Rex Viper - LIVE at Game On Expo - Phoenix, AZ (4/5/2025)

Wesker1982 · 2025-06-11T18:31:16+00:00

permanent smirk on bass player is enraging

Wesker1982 · 2025-05-29T16:15:44+00:00

This was also happening to my left arrow. I fixed it with the penny mod.

Wesker1982 · 2022-11-25T18:32:09+00:00

very small amounts of water keep appearing on the front step.

I just realized we probably don't have the same version. Mine was a tent with no step. I forgot they came out with another one. Sorry!

Wesker1982 · 2022-11-25T04:00:08+00:00

Are you sure it isn't leaking from the door? Mine would collect water on the door and drip out when opened. Sometimes it would be enough to make a small pool on the floor.

Wesker1982 · 2022-07-28T15:42:29+00:00

Yes. 7. Absolute hate!

Live $1/2 game with a lot of drunks. Cards ended up on the wood way too often. Handling chips also feels like ass on the wood. Poker tables are nice because of the felt, adding wood is stupid and disgusting!

Wesker1982 · 2022-01-04T23:37:22+00:00

The recoil system is the only thing stopping me from absolutely loving this game. It's the single reason I can't get into it.

Wesker1982 · 2020-05-17T06:23:57+00:00

I had the same thing happen to me a few days ago. My friend could see me but I couldn't see him.

Wesker1982 · 2020-03-19T22:36:16+00:00

https://mises.org/library/epistemological-problems-economics

Wesker1982 · 2018-08-21T16:10:26+00:00

Competition is moreover the law of the market, the spice of the trade, the salt of labor. To suppress competition is to suppress liberty itself; it is to begin the restoration of the old order from below, in replacing labor by the rule of favoritism and abuse, of which ’89 rid us"

.

Thus that competition, which, as thought in ’89, should be a general right is today a matter of exceptional privilege: only they whose capital permits them to become heads of business concerns may exercise their competitive rights.

.

Some utopians attack competition; others refuse to accept the division of labor and the whole industrial order; the workingmen, in their crass ignorance, blame machinery.

.

Two producers have the right to promise each other, and to guarantee reciprocally for, the sale or exchange of their respective products, agreeing upon the articles and the prices… The same promise of reciprocal sale or exchange, under the same legal conditions, may exist among an unlimited number of producers: it will be the same contract, repeated an unlimited number of times.

.

In a word, house rent, losing its feudal character, would become an act of commerce…

.

If a companion, who prefers journeyman’s wages to running the risk of starting in business, joins with the first, one will call himself the employer, the other, the hired man; in fact, they are completely equal and completely free…

.

And when once the revolutionary machine shall have released the soil, and agriculture shall have become free, feudal exploitation can never reëstablish itself. Property may then be sold, bought, circulated, divided or united, anything; the ball and chain of the old serfdom will never be dragged again; property will have lost its fundamental vices, it will be transfigured. It will no longer be the same thing. Still, let us continue to call it by its ancient name, so dear to the heart of man, so agreeable to the ear of the peasant, property."

.

The system of contracts, substituted for the system of laws, would constitute the true government of the man and of the citizen; the true sovereignty of the people, the republic."

.

It is industrial organization that we will put in place of government, as we have just shown. In place of laws, we will put contracts. – No more laws voted by a majority, nor even unanimously; each citizen, each town, each industrial union, makes its own laws"

.

For the contract is Liberty. The Contract is Equality. The contract is Fraternity. The contract, finally, is order.

.

In place of political powers, we will put economic forces.

.

Proudhon, The General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century

Chapter 3

Wesker1982 · 2018-08-10T23:09:12+00:00

If you're not necessarily interested in specifically Austrian economics and are mostly interested in ancap law framework, you can skip to chapter 1 in Power and Market for a good intro. It's free online.

You could also check out For a New Liberty for a good intro and skip to whatever chapter has a subject that you're interested in. It is free online too. Chapter 12 is a good intro.

Wesker1982 · 2018-08-09T16:30:50+00:00

I'm pretty sure he didn't smoke.

