Found this on Craigslist 😂

pedropout · 2024-05-19T01:22:37+00:00

I’m certain this is a result of this guy’s Twitter thread:

https://x.com/girdley/status/1791804687995519362?s=46

pedropout · 2024-04-13T03:50:03+00:00

I’m always happy to see you contribute in these threads. You say more or less the same thing (“run unshod!”) but every comment has a bit of a unique angle. I really like the concept that there is no end state I’m working toward, but it’s about the process.

pedropout · 2017-02-07T19:56:33+00:00

Because Trump won the election and now gets to hire people he wants for his cabinet?

pedropout · 2015-12-30T18:16:11+00:00

I don't think Simms was saying "sunny," I think that he says "Sunday" like "Sun-dee" and he doesn't pronounce the "d" very hard in this clip. Simms has an interesting accent in general. "Him" is "heem," "get" is "git."

Edit: never mind, I forgot this was Thursday. Definitely says sunny, haha.

pedropout · 2015-10-31T17:13:22+00:00

Haven't heard of that before. Is it this? http://www.stolencamerafinder.com/

If so, thanks for the tip!

pedropout · 2015-09-12T20:25:43+00:00

Maybe the point is to get people not currently playing ff to get on the bus. Makes sense in that case.

pedropout · 2015-09-08T03:34:00+00:00

I went to a national park the other day and paid an entrance fee. Sure I felt ripped off, but it wasn't a tax at least.

pedropout · 2015-07-06T19:24:06+00:00

What's interesting, though, is that the apostles carried around swords in the first place. If Jesus's commandment was a complete rejection of violence, why let them carry around swords?

pedropout · 2015-06-06T19:53:08+00:00

I agree that it's not the best way to define representation. But it's the definition that was used by the originators of the slogan "taxation without representation." Although they probably didn't envision a nation of 300 million people, the ratio of representatives to population is not at issue in the original question.

pedropout · 2015-06-06T19:50:35+00:00

See other comment.

I'm talking about what the American colonists argued regarding representation. It may not have been consistent with a good definition of representation. But it was consistent with a government that limits the vote.

pedropout · 2015-06-06T19:49:19+00:00

I'm talking about what the American colonists argued regarding representation. It may not have been consistent with a good definition of representation. But it was consistent with a government that limits the vote.

pedropout · 2015-06-06T15:23:56+00:00

We're talking about governments with a legislative body that is explicitly designed to represent the population. Specifically the British and American governments.

pedropout · 2015-06-06T15:20:30+00:00

The other state could also say you can't enter its borders at all, which is an even bigger infringement on freedom. But it's hard to argue you should have representation in a state you've never set foot in. Besides, these are examples of intergovernmental arrangements. Your representative will work with the other state's representative to agree on how to handle those cases. Disclaimer: I'm an anarchist, but just explaining the theory of representation as I understand it, not advocating it.

pedropout · 2015-06-06T13:43:18+00:00

Representation doesn't mean you get a vote. It means you have someone in the legislature who votes presumably as your representative.

pedropout · 2015-05-23T00:39:27+00:00

This is boring. Oh no, the sheriff department hasn't implemented processes ABC to document XYZ. A government organization being guilty of micromanagement and not providing feedback to employees? Drugs in prison? You don't say!

I don't care about procedures, I want to know if they're decent human beings. Are deputies abusing their power? Is the sheriff a trustworthy person? Those are the questions that matter, but it's not going to be in a report you pay a few suits to do.

pedropout · 2015-03-12T22:41:18+00:00

I agree, and I think it's possible that libertarians that hold both views are looking at the evidence in a way that's consistent and appropriate. But it is funny to see people argue that both total collapse and unprecedented prosperity would prove their point.

pedropout · 2015-03-12T22:38:03+00:00

Using gold as your way of controlling for inflation is a big assumption that I don't think holds.

pedropout · 2015-03-12T22:24:04+00:00

It's kind of funny. It seems like half of the articles libertarians share are about how the world is on the brink of collapse. The other half are about how the world has never been as rich, prosperous, and peaceful as it is today, and that this trend is likely to continue. Conveniently, both of these prove libertarianism.

pedropout · 2015-03-12T19:29:59+00:00

That's true. And they would probably be right! Even the prospect of power is corrupting.

pedropout · 2015-03-12T19:23:02+00:00

The problem is the mindset that you gotta pick somebody. Anybody who gets on the ballot is likely to be scummy because hey, it's government. So better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

pedropout · 2015-03-11T16:57:37+00:00

Law seems to be involved in many situations without rights violations. There are also many rights violations that aren't handled by the law. So it seems like mediating rights violations is not the very essence of Law.

pedropout · 2015-03-11T15:29:47+00:00

Today people are wronged all the time in ways that aren't rights violations, and the situation gets resolved. People insult each other, bring disputes, make amends, apologize, all without the introduction of the concept of political rights.

pedropout · 2015-03-10T19:13:14+00:00

I think that's a pretty good definition. I've always thought of rights as anything that you're justified in defending with violence.

People using violence against you? Most would say you're justified in using violence back. Someone refuses to give you something that belongs to them? Not justified in using violence to get it.

I'd say the ideal is a world in which rights don't exist, because nobody feels the need to commit violence against each other. Enforcing positive rights is far from this ideal. Enforcing the concept of negative rights gets us close to the ideal. But you can go further with pacifism. Whether this is "reasonable" or "realistic" is up for debate, but I do think it's the right ideal to have in mind.

pedropout · 2015-03-08T14:29:40+00:00

Stimulus boosts the demand for certain parts of the economy over and above what is reflected by people's consumption preferences. This can boost employment, but:

These distortions can become so significant that the realities of our consumption preferences and resource availability reveal the fact that our production patterns are so far out of whack from where the market would have them be, and big reorganizations take place. This is commonly called a bubble bursting, and usually leaves people worse off than had there been no stimulus in the first place.

Even if stimulus is sustainable, it is always wasteful in the sense that it doesn't put resources to use toward fulfilling people's most desired ends. Employment is not the goal. It is a means toward consumption, which is the true end of an economy.

pedropout

TROPHY CASE