- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
The Three Letter Agencies???
It's not called a PSYOP because it sounds cool.
Psychological operations are used on your enemy to affect their thinking and actions.
If a PSYOP is being used on the American people, that makes us the enemy.
Wake up people.
all they own should be confiscated to pay back they stole from
Why waste a perfectly good body when you can force it to work and pay the victims back?
Tell elderly relatives not to answer any call from an unknown number, or anyone they don't know. If the caller leaves a voicemail claiming to be from a government agency, threatening to cut off their Social Security or Medicare, tell them to contact that agency and report a fraud call, because those agencies do not communicate by phone.
When some caller claims my computer is full of viruses I let them give me the instructions needed for them to mess up my Windows computer. But I'm running Linux here, now far down a road I started with Bell Labs Unix version 6. (Yes, I have the requisite bootleg copy of John Lions' commentary.) Fun, fun!
speaking with foreign (and apparently MidEast or
maybe Asiatic-Indian) accents, who identify themselves by English (or apparently Anglo-Saxon) names, such as "James", "Mark",etc. That sounds very fake.
Once in a while I'll try something like, "No, you're not James. I know you. You're my uncle's friend Krishna Gupta. I recognize your voice."
Pregnant women taken advantage of by evil white guys obviously - according to nearly every tv show and movie made since 2000.
of episodes criticizing the early 2000's Bush.
They used a surrogate character (who supported Bush) and gave that character "Mad Cow"
disease, which they treated like dementia.
(Irony that their man Buydem was the actual dementia patient.)
I wondered what they'd do for plots after Obama was elected.
What did they do?
They cancelled the show.
Time to cancel D.C. permanently.
Mostly the "Your computer is throwing an error".
At first, I QUESTIONED them, they would hang up.
But the calls STOPPED after I Played dumb, and PRETENDED to boot my computer. Which took me FOREVER. I would just put the phone down, and do other stuff. And wait for them to compain.
"Sorry... I had to get the power cord out of the closet". I had ONE of them on the phone for almost 40 minutes. When the computer finally booted and they asked me what the screen said, and I replied:
MS-DOS 5.0 Copyright Microsoft ...
"C:\ >"
The guy was PEEVED... He's like I need you to run Windows. How do you connect to the internet?
I replied "I don't connect to the internet, which is why I think you should fix my computer if it is contacting your server..."
I've had NO CALLS since the last 2 encounters wasted their time.
If you get them. KEEP Them on the call as long as possible. Mute the phone, and go about your business. It's still booting...
Because TIME is money for them!
https://lennytroll.com/
this is allowed to happen
the criminals support the system that allows them to prosper
look at what is happening with crime and democrat controlled places
All I had to do to obtain my prize of UNTOLD RICHES!!! was to give up my checking account number.
For some reason I never could remember my account number or remember where I put my checkbook so as to quote it.
Maybe it was because I felt cheated. Yeah, it just wasn't fair.
I wanted to meet that pretty brunette who in TV ads shows up with three dudes and an oversized check, helium-balloons and all the celebration trimmings.
my account is 1-2-3-4-5
same as my luggage combo
Sounding Caucasian with a deep northern accent, he said I won about half a million bucks from some government surplus bullSciuff plus some expensive sporty care I can't remember the make and model of. Likely because I did not believe it existed.
Yeah, the scammer was all friendly, asking what I've been doing and what I had for lunch, blah, blah, blah, and all that.
Finally, he told me I needed to wire $750 from one Walmart to one in El Paso, Texas. I told him that's baloney and hung up on him .
He called me back to scream, "We need to talk like big men! Big men!"
I hung up on him again, laughing at his greedy criminal ass.
Hope he was really upset due to telling his Mafia boss or whomever that he had really hooked a live one.
They said "We will send you the check, and you can wait until it clears... Then we will cash your check for the taxes..."
I called my bank. They said "Yeah, this is a scam. They got an insurance company check. And they replicate the checks. And print you one. It will clear. UNTIL about 2-4 weeks when it is reviewed, and discovered to be a fraudulent check. And then we have to give the money back, and we take it from your account. Leaving your balance negative..."
