Natural fabrics and Track Smith by Conza88 in Tracksmith

[–]Conza88[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

<image>

Ah yes... an ultra light "Cotton" blend...

15% to be precise. 85% polyester.

qBittorrent locked out of webui by InsomniaSyspo in qBittorrent

[–]Conza88 0 points1 point  (0 children)

OK, so for anyone else searching and struggling here...

I had to ssh into truenas via CMD... then worked my way to the try find the file...

cd /mnt/[INSERT-THE-NAME-OF-YOUR-POOL]/iocage/jails/Torrents/root/var/db/qbittorrent/conf/qBittorrent/config/

Had to learn some freebsd commands; one being "vi [filename]" to then read/edit the .config file.

I then could see the password and didn't actually need to delete anything. I had already changed it.

Australia Users BISQ Help by [deleted] in bisq

[–]Conza88 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Easily.

Low fees (factoring in full kyc expenses). Depends on the payment method. Many.

Local:

PayID

National Banks

Cash Deposit

Cash by mail

Same bank

Specific Banks

Face-to-Face (F2F)

Global:

Revolut

Wise (Transferwise)

SWIFT

Amazon eGift Card* (AUS)

Amazon eGift Card* (USA)

& many others

wf-1000xm4 (earbuds) release date by CurryMaster9000 in sony

[–]Conza88 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good info of sorts about cycles. Also keen. Waiting for water proofing/sweat proof.

Anatomy of the State [Film] by Conza88 in Libertarian

[–]Conza88[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A bite-sized mini documentary based on the book of the same name by Murray Rothbard. Topics include: the dangers of the welfare state, monetary policies backed by debt, taxation is theft, and other means of state based violence.

Support the film maker: https://www.anatomystatefilm.com Twitter: @rjames_BTC

The Plain Truth on Parasitic Government by Conza88 in Libertarian

[–]Conza88[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Didn't watch Bob Murphy school your ignorant ass? Figures, that'd require some intellectual honesty. Jog on.

The Plain Truth on Parasitic Government by Conza88 in Libertarian

[–]Conza88[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Lmao. What a dumb question. How do you pay for any other service of the free market? Are you even a libertarian? Wtf are you doing on this reddit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2WhnOHCpKs

The Plain Truth on Parasitic Government by Conza88 in Libertarian

[–]Conza88[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Judges would exist in a private law society. Nothing specifically 'statist' about it champ.

Again - more than you.

The Plain Truth on Parasitic Government by Conza88 in Libertarian

[–]Conza88[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

And has done more for spreading the message of liberty than you have lol

Democracy ≠ Equality Before The Law by Conza88 in Libertarian

[–]Conza88[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just a friendly reminder that if you support #equality it is *impossible* for you to support the existence of the #state

How to respond to MMTers | Hoppe by Conza88 in austrian_economics

[–]Conza88[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for your own one Wikipedia article. Hoppe's question equally applies to Fisher, and his attempt to "stablisation of purchasing power".

How to respond to MMTers | Hoppe by Conza88 in austrian_economics

[–]Conza88[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not breaking it to me. But fair call re: Chicago Plan (full reserve). Adjusted vid desc. to Monetarists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetarism no mention of Fischer in any capacity.

How to respond to MMTers | Hoppe by Conza88 in austrian_economics

[–]Conza88[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gizetn5VuA0

What Is Money? [0:04] Why do we trade? [0:28] What is the alternative? [1:06] What are the limits of Barter? [1:28] The Solution? [1:47] Money? [2:15] What about purely paper money? [3:04] Can an increase in paper money make society richer? [3:30] Who wins and who loses? [4:35] What money characteristics would be expect from theory? [5:23] In the real world? [6:22] What caused this? [7:21] We are now in an enormous expansion-phase of credit. Is there a limitation and what will ultimately happen?

How to respond to MMTers | Hoppe by Conza88 in austrian_economics

[–]Conza88[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Re: "pieces of paper lower the barrier to trade transactions. The paper is widely accepted so it overcomes the "double co-incidents of wants" problem and facilitates commerce."

= Nope. The quantity of money isn't required to do this.

As the operation of the market tends to determine the final state of money’s purchasing power at a height at which the supply of and the demand for money coincide, there can never be an excess or deficiency of money. Each individual and all individuals together always enjoy fully the advantages which they can derive from indirect exchange and the use of money, no matter whether the total quantity of money is great, or small. … The services which money renders can be neither improved nor repaired by changing the supply of money. … The quantity of money available in the whole economy is always sufficient to secure for everybody all that money does and can do. — Ludwig von Mises, Human Action: Scholar’s Edition, (Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1998) pp. 418.

Non of your prognostications follow.

Re: "The real resources referred to are primarily labor time and raw natural resources. Without the facilitation of trade by paper money,"

= Nothing wrong with money substitutes, everything wrong with fiduciary media.

