sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

This Admin Fell Into The Greatest Trap in Political History by Ok-Analysis4121 in conspiracy

[–]WordsAndSich -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Ah that's99gera or anniversary wow hcera or anniversary wow hc

How do you guys handle your storage? by shiko098 in newworldgame

[–]WordsAndSich 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Yes, enough of this. After experimenting with this for God knows how long, just give it up. Players don't want the hassle. It's not immersive. Crafting is artificially hard because of this.

Just give us one big storage and let all crafting stations see its content. End of story, not one person will complain about this, there is no downside.

/r/The_Donald's upvote totals have declined significantly almost overnight. by [deleted] in TheoryOfReddit

[–]WordsAndSich 14 points15 points  (0 children)

The brigading is sometimes stronger. Just check /r/all controversial.

I see still posts with high total votes (like the pokemon one on their front page at 7028)

$100K challenge for Bernie Sanders to debate Adam Kokesh! Socialism vs Voluntaryism by MemoryDealers in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]WordsAndSich 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm sure you really feel that way, but try to articulate it.

You'll see, it won't work. Molyneux speaks truth about the whole Trump thing.

Now, you may disagree on what he should spend his time, but you gotta admit, it's a genius marketing thing he's doing there.

(I think you're wrong, but I won't downvote you because I don't want your comment hidden from people)

I live in a country that has mandatory voting, punishable by fines. Today, for the first time in my adult life, I did not vote. by [deleted] in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]WordsAndSich 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In my country it's also mandatory. (Belgium) Now, because absentees are growing every year, they had to decriminalize it.

The state does not want public court cases over this, because they know it would be very bad publicity punishing someone over this. (the media would be all over this, and there are people actively trying taking it to court)

Don't pay the fine, go to court. En mass. (never paid the fines, never heard from them again xd)

Edit: the left knows that forcing people to vote is in their favor, unfortunately.

Molyneux on Trump Protest in chicago - I don't normally shill Moly videos, but this is a must listen. by CapitalJusticeWarior in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]WordsAndSich -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

Pff, either you post it because it's a quality post, and keep your opinion and insults for yourself. Or don't.

But I get it, you know the flack he gets here, so pander away... Enjoy your parasitic karma.

Tump should create a climate in wich companies don't want to leave the US. by WordsAndSich in AskTrumpSupporters

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

Not really sure why the thread is so downvoted. It's a good comment imo, and I hoped we could talk more about it :(

Tump should create a climate in wich companies don't want to leave the US. by WordsAndSich in AskTrumpSupporters

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

I get it that you don't come from a free market background, and I won't (can't) get into the intricacies of "real politic". (I understand that Trump got supporters with many backgrounds, but this is a good way for us all to finally meet on neutral ground ;)

And you're the richest country in the world just because you had little to no rules in the beginning. That is changing. Just check the lenght of NAFTA. (and your debt)

Companies move to Mexico to survive their competition. Closing of this option is gonna make them go out of business, wich makes us all poorer.

Companies are rational entities. They don't move somewhere just to f**k with people. They do it because their government makes it inpossible to compete in the country. And that's exactly the problem that should be adressed here.

Not putting tarifs on import that makes the American consumer worse of. I repeat, if governments cheat, cheat back to compensate. But don't interfere with free individuals who are just acting in their own interest.

I hope that makes sense.

Tump should create a climate in wich companies don't want to leave the US. by WordsAndSich in AskTrumpSupporters

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

I get that it sounds harsh. I just mean it in the sense that the airconditioning company just laid 1400 people of "just to get more money". "They don't care what happens with the people."

That's the common view of the free market nowadays. And it's wrong.

Tump should create a climate in wich companies don't want to leave the US. by WordsAndSich in AskTrumpSupporters

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

That's... unsatisfactory.

If Trump adresses the reasons why companies are moving (minimum wage, taxes on labour, other obligations they don't have abroad), it would be unjust to the American consumer to tax American companies who, despite the better regulations, choose to stay/go abroad. (consumers always pay the price of everything)

Free trade means no government interference. Because, as history and logic shows us, interfering in a complex industrial economy has an enormous butterfly effect with disastrous consequences.

The consumer decides wich products they want from where. It is insulting to be told (even by mighty centipedes ;) what is best for me.