I asked... "Well, if you can do that for the insurance company... Why can't you do that and get my check back?"
He literally said "Because their fraud was against the insurance company. Not you. You paid them in good faith!" WTF?
But I quickly learned there are SO MANY scams. And they get better as the public gets educated.
I'm lucky to be here because the source of the fire was an electrical malfunction beneath my bed but I was attending a class before returning to my trailer home just to see it completely gutted.
Long story not short, the first page's very first and very ancient deep in BC quote in that book was about not ever trusting no one. Writer's country may have been ancient Greece but I can't recall.
But it is quite sad how this can happen.
States are now getting better at defending these.
Florida has many counties that will EMAIL you (if you register your email with the title), if/when changes are posted to your title.
I have no idea of what can be done to move things back in the right direction but identification of the origins of a problem is often helpful in correcting the problem.
What kind or bird is that in my backyard?
If there is no ruler, that doesn't mean there are no rules.
"order without power"
I'm an anarchist and I follow rules. The difference is that the rules I follow are logical and self-evident. However, I do ignore rules that don't actually follow from axioms logically and are just proclaimed by some self-imposed authority. That stupid shit needs to fuck off.
The owner of the road makes the rules. If I am to use their road, it makes sense that I follow their rules. On my own road, I make the rules.
I would not call those crashing your car anarchists. Those are just criminals. Damaging other people's property is not allowed by the rules.
Although I don't agree with all Ayn Rand's views, I was satisfied with Ayn Rand's view on radio spectrum allocation in her book "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal". Basically, she was proposing a system similar to one used in real estate (based on homesteading). Once you start using an unused frequency within a certain geographical domain, it is yours until you sell it to someone else or abandon it.
I would actually prefer an automated algorithmic collision avoidance system. Maybe even a packet switching one where you pay/get paid for sending/forwarding packets.
I did propose some rules above, however, in no way do I want to claim that these rules are true and valid. A formal proof is required to know for sure. Note the difference between this and your thinking in which you want the imposition of laws regardless of their validity.
In physics, there is no ruler to decree the laws of the universe. Those laws are derived with reasoning and experimentation. I want the same thing in the area of social interactions.
In physics nature is the fair, but absolutely strict, enforcer of inviolate laws. I do no think anything about physics is anarchy.
I do not think the complete absence of laws is feasible or more than a fairy tale in any positive sense. Big guys with the, and then big gangs, who have their own rules, will easily rule.
I do think all laws are social experiments, and your note about deriving and reasoning them (in physics) applies to social laws. If the scientific method was applied to laws and governance, every law is a hypothesis to be tested, and there should be an expected outcome with specific measures. If the outcome is false, the law should be withdrawn. That method, would really put a damper on the nonsense we push today.
Ayn's view of managing radio spectrums is silly. Each time the technology is developed to transmit on a frequency, the developer can just turn on the transmitter and own the frequency forever. Develop higher and higher frequency transmitters and own the entire spectrum. A monopoly would have been trivially developed from this model.
I think your analogy about physics is better stated as our understanding of physics, and laws as our understanding of social dynamics or "social physics". Then I think we agree considerably.
It is not about developing the technology. It is about owning the spectrum space in a 'trademark' sense. The ownership would go to the user of the frequency, not the developer. If a radio station gets launched and acquires a customer base, then the frequency AND geographical area it is transmitting on/in is assumed to be owned by the radio station. So, the same frequency can be used elsewhere if it does not interfere with the existing user. So the allocation would be not just frequency but also geographic. Additionally, there may be other things that go into it, such as damages. If a violator creates interference, the original user sues the violator for damages. However, if the transmissions have zero usefulness/value, the original user will not be able to collect much in damages.
So, in order for the developer to own the frequency, they would have to put transmitters all over the globe and the transmissions would need to be actually productive.
The principle can be generalized to all areas where there are 'commons'. For example, a pollution in a river would be disallowed because it interferes with an existing user of the resource (fishery/etc).
I wouldn't call any of this a monopoly. Exclusive right of use is property.
