an excellent common ground...

I loved this article, (I have the wired RSS feed on my homepage) I thought it was really fascinating, although ultimately somewhat wrong. He dodges around it in his article, but I think the point Kevin Kelly ultimately misses is the aspect of force. He's missing the major differences between volunteering help for ones own enlightened selfish ends, and being forced to volunteer for the benefit of a collective from which you stand to gain nothing. That's why, what is happening now, is neither communism, nor socialism. The baggage that he couldn't seem to describe that is attached to those words, comes from people being killed if they didn't fit into the box of those ideologies.

People contribute to open source because they WANT to, not becuase they need to. The programmers that do it usually have selfish goals.... IE: They want to learn and helping on this project will help them learn... They want recognition... they will use the software... etc etc They WANT to. No force.

On a totally different level though, I also commented to a friend, that I like this article becuase I feel the way it is written is part of a first wave of attacks on the word Socialism. I like this becuase I had to sit through watching the word Libertarian be totally destroyed by asshat right wing Republicans that have totally redefined a group which USED TO have at it's core a pledge that said "I do not support the use of force for political or social gain" into a group of warmongering bigots whose weekend hobbies include fellating Jesus with one hand but then beating up gays with the other.

so you disliked his word choice then?
I probably agree with you then if its about not liking words being co-opted by dictators and governments.

Yeah, Bob Barr and Fox News really messed up the Libertarian party due to an overflow of nutjobs from the Republican party extremists that decided to bring their awful hate-filled xenophobic ways into the Libertarian Party. They destroyed it.

I feel like the word socialism, as it stands now, DOES carry baggage, just like he said. I don't feel he properly understood or addressed that this baggage comes from the fact that the ideology of socialism has a negative reputation becuase it is an ideology of force. The only socialist governments the world has ever seen have achieved their power through violence, threats, and theft. That is generally how socialism works.

People forget that capitalism, without the backing of force, is merely self interest. If two self-interested people can benefit one another, it is in their best interest to do so. Win-Win. If not, they can leave each other alone. It is the FORCE that causes problems, creates unintended consequences, and messy losses for all.

and if people want to form cooperatives and collectives, that's fine too, right?

Cooperatives, collectives, kibbutzim, even unions. As long as it's all voluntary. My view for example on Unions is that they are valuable as a negotiation point for leverage for a worker. However, I don't think unions should be forced on employers by governments. In a free society, an employer should be free to hire who they want, and an employee should be free to choose their employer. It should be a freely negotiated contract. It's the same reason why I don't believe in a minimum or maximum wage set by threat of force. I believe in a threat of persuasion. IE: If you don't pay me enough, if work conditions stink - I'm free to leave and find a better job.

If we didn't have government regulations and legislation creating monopolies, a company that treated its employees poorly in our free society, would quickly find that it had lost it's workforce to a newly founded competitor.

or those employees might drive the employer out with a pitch fork and take over the workplace.

That would be theft, and a peaceful reasonable employer would be well within his right to either A. Burn his business to the ground or B. Shoot the thieves on site. (or both)

People should not feel ENTITLED to anything in this world. Feeling entitled leads to a very bitter and hateful existence. Feeling like you were not empowered, and that the world just didn't provide the right opportunities is a path to true self loathing. That's the type of mentality that leads people to steal from others what they did not earn.

Unfortunately, in the CORPORATE world we live in, the world of force and aggression, people feel they have to steal, becuase if you try to just start a business without begging for government protection in the form of incorporation and having to follow all their nonsense rules, someone will buy violence from the government and steal your business and property from you. (by using the police and courts)

That system sets apart classes. We shouldn't be granting individual rights to collectives.

While I think that individuals should be able to FORM collectives... I don't think that GROUPS should have rights.

Responsibility for ACTIONS should always fall on the heads of individuals. This is the PRIMARY reason why corporations are so awful... They have purchased protection from the Government, which has an overall monopoly on violence, in the form of incorporation SPECIFICALLY to protect individuals from responsibility. That system is BROKEN.

Agreed on individual vs. collective rights.
On people taking over the business, that employer who tried to burn it down or shoot the occupiers might quickly find himself outnumbered, since there are many more employees than employers.
Just saying, that without the protection of the government, you might see private enterprise quickly become public.

Or... you'd quickly see businesses competing for employees that were loyal, trustworthy, hard workers, while the looters and thieves who felt entitled quickly begin to realize that if their fellow workers are willing to steal from the employer who owns a business that provided them a job, in order to provide for themselves and their families, then that same person would have NO issues stealing from coworkers, and fighting to get ahead when the opportunity arose, regardless of whether or not it was earned. The lack of honor would finally be on display for all. The infighting would quickly tear apart the collective until new leadership was chosen, and then the same mentality of entitlement and hatred of the haves vs have nots would begin anew.


After the collective overtook the place, killing the ownership, the whole thing would just be taken over by the State, and the employees would likely realize all the effort the former employer had to put in just to keep the company GOING as they now would be watching the bureaucrats and politicians pretend they know how to run the place, voting for ridiculous decisions, or leadership, and running the entire company into the ground, until the entire collective ends up completely out of work.

Freedom is life, liberty, and property. If one can't respect all three, one deserves none.

we're doing this from the point of view that in this situation, the business owner is a jerk, and that employees took it over because of bad working conditions instead of leaving for other jobs, and that there is now no state to intercede.

Or at least that's what I thought from the original thread.

I thought Anarchosyndicalists were down with the philosophy of Liberty. Property rights includes businesses. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z1buym2xUM

Hey, we're just taking a look at this scenario of a future society. These things would happen whether or not anarchosyndicalists were involved or not.

"we're doing this from the point of view that in this situation, the business owner is a jerk, and that employees took it over because of bad working conditions instead of leaving for other jobs, and that there is now no state to intercede."