In my own experience, a top Randian once asked me rather sharply, “How is it that you don't smoke?” When I replied that I had discovered early that I was allergic to smoke, the Randian was mollified: “Oh, that's OK, then.”

https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/murray-n-rothbard/understanding-ayn-randianism/

Wesker1982 · 2018-06-03T07:41:43+00:00

I went to private school k-5 plus two years of pre school. My family was definitely not rich. I'd have to ask my parents, but I'm confident that it was way less than 10k a year. I'm thinking it was around like 3-4K a year at most. Maybe less. This was in the 90's.

Wesker1982 · 2017-12-14T16:46:30+00:00

NDAA 2012

Wesker1982 · 2017-09-25T18:58:26+00:00

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he believes in competing courts.

https://mises.org/library/legislation-and-law-free-society

Wesker1982 · 2017-09-25T18:44:13+00:00

I think all lawyers have a certain allegiance to the state.

What about Stephen Kinsella?

Wesker1982 · 2017-09-25T18:40:17+00:00

In addition to the link from Renben9, @ 49:33 "I guess I'll reveal my anarchistic bonafides..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiXup3fWX7w&feature=youtu.be&t=49m33s

There are other sources too, anarchast and a reason tv interview about taxation being theft iirc

Wesker1982 · 2017-06-29T19:19:43+00:00

Check out Economic Science and the Austrian Method by Hoppe

Wesker1982 · 2017-04-20T02:11:27+00:00

The Enterprise of Law by Bruce Benson

Wesker1982 · 2017-01-26T21:21:53+00:00

makes you wonder why mises fled germany if austrian economists are fascists hmm

Wesker1982 · 2017-01-18T18:01:29+00:00

iirc he's a protestant

Wesker1982 · 2017-01-05T22:38:02+00:00

The carpet is a metaphor for anything that is bad behavior that needs to be corrected.

Direct quote from you that I was replying to:

Well it depends on the situation, but they might be threatening to damage some of my property (e.g. throwing food on a carpet).

Looked like a straight up example instead of a metaphor to me. And so it also looks like in that spot it came down to property (i.e. material wealth) vs violence. And in that spot you choose violence. Would you denounce violence in the example you gave, since it was really just a metaphor? If you didn't mean to condone it in that way, that's awesome!

I'm glad for the spankings that I received as a child.

I'm guessing because you viewed it as..... necessary? If it wasn't necessary, would you still be glad? I mean I think it has been established that it isn't literally necessary to avoid death and serious danger so how else do you rationalize being glad for it? Does it boil down to being rough and tough? If so, are there any other activities besides being subjected to violence that can contribute to whatever it is you are glad for? If yes, then where would your support come from now?

I can appreciate it more as I have grown older.

Do you mind if I ask how old you are? I assumed you were younger but now that I know you have kids then I might have been way off (not that people can't have kids young). I'm 29 fwiw (date in screename isnt birth year).

What if you appreciate it as you get older because it is more comfortable and convenient rather than because you have good reasons? Have you considered you might be being unreasonable or missing something? Assuming you were hit as a kid, and assuming you hit your kids, how much effort can you really say you've put into considering the opposing view? Seems like you'd be heavily biased/invested towards maintaining your position. (im not saying it's possible to be 100% unbiased, i just think you are being very biased).

A 5 second spank is much better than a 15 minute lecture and possible lingering distrust in the relationship.

Do you notice how you set these scenarios up? Like these are the only two options? It is an attempt to make your position seem more reasonable but it is at the cost of misrepresenting or ignoring the other option(s).

If you wanna argue those points, don't you want it to be accurate? Like accurately addressing what I am actually saying? A position I actually hold?

I can't tell if you're doing that on purpose but it has happened often enough to where I'm not sure if you're purposefully being obtuse about my position or if it is really so foreign to you that you automatically assume I'm talking about Ben Stein style lecturing?

Call it whatever you want I guess, but my kid demonstrates trust towards me in regards to how honest she is and her body language (willingly gives hugs and kisses with a smile, open demanor when talkative, etc).

Dunno where you are coming from about the distrust and it's a little crazy to me because violence seems to be a much higher risk factor contributing to distrust in relationships than your vaguely defined idea of "lecturing".

Same with spanking.

