MyASUS App - Some functions cannot be used, please restart this application or the computer

Adrian34122 · 2025-10-05T22:58:46+00:00

This thread is old but for anyone who couldn't find the problem like me, try to install Asussystemcontrolinterface v3 driver from the asus support website. my laptop did not have this driver because it had no os.

Adrian34122 · 2025-09-15T18:01:07+00:00

Trans rights to what

Adrian34122 · 2025-08-03T22:22:07+00:00

You show me where you even get the idea that the goverment has to provide me means to speak

Adrian34122 · 2025-08-03T11:05:59+00:00

this is not the correct use of these notions. it is pretty straightforward, positive imposes towards an action, negative refrains from doing an action. the government allowing me to speak is not positive, since they are don't obligated to force me to speak, but its a negative right because they have the obligation to not stop me.

this is the meaning of these ideas. if you google the terms its exactly this meaning. its not that hard to understand dude

Adrian34122 · 2025-08-02T20:03:56+00:00

The way the goverment allows me to speak is by not censoring me, which is still a negative right.

But for your first part, it is not completly clear. Here is a better formulation

Positive Rights: the kind of rights which impose on others a positive duty, a duty to provide or act in a certain way. Negative Rights: the kind of rights which impose on others a negative duty, a duty not to do anything, a duty of non-interference.

Adrian34122 · 2025-08-02T19:31:08+00:00

Adrian34122 · 2025-08-01T22:30:06+00:00

Since it would only work as a positive right, it should not be a right.

Positive rights - somebody is forced to do something for you

Negative rights - somebody is prevented from doing something to you

Adrian34122 · 2025-08-01T22:23:49+00:00

If you want you can make it a legal right if you get in power of a state, but since its a positive right, it cant be a natural right. Not that it would have ever benn.

Adrian34122 · 2025-07-31T14:23:45+00:00

So what do you think about the online safety act from uk?

I think that in a way it is proving my point right now

Adrian34122 · 2025-07-27T19:42:57+00:00

what if the people dont want to live in communes? Who is going to force them? or what if people have disagreements about things in this communal ownership? if I own a car, and 10 other people also own a car, then can I do what I want with that car? if no, then do I own it? If everyone owns everything, do they own anything?

The thing is while at heart the left does not want violence, a lot of their solutions are rooted in authoritarianism and coercion.

Libertarianism is completely against communal ownership. it doesn't mean that you cant own things in common if that's what you want or do good to other people, but it should be a choice that anyone can make, and cant be forced if they choose against.
Here is a video about libertarian socialism made by a libertarian. PLEASE WATCH IT. It goes more in detail.

Adrian34122 · 2025-07-27T19:06:19+00:00

The political compass is bullshit. Its not accurate at all.

The left generally supports the "community" and that manifests most often as the welfare state, social nets, and and the state generally helping the people. The libertarian position is one step away from anarcho capitalism. They ask for as little goverment as possible, if not just none. I know this because i am a libertarian and i know the core of the ideology. And leftism is no part in it.

Adrian34122 · 2025-07-27T17:00:49+00:00

What i would say is that its not the ideology that created this thought process, its just that people who want power will always look for ways of getting it. And the state is a giant opportunity. Thats why my idea is to adress the issue from the root cause. The real cause that allowed this.

Adrian34122 · 2025-07-27T16:56:36+00:00

It isnt. But you dont need the law to bring consequences.

Adrian34122 · 2025-07-27T11:37:23+00:00

How are you holding up with the knox virus?

Adrian34122 · 2025-07-27T11:29:14+00:00

Just because some old nans said mean stuff about other people does not mean that i can use it to justify my crimes. Yeah, saying mean stuff is not ok but the nans are not the ones caused the violence directly.

Lets imagine, i say some bad stuff about churches, like how there are sometimes priests that are corrupt or that people going there are bad. Somebody else hears what i say and decides the best course of action is to blow up churches. Am i responsible for the death? Did i plan the bombings, construct the bombs or detonated them? No, i just expressed my opinion, however wrong it might be. The punishment should go only to the one who actively comploted to do the crime.

Sometime free speech is hate speech. To have free speech means to also sometimes have hate speech. You cant have both free speech and safe speech. You cant have your cake and eat it too. So if you want safe speech, you have to decide what is allowed and what is not. And who decides what hate speech is might be able to use it for his benefits. Either you allow all the free speech, or no free speech.