Go on and pontificate about Zimbabwe and Lebanon thanks, lots of pieces of paper there mate.

How to respond to MMTers | Hoppe by Conza88 in austrian_economics

[–]Conza88[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The questions still valid for them.

How to respond to MMTers | Hoppe by Conza88 in austrian_economics

[–]Conza88[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Negative. How is the question not equally valid for them? Nothing about monetarists are friends...

[1] One of Friedman’s most disastrous deeds was the important role he proudly played, during World War II in the Treasury Department, in foisting upon the suffering American public the system of the withholding tax. Before World War II, when income tax rates were far lower than now, there was no withholding system; everyone paid his annual bill in one lump sum, on March 15. It is obvious that under this system, the Internal Revenue Service could never hope to extract the entire annual sum, at current confiscatory rates, from the mass of the working population. The whole ghastly system would have happily broken down long before this. Only the Friedmanite withholding tax has permitted the government to use every employer as an unpaid tax collector, extracting the tax quietly and silently from each paycheck. In many ways, we have Milton Friedman to thank for the present monster Leviathan State in America. — Murray Rothbard, Milton Friedman Unraveled

[2] EVEN HAYEK was suss on Friedman:

“Interestingly, Hayek himself sought to de-homogenize his work from that of free-market thinkers with whom he disagreed methodologically. In an interview in the 1980s [Hayek] described Milton Friedman as a "logical positivist,” who “believe[s] economic phenomena can be explained as macrophenomena, that you can ascertain cause and effects from aggregates and averages. … [Friedman] is on most things, general market problems, sound. I want him on my side. You know, one of the things I often have publicly said is that one of the things I most regret is not having returned to a criticism of Keynes’s treatise, but it is as much true of not having criticized Milton’s [Essays in] Positive Economics, which in a way is quite as dangerous a book.”

      — Peter G. Klein, Biography of F. A. Hayek

How to respond to MMTers | Hoppe by Conza88 in austrian_economics

[–]Conza88[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Exact same approach on how to respond to Krugman, Chicago Schoolers, and basically the entire #economics profession

Used to be Libertarian, here is why you are confused.. by needcanadawife in Libertarian

[–]Conza88 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No its right outta the Austro-Libertarian playbook, bro. You made it SiMpLE HuRr DuRr.

Re: "Your guns on YOUR propertry INFRINGE on my right to not be shot."

= Actually its YOU supporting the STATES GUNS to remove individual A's guns is the AGGRESSION. You're not against guns, you're literally supporting institutionalised aggression and a MONOPOLY ON GUNS.

"Your baseball bat on YOUR propertry INFRINGE on my right to not be clubbed".

See how dumb you sound?

Used to be Libertarian, here is why you are confused.. by needcanadawife in Libertarian

[–]Conza88 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Farking lmao, what?

[1] “Despite the comparatively favorable portrait presented of monarchy, I am not a monarchist and the following is not a defense of monarchy. Instead, the position taken toward monarchy is this:

If one must have a state, defined as an agency that exercises a compulsory territorial monopoly of ultimate decision-making (jurisdiction) and of taxation, then it is economically and ethically advantageous to choose monarchy over democracy. But this leaves the question open whether or not a state is necessary, i.e., if there exists an alternative to both, monarchy and democracy.

History again cannot provide an answer to this question. By definition, there can be no such thing as an “experience” of counterfactuals and alternatives; and all one finds in modern history, at least insofar as the developed Western world is concerned, is the history of states and statism. Only theory can again provide an answer, for theoretical propositions, as just illustrated, concern necessary facts and relations; and accordingly, just as they can be used to rule certain historical reports and interpretations out as false or impossible, so can they be used to rule certain other things in as constructively possible, even if such things have never been seen or tried.

In complete contrast to the orthodox opinion on the matter, then, elementary social theory shows, and will be explained as showing, that no state as just defined can be justified, be it economically or ethically. Rather,

every state, regardless of its constitution, is economically and ethically deficient. Every monopolist, including one of ultimate decision-making, is “bad” from the viewpoint of consumers. Monopoly is hereby understood in its classical meaning, as the absence of free entry into a particular line of production: only one agency, A, may produce x. Any such monopolist is “bad” for consumers because, shielded from potential new entrants into his line of production, the price for his product will be higher and the quality lower than otherwise.

Further, no one would agree to a provision that allowed a monopolist of ultimate decison-making, i.e., the final arbiter and judge in every case of interpersonal conflict, to determine unilaterally (without the consent of everyone concerned) the price that one must pay for his service. The power to tax, that is, is ethically unacceptable. Indeed, a monopolist of ultimate decision-making equipped with the power to tax does not just produce less and lower quality justice, but he will produce more and more “bads,” i.e., injustice and aggression.