This ad hoc method already didn't work, and resulted in the Radio Frequency Act of 1912. Amateur operators and the Navy were stepping all over each other.
There are a variety of trivial issues, such as What geographic location does a ship get?
I can imagine all kinds of means this fails, just like not having driving rules. Collision avoidance has only been practical for ~20 years, if that. We have been driving for about 100 years. Clearly collision avoidance was not the means to enable rule-less driving.
'Amateur operators and the Navy were stepping all over each other'
Ya probably because the Navy didn't care to respect other people's rights and wanted their frequencies for themselves unconditionally.
A ship should have radio spectrum charts and should not interfere with existing users in the area.
A lot of this would be resolved by having some network protocol that allows interference, multiple users, etc, such as GPRS. I guess the ownership would be a bit fuzzy for such systems. Everyone would be allowed to join the network and forward data. Maybe one solution is to have each user constantly transmit on their own frequency that they would own and forward packets they receive from other frequencies using the same protocol.
Any interference should be resolved like any other conflicts - in court, with damages and legal fees paid by the party that is found to be guilty of violations of law.
One thing is for certain in my mind: delegating the job to come up with a solution for this problem to a criminal organization (the state) can never be the answer.
Sure court... First you have to find the person who did it, then you have to go through the court proceedings. The number of court cases would be 100 fold in this world you seek.
It is a little interesting to discuss hypotheticals, but this is getting silly.
You discuss establishing a government but simply by any other name. The leader of a gang is no different than an elected leader. There is no group of 100% consent. That is just a fairy tale. Maybe write a book.
If by government you mean 'a state', then no, I would be against that.
However, you may say I am proposing a universal 'final solution' decentralized 'government' system in which nobody has special powers.
My system guarantees there would be 100% consent. How? By having all laws follow from axioms that 100% agree with. To not consent would be to make a logical mistake. This does also mean that a lot of lustful dreams of power seeking individuals would be unattainable, and that is a good thing.
I expect my suspicion regarding the righteousness of the above approach would be confirmed with a formal proof. If not, maybe something better would be revealed. One thing is for certain, it is not going to be managed by a non-voluntary organization backed by unjustified force because obviously that is immoral.
There is an analogue to that test that was done with land. Unfortunately, it wasn't set up exactly in the same way, but still, it is a good example to look at. I am not a historian, but let me try to recall what happened. As I understand, initially in the US one could homestead land to turn it into their property. I believe this system still exists to this day. When national parks were created, there was plenty of land left. So, that means not all land was turned into private property. So, my conclusion is that a test for that system did actually succeed.
I never said I was against rules or working with others. I am only against granting special groups of people special powers to decree rules. Rules can be arrived at by other more fair means.
As I understand it, the word originated from Greek 'anarkhia' that means 'lack of leader' or something like that. I am going to ignore the incorrect definition as purposely misleading. Clearly, 'no leader' does not mean 'lawlessness' because obviously laws exist by themselves and don't need a leader to make them so. Raping, pillaging, killing, stealing, etc is wrong at all times, no matter whether there is a government or not. Absence of laws cannot exist. Morality simply doesn't vanish when there is no government. Laws are not something that pop up when you write them down. Similarly to physical laws, social laws exists whether you know about them or not.
It is my understanding that the statists have hijacked the concept of law to claim that they are the sole source of law and order. They did it so that they would be allowed to break the actual law by introducing exceptions for themselves. These are parasites we are talking about. It is similar to how a corrupt accountant might take over the role of managing company finances so that they can skim. The statists take over the law making/enforcement part of society so that they can violate the true law without anybody noticing.
It is true that there are parasites (criminals, gangs, etc) in society that may end up taking over. However, I would argue that has already happened! The government is the biggest gang. Statism is basically indistinguishable from organized crime. So, you want to escape gangs by giving control of society over to a gang. That doesn't make any sense.
If you truly want protection from gangs, you need to get it from an organization that is NOT gang-like. This organization would have to have certain properties that immediately disqualifies governments, such as adherence to voluntarism and the non-aggression principle. Show me a government that does this.