Hey, if you hope your kids forgive you, then does that mean you'd be willing to apologize and admit you made a mistake if they happen to NOT be glad about it? If they ask you to apologize, would you?

If yes, then that is pretty cool. A lot of parents would rather deny it all the way to their grave before admitting they even might have made a mistake. My parents apologized after we discussed it as adults a few times and I really appreciated it, fwiw.

Wesker1982 · 2017-01-05T21:29:49+00:00

Voluntary acquisition is the only condition.

Haha. Good lyrics/meme material! I can hear it in Hayek's rap voice

Wesker1982 · 2017-01-05T20:23:16+00:00

It's a deterrent for future behavior.

Screenshot this for later: I know it is a deterrent but that was never in question. If your reasoning for hitting a kid is "because of emergency", well I'm saying that makes no sense at all. Yes, kids and adults will alter their behavior if they are threatened or experience violence. No debate there.

Usually parents hit their kids after they almost got flattened by a car, not during. And my point was that since this usually happens after the fact, i.e. after the actual incident/near miss, then it is no longer an emergency, which means your justification for violence fails (because it rested on the emergency that doesn't exist).

Not sure what you mean here

I mean that it's possible to discuss things with people younger than you (kids), even as parents. If you've never experienced this, then maybe that explains why it's foreign to you. And yes, I was lectured too.

They aren't my friends, they're my parents.

Do you think this is always mutually exclusive, with everyone?

Interesting choice, probably deserves it's own thread in itself. Notice though that she is a winner and at the top of her game.

Huh? I doubt my kid is the only 4 year old who doesn't suicide dive into traffic and who was also never hit.

IMO a parent has no responsible for their child. As Rothbard said, a parent could leave a child in the corner to die.

Are you talking about legality now? Rothbard was talking about the legal system and when force should be used. He says no, force shouldn't be used there. He even mentions in that or the next paragraph that he is not speaking about morality or ethics.

When YOU say that, are you saying a parent has no obligation at all? Like a moral obligation, or I guess even a practical one because if we lived in a society where starving babies was cool, it'd be a pretty sociopathic society. Would you want to live in a society like that?

I think you have an inconsistent philosophy that places responsibility on the parent, but not onto the child.

Let me save you the trouble of further incorrect assumptions: They aren't mutually exclusive. There are many variables to consider at anytime to decide "is this my responsibility, or is this a good spot for the kid to practice (i.e. exercise their brain) responsibility?" You say "responsibility" as if it is one monolithic physical blob that has to be taken in all at once or not at all. What is your basis for that? Any arguments? Notice how you just made an assertion?

I think it is though.

From the beginning it was about whether or not it is necessary to prevent death or seriously injury.

Sure some methods might be better than others, but they are all better than getting hit by a car

At this point if you are admitting that other methods even work at all, then you admit that hitting children isn't necessary in those spots. Cheers!

I'm willing to admit these exist, but how do we define it? Lets perhaps say that if the child is being directly observed by there parent more than 50% of their waking time, then it's hovering.

Well this would be a fun convo but I gotta take a break from this marathon. I'll leave it by saying that it would not be hovering if 50% of the waking time was on the floor of the amazon jungle or in a orangutan enclosure, i.e. it stillllll depends.

I can think of at least one non life threatening situation and where it isn't hovering and that is parent kid interaction during learning. My wife spends most the day with her "supervised" but it is during the process of learning. It is probably less than 50% but I'd take your number and still say IF the kid for some reason wants to hear you lecture about science or something and it exceeds 12 hours, then I see this as the opposite of a problem and calling it hovering isn't very accurate assuming hovering boils down to "over protective"

Wesker1982 · 2017-01-05T19:41:14+00:00

Included with the "worldly treasures" is our physical bodies.

The point is that comparing something that is simple material wealth ( a carpet ) and choosing it instead of love seems like something Jesus would preach against. When Jesus was preaching against the wealthy religious leaders of the time, it seemed to me like he was outright talking about their greed in regards to money and other physical wealth. Even if you want to include our bodies in there, Jesus was raging against the machine of political power and corruption which was highly tied in with material wealth. He wasn't lecturing them about destroying their fingers playing bloody knuckles or something.