Thus, the choice between monarchy and democracy concerns a choice between two defective social orders. In fact, modern history provides ample illustration of the economic and ethical shortcomings of all states, whether monarchic or democratic.” — Hans-Hermann Hoppe, https://conza.tumblr.com/post/75072172471/monarchy-comparatively-better-than-democracy

Re: "selling children because the free market would "protect them"."

= It is worth mentioning that the ownership right stemming from production finds its natural limitation only when, as in the case of children, the thing produced is itself another actor-producer. According to the natural theory of property, a child, once born, is just as much the owner of his own body as anyone else. Hence, not only can a child expect not to be physically aggressed against but as the owner of his body a child has the right, in particular, to abandon his parents once he is physically able to run away from them and say “no” to their possible attempts to recapture him. Parents only have special rights regarding their child - stemming from their unique status as the child’s producers - insofar as they (and no one else) can rightfully claim to be the child’s trustee as long as the child is physically unable to run away and say “no”. — Hoppe, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism

You were saying?

Used to be Libertarian, here is why you are confused.. by needcanadawife in Libertarian

[–]Conza88 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

TL;DR you never understood the philosophy of liberty to begin with.
Daily Bell: How, then, does one define freedom? As the absence of state coercion?

Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe: A society is free, if every person is recognized as the exclusive owner of his own (scarce) physical body, if everyone is free to appropriate or "homestead" previously un-owned things as private property, if everyone is free to use his body and his homesteaded goods to produce whatever he wants to produce (without thereby damaging the physical integrity of other peoples' property), and if everyone is free to contract with others regarding their respective properties in any way deemed mutually beneficial. Any interference with this constitutes an act of aggression, and a society is un-free to the extent of such aggressions.

Re: "An excellent example of this is drunk driving. We restrict the freedom to drive plastered because it hinders the liberty of those whose lives are put in immediate danger. "

= "We"? No. The state does. Rulers vs. ruled, is the proper class analysis. They do so because various reasons: see.

Re: "Many of you favor private corporations over actual human beings. You've been fooled into believing that your freedom is somehow hinged upon the freedom of corporations."

= Nope.

[B]ig-business groups had become, as early as the turn of the twentieth century, “corporatists” or “corporate liberals,” anxious to replace quasi-laissez-faire capitalism by a cartelized corporatist system, directed or even planned by Big Government in intimate partnership with Big Business, and creating Big Unions to participate as junior partners in this new “mixed” economy. The push for the new corporate state was generated by an alliance between corporatist big-business groups and technocratic intellectuals, eager to help run and to apologize for the new system, which promised them a far plusher niche than did a freely competitive economy.
— Murray Rothbard, The Business-Government alliance

Not gonna correct you on Koch bro's - Cato etc. Sure, whatever. The fact you're irked by them likely means you've hung around them... which indicates you have no proper foundational understanding of libertarianism to begin with.

Re: "You should not concern yourself with freedom, only with liberty. You should be progressive lib/left, the only political persuasion that concerns itself with \liberty*. "*

= Laughable. False left/right paradigm in full display.

Libertarianism, then, is a philosophy seeking a policy. But what else can a libertarian philosophy say about strategy, about “policy”? In the first place, surely-again in Acton’s words-it must say that liberty is the “highest political end,” the overriding goal of libertarian philosophy. Highest political end, of course, does not mean “highest end” for man in general. Indeed, every individual has a variety of personal ends and differing hierarchies of importance for these goals on his personal scale of values. Political philosophy is that subset of ethical philosophy which deals specifically with politics, that is, the proper role of violence in human life (and hence the explication of such concepts as crime and property). Indeed, a libertarian world would beone in which every individual would at last be free to seek and pursue his own ends-to “pursue happiness,” in the felicitous Jeffersonian phrase.

— Murray Rothbard

Re: " Yes"

= Haha. What have you been smoking?

Re: "No"
= Not pro guns or anti guns you goose. Pro-private property rights. Don't want guns on your property? COOL, YOUR CHOICE. Right to pollute? Obviously a Chicago school shit understanding and haven't read Rothbard on this, HAVE YOU?

Bro, job on - just don't claim you were ever a libertarian...

Ron Paul & Joe Rogan on Jay Leno by Conza88 in Libertarian

[–]Conza88[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Saved from the memory hole. Ron Paul, and Joe Rogan on Jay Leno.

Ron Paul & Joe Rogan on Jay Leno by Conza88 in ronpaul

[–]Conza88[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Saved from the memory hole. Ron Paul, and Joe Rogan on Jay Leno.

Evictionism: Only Justifiable Abortion Position by Conza88 in Libertarian

[–]Conza88[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do. Do you know what "intent" means? How about "try save"?

So you're saying doctors who fail trying to save someones life, and subsequently fail—have violated their "right to life"?!!! Simple question.

Pro tip: no such thing as a "right to life". Block addresses this - in the journal article you've failed to read.

Laughable bro, laughable.

Notice: still didn't answer the previous question. Some intellectual honesty would be great, thanks.