I agree, government, like all collections of power, can be corrupt, because people are corrupt. It seems to me you just want to call your collection of power something other than government to support your point. I'd rather just say that government power should be minimized, and people should ALWAYS be able to take any power away.
Communication is to get an idea out of one person's head and into another persons. It is unhelpful to chose words that mean something different to different people and then argue about meanings. One might as well speak Esperanto, a canonical language, because it is better, but no one will understand.
I can not see a mechanism to appropriately interact without some level of agreements to interacting. Driving is a perfect example. We benefit (everyone's standard of living is higher) from simple rules of the road. Radio spectrum allocation is another. It need not be the FCC, but ad hoc does not work.
My proposal is to have logic/math be the source of law, not some entity with 'special' privileges. This way, the logic is the same from everyone's point of view and there are no masters.
Defense/law enforcement should then be provided by anyone doing business as a defense service provider. They would not be allowed to decree laws and would have to use the derived law proven to exist and widely accepted to be valid.
Judges and courts would exist but would be more of arbiters rather than guys in robes with special abilities.
Obviously, there is no society which I am aware of that attained perfect freedom. So, I would not be able to show you a good enough example. Every society has parasites and rent seekers. However, I think United States is one example which approached my ideal at some points in history.
This is very silly. I am an engineer. I wouldn't even let most educated engineers do a bolted joint design departing from standard practice, and that is relatively simple and well-immersed in logic and physics.
Maybe write a book about how Vulcan is maintained without rules or rulers.
Ok, let's get "your (anarchy) idea clearly stated".
- No government. I assert this also means no group leaders, which would be government.
- Therefore all rules are agreed to by all individual parties participating in the thing (roadway, market, communication, transaction, pollution, on and on).
- All issues/grievances are resolved in courts, which you propose are private, not public.
Is this right? Is there more?
Slavery is a type of relationship between two parties of unequal rights. One party is allowed to control the actions of another but not the reverse.
This situation exists in the relationship between a state and a person residing in its territory. The state is able to decree laws while the person has no such right. The state is able to arrest a person but a person is not allowed to arrest a representative of the state.
Therefore, statism is slavery.
Are you going to deny and ignore my line of reasoning?
Slavery is when one party owns another.
In addition Government can not "control the actions" of people. It can set penalties for behaviors outside prescribed limits. Representative governments can be changed when the people do not like the prescribed limits. This is less slavery than even childhood is slavery.
Not even close. Government is not slavery because it doesn't have the most fundamental features of slavery.
Ownership = exclusive right of use. The word 'exclusive' gives you a hint that this right exist in relationship between a slave owner and another slave owner. It does not say anything about the right between a slave owner and a slave.
You are splitting hairs. I can also say that a master does not control the actions of the slave, but only punish it for not doing its bidding. It is basically the same thing.
Childhood IS slavery, but maybe only partially and probably justified. A child does not have complete agency. It is like saying a rock is your slave. Ya, a rock doesn't have agency so maybe it is not so bad.
Give me a fucking brake, man. Direct observation of the relationship between a master and a slave shows a same relationship as one between a state and its citizens. Taxation is slavery. Military draft is slavery. Any idiot can see this.
Taking property away from slaves is wrong. If you allow slaves to vote for a representative that will be in charge of the stealing, that does not suddenly make it right. You cannot delegate to a representative rights that you yourself do not have. Representative governments change nothing.
I agree taxation is inappropriate, at least percentage and graduated taxation. Just paying for services is fine, just like my tennis club. I agree, you can not delegate rights to a representative government that you do not have. But you can vote by proxy, just like I do for stocks sometimes.
You are convincing me that we agree about many things, but not that government is slavery.
Maybe an abstract idea of 'government' in a sense that a society is being brought to order in some fashion is not slavery. However, the current way of doing that via the state is in fact slavery due to the way it is set up.
I have absolutely no problem with requiring people to pay for services. However, I also require that:
1. They must have the choice to refuse to use the service and therefore refuse to pay for it.
2. There must not be an enforced monopoly by the provider of the service. The state does not have the right to prevent a competitor from existing to provide the same service.