I didn't say no state entirely, I spoke about legislation and regulations creating MONOPOLIES, and if we didn't have THAT. I didn't ever make the claim that I want there to be no JUSTICE system. That would be lunacy. Now, I will concede that I would be willing to see a society experiment with private, and or competing justice systems, but in general... Life, Liberty, and Property should be protected and consenting adults should be allowed to do as they please and contract freely with one another as long as they are not aggressing upon their "neighbors". Yes, I definitely agree that if there were no justice system, employees would overrun and steal from badly run businesses. However, I think in a society focused on the elimination of aggression wherein capitalism was a voluntary enterprise, and individuals were held responsible, you'd see businesses (not corporations) that were very well behaved and responsible, and wealth and innovation would skyrocket - imho.

Maybe. Or they'd form private armies to enforce a new feudalism once those businesses got bigger and power corrupted those enlightened businesspeople's minds. Hard to say until we see it, yes?

That's not taking into account the above mentioned continuing existence of a justice system that is entirely focused on the elimination of the initiation of aggression. If justice were entirely focused on actual crimes with victims, and the guiding principles of justice took into account and focused on the principles of the use of FORCE; People seeking to aggress against peaceful individuals would probably be pretty swiftly dealt with. Not to mention the fact that people in such a society would be free and happy, and not take too kindly to a business trying to become a bunch of thugs like the days of old when Governments ruled through aggression rather than voluntaryism.

"People seeking to aggress against peaceful individuals would probably be pretty swiftly dealt with." And how would they be dealt with, exactly? Police, prisons, or merely exile to the moon?

The same justice system, in concert with Dispute Resolution Organizations in the cases where there exists a contract, would demand restitution for unlawful actions. The law would be enforced by police. This might be a governmental police force, this might be several private competing police forces. The guiding principle of the overall law still being the abrogation of wrongfully initiated force.

sweet. private armies of business. sounds like an excellent world to live in.

I know right!? A totally peaceful place free of corporations where the ONLY driving motivation in business is to make people happy. The only way to succeed in business would be to actually work towards innovation, and with a justice system totally focused on preventing people from initiating force against one another, everyone would be voluntarily and mutually working towards each others benefit but with their own self interest at heart. With the means of "screwing people over" being eliminated by a system of justice totally focused on eliminating the use of force, it would be a win-win system designed with the basest of human instincts and drives in mind. It would be simplicity incarnate. Why have so many laws and regulations that no human being can ever read them in a lifetime, when you can have a justice system instead focused on ensuring that all interaction between people occurs on a voluntary basis.

« on: April 02, 2009, 05:22:41 PM »
A few weeks ago there was a show about money stamping.  People were talking about getting rubber stamps and what not to stamp money.

Well, I decided to put my melon to the task and realized that ALMOST EVERYONE potentially has a "rubber stamp" for their money.

annnnd here it is.

Step 1 is to print this image, and it will generate a template, becuase it will print the exact size of a dollar onto a sheet of your printer paper.

Step 2 is to securely affix a dollar bill to the rectangle you just printed, so that it is as well aligned over that rectangle as possible.

Step 3 is to print this image over the dollar bill.
(Make sure you know how your printer prints to the paper in your paper feeder... Which side is the TOP of the sheet, and which way is up?  I figured this out by drawing an arrow on a sheet pointing into the printer on both sides, labeling one side top, and one side bottom. )

I taped the bill to the template by rolling up little wads of tape so that it was sticky on both sides, and then affixing those to four corners of the template, then pressing down firmly to affix the one dollar bill.

I used MS PAINT to open these images, and I think Windows opens all JPEGS by default as 96dpi (even though this JPEG is actually 300dpi) so you need to go to PAGE SETUP and set your print SCALE to 32%.

Step 4 (optional) Make your own templates using mine as a starting point. Mine isn't really that great and could easily be improved upon with some playing.

General / history of the website
« on: March 27, 2009, 05:03:49 PM »
There is the thread in the creative team forum (a hidden board) that I was told recently was pretty cool just for it's historical value, so I figured I would share that information with the rest of the BBS.

As a little history of the site

The original Clear Channel site was a sort of form factor for all their radio talk shows. The header of this site was entirely designed by clear channel. Ian added some content below that.

When Free Talk Live spun off from clear channel, Ian copied the original website, and really, the only art direction from me was to add some spacing and try to get Ian to adopt a color scheme. He chose the gold and blue.

The third version of the site was still clipart heavy. Ian and I decided that Free Talk Live needed an official logo, and that it was time to stop using a clipart dude with wily hair in place of an actual logo. It was requested I try to work "The Caller" into the logo. Later I tried to help guide him to clean it up and integrate the new logo graphics... Ian had sort of abandoned the idea of a color scheme in favor of just making anything he wanted to stand out red.

So, I roped him in again, and refocused on the colors. I gave him a new color to use as a "highlight" color that was more in tune with the rest of the site. I added a header back into the design and added a little more structure to the site. (The header looks REALLY dated now though) I really tried to drop the hammer on using a limited color palette in order to make the site more readable in the data areas and let the 'busy'ness be in the advertisement areas. Made a few buttons for the content feeds  -etc

A possible future addition to the Free Talk Live site design MAY look something like this:


but I think that since I created that, a lot has changed... and there are quite a few areas I would make a little more simplified, I also think there are several typographic changes I would like to make by increasing the size, and changing the placement of certain elements. Overall though, the next redesign will focus on readability and ease of use.

The Polling Pit / How do YOU think the BBS should be run?
« on: October 26, 2008, 07:13:02 PM »
Choose any options you agree with.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4

Page created in 0.063 seconds with 168 queries.