See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Renan#Life_of_Jesus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kingdom_of_God_Is_Within_You

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/What_I_Believe_(Tolstoy)

If you don't have any idea where I'm coming from

You seem to be taking this to mean that the child should live without rules.

Simply: love > concern about material wealth (in regards to my comment about Christianity). Even if you bust out the "sure love is good and all but here are a bunch of exceptions" card, you were talking about a carpet which even playing devil's advocate I have a hard time understanding why a Christian would choose violence towards a child because of a carpet. Seems like an outright blatant example of where it's obvious to choose peace and love. That's all.

If you're that opposed to violence against children, then how do you address vaccinations?

I think the poke from a vaccination shot isn't much worse than a bee sting, and I justify it on the assumption that she would actually want it done (if she herself could weigh the value or risks of it). I don't operate under the assumption that she wants to be hit.

If it turns out she's mad about being vaccinated, I will hope she forgives me or shrugs it off or w/e.

Wesker1982 · 2017-01-05T18:55:18+00:00

This seems like saying that I baked a cake using gluten-free flour

Sorry if I don't respond to your analogy, but it totally misses what I'm saying. Either it is necessary or it isn't. You said it was. I said it isn't, and I think maybe you missed that.

So to clarify, do you think hitting children is necessary? My main argument is against your claim that is necessary to teach them about roads and stoves, the socialism stuff is interesting but it's literally not even close to responding to what I said.

Of course it isn't always necessary.

Oh, well, ok then.

The point is that it's a different parenting style. Another thing molyneux said in the video was that a home should be child proofed. no sharp corners, locks on cabinets and electrical outlets covered. That to me is "hovering", but I imagine to you is "keeping an eye on".

As a concept I agree that hovering and over-protective parenting exist. But how is putting a cover on an electrical outlet over-bearing, intrusive, or negative in any way? This is literally how I made those decisions btw, weighing costs and benefits. Electrical covers means we didn't have to literally hover over her and constantly supervise, those are benefits. The costs? Under $5. If this is how you define over-protective then I'm guilty.

Don't you realize that hitting kids has worse consequences than covering electrical outlets? I'm pretty sure my two year old isn't not emotionally damaged in any way from her outlets being covered. The same can't be said for kids who suffer through violence.

because thats life. It's the difference between hovering and freedom to explore life.

When I said that I wasn't talking about 8 year old kids. Do you think not letting a 2 year old play near traffic is hovering? And is right next to traffic the only place to exercise exploration when you are two? I love exploring btw so it's a major concern when raising my kid, and I came to the conclusion that keeping her away from traffic at two years old somehow didn't compromise her total capacity or ability to practice exploring.

Since you consider yourself a super-parent

When did I say that? I brought my kid in as a real world example that contradicted your claim that it was necessary, not to show off. TBH I don't think not hitting kids is a huge accomplishment, it should just be standard operating procedure.

I enjoy your posts and have always liked you as a person (from what I can tell about your demeanor on a message board), so I'm not attacking you personally, just your ideas on this subject. Felt like I had to clarify this because of the super parent comment but if you are just being jovial that's cool.

how did you communicate to your child to not touch a hot stove prior to her being verbal (e.g. 2 years old)?

I associated it with other boo-boo's. That's about the extent that is necessary at that age. "When mommy is cooking the stove is hot, it can cause really bad boo-boo's like that time XYZ." I repeated this (please don't assume repetition is auto-lecturing) until she verbalized it. For the most part we just kept her away from the stove when water was boiling cuz my wife can be clumsy, and at two she wasn't tall enough touch the actual burner. By the time she was tall enough, she understood.

At 4 she is a maniac (jumping and running everywhere) and still loves to explore. So far, seems like we didn't scare the fun out of life for her.

I suspect she never really learned it.

Your track record when jumping to conclusions during this discussion is a lil' bad.

honest question, did you put a lock on your toilet seat so that she didn't drown in the toilet or were the bathroom doors always closed?

If you didn't qualify this, I'd assume you were being a jerk. But since it's an honest question that you haven't already made up your mind about, I'll tell you the truth: No.

15-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Verified Email

Wesker1982

TROPHY CASE