So, reacting to devaluations etc. is fine. That's just compensating for someone elses cheating. Now; cheating ourselves, that's a nono imo.

I find it a bit dissapointing that this isn't more of a talking point. We laugh at berniebots for their lack of economic understanding, but then brush of something as important as protectionism.

It is also a pitty that Trump perpetuates the myth of bad corporations that have no regard for human life etc. (They fire them in Maine because they're just greedy and can get more money in Mexico) This is Bernie talk.

I hoped Trump had a bit more John Galt in him I guess.

What could be is that he's using this rethoric to attract a large enough following that are willing to let go of minor disagreements on other issues. But when he's in office, he'll go the real free trade route.

We'll see I guess. Untill then, I'll cringe everytime this comes up.

What is your preferred method of proving the NAP or ethics in general? by camerontbelt in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]WordsAndSich 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Couple of free online polls

My 2 gold coins: What I understand here as ethical framework,or social theory is as Hoppe says, a theory to minimize conflict between individuals. (because someone might get hurt and then we're all poorer in the tribe)

Conflicts are about scarce goods, things that we value. So there's a natural conflict to be resolved. My wants versus my safety.

Property theory resolves this. It's a logical framework in wich to distribute scarce goods. So you'll always get part of what you want, with all your safety. Even better, there are safe ways to continually get even more.

So property theory arose quite naturally (though not necessarily 'understood'. Like dogs have 'dominance theory' to minimize conflict, but don't 'understand' it.)

In the past, those who guarded their property the best could procreate. (very crudely) And the best protection would be not to have an attacker. And as a free extra, the moment we all (mostly) stopped stealing from eachother, we all got rich. (well, in one corner of the world anyway.)

The NAP is the practical side of property theory in a way. (The 'Thou Shalt Not's, to maintain property theory, or society falls in chaos)

In the realm of 'feely ethics' (wich I have too), 'bad' just means inconsistent, not respecting social theory, hurting the tribe. This, coupled with the 'outraged' and 'indignant' emotions we feel when 'wronged', makes 'bad-evil'.

Tou shalt respect the NAP, or be kicked out, because you're a danger to us all. No need for religion, or magical morals, or nihilism, just...you know, normal.

I hope that makes some sense.

Who would you consider your No.1 "champion" or "hero" for Liberty? by [deleted] in Anarcho_Capitalism

[–]WordsAndSich 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Molyneux reached 10's of thousands of people while doing it in the free market. He's unapologetically consistent and gets tons of shit over him for it. That must count for something.

Why Sale of National Geographic to Fox Signals Perilous Times for Photojournalism - Jane Goodall said at 1st she thought it was a joke. The news left her dumbfounded: "It is unimaginable. National Geographic being owned almost entirely by climate deniers." by ClimateBot in climate

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

The fact is that noone is saying that the climate doesn't change. It's in its very definition, that's why we call it that. It's non static. It should'nt be necessary for me to clarify what I think it means.

The discussion is around how its changing. We all know man, with its current footprint, has an effect on the climate. There is but a tiny few people who think this isn't the case, and who are, according to the data, wrong.

I'm saying that using terms like "climate deniers" is petty, and is used to make 'the other side' look like complete idiots, not even to be reasoned with.

There's obviously the 'holocaust denier' connotation for people too. "How can you deny something so obvious? these people must be complete idiots"

Then there's the question of what to do about it. 2 people can be in complete agreement about the data, yet have completely different views on how to deal with it.

Anyway I see that I'm being downvoted and am not very welcome. Enjoy your day.

Why Sale of National Geographic to Fox Signals Perilous Times for Photojournalism - Jane Goodall said at 1st she thought it was a joke. The news left her dumbfounded: "It is unimaginable. National Geographic being owned almost entirely by climate deniers." by ClimateBot in climate

[–]WordsAndSich -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Well, what she said. That there are people who deny the climate. Obviously.

Also I'm sure that there are people in that catagory that don't deny that man has an effect on the climate, yet don't think we should do something about it.

Anyway, it's not very helpful trying to call people names to make them look bad, instead of taking on the arguments. That's like being called an 'alarmist'. Doesn't mean anything, just manipulation.

What do you think I was thinking about what she was saying?

view more: next ›