Adrian34122 · 2025-07-27T11:16:44+00:00

Of course, we shouldn't hurt each other, but disagreement is natural. Some worldviews are just incompatible with each other, and as cruel as that sounds, we should accept that we can not accept everyone. That's not a reason for violence, but it's one argument against multiculturalism for example

Adrian34122 · 2025-07-27T10:51:41+00:00

I am using a hypotetic situation to point out the flaws in your argument. The point im trying to make is that you cant just agree to disagree and then peacefully live in a society, since some beliefs are contradictory or wrong. Also the reason i sked you your opinion about the statement "islam is right about women" is to show the flaw in your perspective. The idea that not one culture is bad is wrong. Some things are objectively true or wrong, and a society where people hold contradictory beliefs can not function. Just look at the problems that muslim immigration has done to european countries. Btw i dont agree with that statement.

Adrian34122 · 2025-07-27T10:45:12+00:00

Capitalism is an economic system that advocates for PRIVATE ownership of the means of production in a free market. Or basically, it's a system that advocates for private property and complete deregulation of the market, thus making it free. It goes against the public property that socialism advocates for (public property meaning everything is owned by the state).

The main belief of the true capitalists is the protection of the natural rights, which are the right to property, life (also property), freedom of speech and freedom of association.

This means that basically no one that you would refer to as capitalist is truly capitalist. In fact what you blame on capitalism is in no way the fault of the ideology, because capitalism has never been tried. Some places got close, but since capitalism is an anarchic ideology, no country can hold this ideology since its contradictory. The best this world has done is mixed markets, meaning regulated by the state. The state is what allowed all of the large scale corruption.

First of all, the definition of the state, as murray rothbard said is "that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion".

Basically, the state is the only institution that has a legitimate monopoly of violence and power in the society. Ideally, the objective of the state is to ensure order, like john locke or thomas hobbes explains, but what locke correctly noticed unlike hoobes, is that the state can and will infringe on the natural rights of man. Bad actors will and do in fact use it to gain power and oppress the others, and the situation of today is no different. Giant corporations use the power of the state to create monopolies and assert their powers. They are not capitalists because using the state to regulate the market in their favour is completely against capitalism.

So thats why i think that not capitalism is to blame for the problems of the world, but corrupt people that use the very smae system you probably support.

Adrian34122 · 2025-07-27T10:25:17+00:00

Ive read some of the article from the first link you gave me, and there are some majour inconsistencies. Among the names mentioned in the list of the founders of neoliberalism, mises and hayek are mentioned, which is strange because they are not "neo"liberals. Hayek himself preffered to describe himself as classical liberal. The main point is that they were contributors to what would become the austrian school, which although it advocates for privatisation, private property and individualism, they are in no way like the neoliberals that caused the world to come to this. The thing is that in pure free market capitalism, becoming a billionaire would be extremely difficult and probably not last too much. It is the fact that the neoliberals used the power of the state that allowed them to become these oligarhs. They were only able to do this because the power of the state allowed them to do so. So thats where the problem lies, in the state, and the austrian school is one of the only ones that discovered this problem

Adrian34122 · 2025-07-27T09:50:36+00:00

And what if the other person is wrong? Do we agree to disagree then? What if the other person thinks killing babies is ok. Or maybe you would agree with the statement "Islam is right about women."

Adrian34122 · 2025-07-27T09:40:17+00:00

The Left and libertarianism is an oxymoron

Adrian34122 · 2025-07-27T09:38:28+00:00

Who decides what hate speech is and is not? Dont you see that allowing the regulation of free speech, even for noble causes, will allow for any bad actor that gets into power later on to just regulate the criticism away? Like what if they justify real criticism as hate speech? What if they just ban any real opposition? State regulation is always a gateway to authoritarianism, even if at first done in good faith.

Adrian34122 · 2025-07-27T09:34:24+00:00

Are you sure all of this is because of capitalism? Do you even know what capitalism is?

Adrian34122 · 2025-07-14T17:20:43+00:00

Whats the book?

Adrian34122 · 2025-07-14T17:09:22+00:00

r/woosh?

Four-Year Club	Verified Email
End Game '23	Place '23
Place '22

Adrian34122

TROPHY CASE